2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, September 14, 2009

Morning Sitting

Volume 2, Number 1

[ Page 307 ]

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2009

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: Hon. Speaker, on your behalf, I'd like to introduce to those present and those in the gallery two friends of the Speaker and mine, Kody Bell and Mark Bridges, who are joining us from the constituency of Esquimalt–Royal Roads. Kody is a frequent visitor to the Speaker's chambers for stories and anecdotes.

They're here today to watch the proceedings. Would the House please make them very, very welcome.

[1005]

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

Contractual Obligations

L. Krog: I'm delighted this morning to rise to speak about contractual obligations. It's been some time since I took first-year law, and contracts was one of those required first-year courses, but you learned fairly early on that contracts were an important part of how our whole society manages to function effectively — how commerce is handled, how business relationships are established and, indeed, how politicians actually get elected, on many occasions.

Ultimately, what is a contract? In first year, I gather, at UVic now they have Contracts — cases, notes, law materials, seventh edition. What it says is that at the heart of any contract is at least one promise — one promise.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Now, in our calling — I will call it a calling — as politicians, of course there are often many promises, many commitments, but the essential thing is that there is a promise to do something and some consideration and some expectation. That is absolutely fundamental. When we as politicians make commitments, we're expected to live up to them, just as in the ordinary business world you're expected to live up to them.

When you go to a landlord and they say that the rent is a thousand dollars a month and you give them a deposit, you have essentially entered into a contract. You agree to pay a thousand dollars a month for rent. You've made a deposit. They agree to let you have the occupancy of the place. When you do something even simple like buying something on line, you agree to pay for it, and they agree to deliver the goods.

Contracts can be very complex. Contracts such as the Churchill Falls Corporation and Hydro-Québec signed a treaty and an agreement that runs for something in the order of 65 years. There was a contract to build the Titanic, after all.

I come back to what the importance of the contract is. It is an expectation that is raised on the part of both sides that something is going to happen. You've made a commitment. Something is going to be delivered.

When government makes commitments, the expectation on government, I would suggest, is even higher than it is in the normal contractual relations between parties. It is high because we expect a standard from government and politicians that is different.

If I breach a contract in the private sector, in the world outside of this chamber, I face the sanction of a lawsuit, potentially. I face the loss of my business reputation, perhaps. I face the dismay and disgust of my neighbours if it involves friends or neighbours.

In this place if government doesn't keep its word, if a politician doesn't keep their word, what you really face is a review four years down the road, arguably — or maybe a year, maybe two. We've come to expect in this place and in this business that if you're going to not keep your promises, you generally do that fairly quickly on. You don't want to be too close to the election, because then you face that ultimate court — that ultimate lawsuit, if you will — and that is your presence in a courtroom, where you have to answer to a judge as to why you breached your contract.

We make commitments all the time. We make a commitment when we marry. That's a commitment. I'm always reminded of the wonderful description of that term.

When former Premier Harcourt was honoured with an environmental award, the Vice-President of the United States said that, you know, it was sort of like breakfast. Mr. Harcourt had made not just a contribution; it was a commitment. In reference he said it was rather like the chicken and the pig and breakfast. The chicken makes a contribution, but the pig makes a commitment.

[1010]

When you make a commitment to the people in an election campaign, you're expected to live up to it, just as you would any contractual obligation. The consideration — which is the essence of any contract, some value passing back and forth — is that you agree to provide support and a vote, and they agree to deliver on their promises. That's absolutely crucial, because if you don't, then the whole system falls into disrepute.

It was some time ago that a commitment was made by this government around the Hospital Employees Union contract, that their contract was safe, that the agreement
[ Page 308 ]
they had signed in good faith was going to be honoured. We know now that it wasn't, and that had a devastating impact on those people and ultimately ended up in the Supreme Court of Canada where, essentially, the province was sanctioned, if you will, for not keeping its commitment.

Nevertheless, the government got re-elected. So in many respects, the system we enjoy isn't quite as effective when it comes to enforcing contractual obligations politically as it is in the civil courts, and in that case, the Supreme Court of Canada had to decide what was right or fair.

More close to home, the Justice Education Society this year has had its funding cut both by the Attorney General's ministry and by the Ministry of Education — substantial sums of money. The commitment made to provide that funding when it was revoked, if you will, came long after they'd started spending the money. They had what they believed was a commitment, a contract, an agreement. Now they're left in the position where they have to scramble to try and survive, looking for their funding.

The consequence of breaching our contracts can be substantial, and in this particular case, it is very substantial for a society this small doing the effective work that it is. They're not in a position to sue. There's no written contract. There was, if you will, a commitment — nothing in writing in the normal sense, but a promise.

I come back to the definition that the heart of any contract is at least one promise — one promise. The promise made to that group was $200,000 from the Ministry of Education, and they don't have it anymore. So the impact on them is going to be incredible in terms of the delivery of their programs.

T. Lake: I certainly agree that there has to be a commitment. Commitments are made, and commitments should be fulfilled, and through the recent election that the member for Nanaimo refers to, our commitment was always to the economy. There was no equivocation about where we stood in terms of our priorities. This government argued — and the voters agreed — that this party was best able to manage the economy.

As we saw revenues decline, we saw that the world, not just British Columbia, was going through the worst recession of our generation. Our commitment to the economy was always in front of us. The challenge was to manage the economy in such a way that we wouldn't pass on our cost of our way of life to our children.

That meant that we had to do some key things, make some tough decisions around where we use the taxpayers' dollars, around policy and around the best way to move forward for the economy. Certainly, the one promise we made was to keep B.C. strong. That meant devising policies like the harmonized sales tax, which is the biggest single thing we can do to keep our economy strong and to keep people employed so that people can live the types of lives they've grown accustomed to here in British Columbia.

Also, the other part of that commitment was to make sure that we don't pass on the cost of today's lifestyle to our children, and that means we have to limit deficits. While the revenues to government plunged, we had to make difficult decisions. But we made those decisions, firstly, by looking to administrative costs — the costs of travel, costs of advertising — and at key critical core services that British Columbians have come to expect. Like health care — 6 percent each year, over the next three years, increase in funding. Like education — highest per-student funding ever is being maintained.

[1015]

In terms of the grants from the gaming revenues, we assess the priorities for those gaming grants. When revenues are tight in any household, we all know we have to make priorities. We have to look to see where that money can best be used. So our priorities for 2009-2010 are programs that support low-income and disabled British Columbians; programs that provide food, shelter and support to at-risk individuals; programs that support community health services; programs that fund nutritional and similar programs in schools for underprivileged children.

It's clear that we need to make sure that we look after people who are most affected by the downturn in the economy in the short term, while in the long term making decisions around policy that will make British Columbia even stronger than ever, because we all know that the best vaccination against poverty is a job.

This government is committed to creating a climate of investment so that we will have more jobs throughout British Columbia and, also, a plan of managing deficits so that within four years we will return to balanced budgets and not leave our children with a crippling deficit.

L. Krog: I want to thank the member for his remarks. I found it most intriguing he said, "Our commitment was to the economy," as if the economy was some amorphous beast out there that required feeding once in a while and maybe some affection or stabling.

The economy is the people of the province of British Columbia. Not all of the people of the province of British Columbia are enjoying the same benefits from the economy as this member would suggest. Indeed, the fact that we've got the fifth year in a row of the highest rate of child poverty in the country tells us that perhaps the commitment is to the economy and not to the people.

When I talked about contractual obligations…. You know, there are a number of terms that come to mind as well. There's reliance. There's full disclosure. In an insurance contract you're required to disclose fully the risk so that the insurer decides what policy to charge you. They understand the risk they're taking. Those things are
[ Page 309 ]
pretty basic when it comes to contractual obligations. I don't think the people of British Columbia understood, when they cast their ballots in the last election, the risk they faced around the HST, but they got it anyway.

If we are to do anything in this chamber, it should be to enhance the way that people regard us. I want to quote the Premier.

Back on February 21, 2001, he said: "What I would really like people to say at the end of four years is…. It's not whether they like us or whether they don't like us. It's 'At least that they did what they said they'd do.' I think one of the critical things that we have to do is restore people's sense of confidence and trust in our public institutions. If they don't think that they can take the government's word on something or that the government is going to keep contracts — if they don't think they can trust me that when I say I'm going to do something, then I do it — then obviously, we've failed in that. So I would like that."

The Premier said that he would like people, essentially, to trust him, to rely on his word, to be known as someone who kept his promise. You know that lovely bit of poetry: "I've got miles to go before I sleep and promises to keep"? Well, the people of British Columbia have a pretty long road for the next 3½ years, and they'd like to think that the promises that are made by politicians are in fact kept; that they can rely on them; that, if you will, when you enter into the contractual obligation implied by an election, you can rely on both sides to keep up their part of the bargain.

The trouble is that once the people have cast their ballot, their part of the bargain is done; it's up to the politicians on the other side to maintain their part of the contractual relation. That seems to be where we've run into a bit of a problem here in British Columbia, because notwithstanding the promised words of the Premier back before the election in 2001, I think one could argue in the court of public opinion that perhaps the contract was broken this time, that perhaps contractual obligations don't mean as much to some as they do to others. That is a sad state of affairs.

[1020]

Waste Management

J. Rustad: I am pleased today to stand and make a statement on waste management. When you think about waste management, there are many things that could be considered waste. For example, when the first people came on railroad through Prince George, they saw the spruce trees that were in the area, and they said: "Those are a waste of time. They're too small. They're nothing but good for growing Christmas trees." Now, of course, in the Interior and through Prince George we have a very vibrant industry in forestry out of what was considered at that time to be a waste product.

As industry developed, a lot of the by-product from sawmills was just burned, was considered to be waste product. It was gotten rid of. Changes in technology, though, came along to use a different type of saw that actually created chips, and those chips could be then used for pulp mill and pulp products. We managed to turn a waste product into a very viable industry that today is employing thousands of people around the province.

Continuing on with our history on forestry. We used to think of pine trees as a waste product. It was a product that wasn't considered usable by the forest industry, because it tended to be too small, and there are other issues around it. So it was plowed under and burned. That was back 50, 60 years ago when those practices used to be undertaken.

Of course, what ended up happening is that somebody came along and said: "Do you know what? I think we can actually use that to build great forest products." And our forest industry expanded once again to utilize this new stream of fibre and produce the kind of products that are in demand around the world, once again turning waste product into something usable.

Through this process and through time…. Of course, as you're cutting log, you tend to have scraps; you tend to have pieces that you don't need anymore that weren't usable for anything. They just went into the burner and up into the atmosphere. Then somebody came along and said: "Maybe I can actually use that fuel for drying and for other purposes within the actual milling process." So once again, waste products were managed and utilized in our forest industry, and our forest industry grew and diversified from it.

The slabs that used to be created from producing 2-by-4s would be ceremonially thrown into the burner as part of this. Then somebody came along and said: "What if we were to take all those slabs, those chunks that are left over, and use finger jointing — put them together and actually create a dimensional piece of lumber, a 2-by-4, out of that?" Once again, we had more innovation, and we used waste products for expanding and diversifying our forest industry.

Today, we're seeing new innovation in forest industry in waste management. The stuff that we used to burn for hog — the sawdust and the shavings that typically were considered something that we just had to get rid of, that we had to burn — are now going into a pellet industry. Those pellets are being created in our province and being shipped, exported, literally creating hundreds of new jobs around the province.

For example, it was just a few years ago that we produced, as a country, about 500,000 tonnes of pellets a year. Today we're estimating that our production is going to be well over two million tonnes, and it's expected to grow significantly from there. An example of this is in my riding. In Vanderhoof it has just been announced
[ Page 310 ]
recently that there will be a new pellet mill created as part of the Vanderhoof Specialty Wood Products. Those types of facilities are creating new jobs, utilizing our wood and expanding what we can do in forestry.

In Burns Lake there are two companies that are looking to put in two new pellet plants. I've got pellet plants in Houston. I've got pellet plants in Vanderhoof. We have pellet plants all throughout this province, as that industry continues to grow. What that does is…. That means things that are considered to be a waste product…. We are now managing and creating new revenue streams for our forest industry, and new opportunities.

What that has also done is it has created opportunities for another waste product that is currently just being burned in the forests, and that is the junk — or what's considered to be junk — that's left behind in the forest. That fibre constitutes about 20 percent or more of the volume that is actually harvested. It's just left in the forest to rot, or it's piled and burned. Right now, we've got enormous innovation that's going out and actually taking that fibre, grinding it on site, bringing it in and turning it into pellets or using it for fuel associated with our pulp industry.

[1025]

In addition to that, we've got some new innovation that's happening down in the north Cariboo area that is actually taking containers, putting all that material into the containers and bringing those containers in, and it is extending out the distance that you can go to be able to utilize this waste product.

When the pellet industry was first created, almost all of the pellets were created simply from the sawmill residues. Today, probably 60 or 70 percent of the material that is going into that is coming out from our forest. There is enormous opportunity in terms of waste management around those types of forest products, whether that is in biofuels, whether that is in electricity or whether that is in pellets. That's something that we are trying to promote, that we're trying to do, and we're trying to help to expand our industry. The opportunities in there are absolutely enormous.

I look forward to the comments from the opposition, and I'd like to close with some other statements around electricity and around those biofuels and those future potentials of waste management and how they can expand our forest products.

R. Fleming: I appreciate the comments of the member and his illustration this morning of some of the things that point to a future and potential innovation within our forestry sector.

There is no question that we need to repurpose much of what we have done with that natural resource in particular, that there is a means to regenerate forest activity in British Columbia that requires us to do new things that we currently do not do. That includes doing things with waste by-products from harvesting wood.

I know that the member has an industry in his constituency and knows business leaders who are interested in pursuing that. That's something that government must do.

The critical thing here is to take things that are currently ideas that are not transferable to the market, that are not viable, and make them so. That requires the province to support research and development activity in a manner in which we currently do not do. You cannot be a leading-edge, innovative jurisdiction and have the ninth-lowest R and D investment record per capita in Canada, and that is what we have today.

If they don't like hearing it from the NDP, then they should listen to the Competition Council. They should listen to the Progress Board of British Columbia, because they have been telling them for years. Budget after budget from this government has failed to support the research community at our universities who are looking into exactly these kinds of projects, how to — in an environmentally sustainable way — take waste and turn it into energy, how to clean up the absolute mess this government has made from waste by-products in the fish-farming industry, for example.

None of that is happening. Consequently, we have a $200 million per annum gap with our nearest competitor, the province of Alberta, which is ramping up their investment in research and development activities at all of their universities.

I had anticipated that this member would speak to the throne speech commitment which referenced banning the export of residential municipal waste out of the province of B.C., because indeed there are a number of questions on that front — the purpose why the government would make that statement in the Speech from the Throne. It's something that sounds interesting but begs a number of policy questions, both from an environmental perspective as well as a public policy perspective.

There is a context, I think, for why the government included that in its throne speech. I think the real context here is that there's an intense interest in waste incineration projects in Metro Vancouver. There are six that are under active consideration right now. This is a means to create a market or a feedstock, artificially, for those development proposals. Now, this is controversial technology, Madam Speaker. The Minister of the Environment himself is concerned about potential impacts on the airshed over the Fraser Valley from waste incineration.

What is interesting about the throne speech reference is that while it bans the export of residential garbage from B.C. to, say, Washington State or other jurisdictions — which currently happens for a number of communities, particularly on the Island — there is no similar tariff wall to importing garbage to British Columbia. Now, that's very curious. In other words, we're retaining our household residential waste but saying: "Bring yours here."

[1030]
[ Page 311 ]

One of the most active and controversial proposals of the incineration projects that I mentioned is at Christina Lake. For Christina Lake, the proposal is not to turn residential waste into energy but to turn toxic industrial waste, potentially, into energy through incineration, through gasification and through thermal desorption.

Now, this is controversial for a number of reasons. One, there is a similar facility in Swan Hills, Alberta, where there was a recent accident that has had a devastating effect on the area's water, land and air. Recently there was a similar facility shut down in Karlsruhe, Germany, which is actually on the application as a best-practices example from the proponent in this instance.

Now, government has been very quiet so far on this proposal, but the people in the Kootenays have not been. They have been packing town hall meetings asking for more information. International experts have been looking into this.

I thank you for the opportunity to address the matter this morning.

J. Rustad: Although I'd be tempted to enter into the argument with regard to other types of waste management, I do want to focus on wood products.

I found it very interesting that the member for Victoria–Swan Lake said that we need to take ideas and make them into something, to do something with those ideas. Well, there's enormous potential to take wood waste and turn it into power, turn it into electricity. It's something that we support as a province.

The member mentioned that we don't support research. Well, there couldn't be anything farther from the truth. We provided $25 million to the B.C. bioenergy network to encourage investment and research into converting wood into energy.

I think one thing that is more telling about this is that the member suggests that we do need to take these ideas and do something with them. Yet, with regard to taking wood waste and trying to create power out of it, we had a quote from the Leader of the Opposition just in October of 2008, saying, "Yes, we'd put a moratorium on it," and a quote from the member for Juan de Fuca who says: "We would proceed with a moratorium." That was from March 20 of 2009.

You can't try to encourage utilization of waste products such as forest waste products and then say that you're going to put a moratorium on them. It just doesn't work.

Our commitment, particularly around fuels and around electricity, is enormous. For example, up at UNBC, when you're talking about research, we have helped to fund through the innovative clean energy a new facility that will go in to create a synthetic gas from wood waste that will replace natural gas. In my riding alone there's a company called CORE BioFuels that's looking to take that technology even a step farther, to not just produce natural gas or synthetic gas but to actually produce a high-octane fuel from that.

There's an enormous potential around wood products, around utilization of that waste, for what we can see throughout our future. We have seen successful calls, and over 800 megawatts of clean bioenergy capacity is now being installed throughout the province. That will fuel more than 640,000 households in terms of meeting their electricity needs.

I want to talk about one last thing. I'm wearing today a wooden tie — a little bit of an unusual item but something that came from a waste product. It's something that, through innovation, through encouragement, companies can go out there…. They can actually take some ideas, run with them and be able to create new jobs in our forest industry. That is what we are trying to do on this side of the House. That's what we're trying to encourage.

We'll continue to take our forest industry as it evolves and encourage that new growth and diversification so that we can fully utilize the fibre that we have available to create jobs and to support families.

protecting workers

B. Routley: I listened with interest to the other side of the House talking about all the good things that they're going to do for the industry, but there's a part that's missing. That's the forest workers and their families. Forest communities throughout British Columbia right now are suffering.

[1035]

I just want to talk about some of the crisis in the forest industry that this government apparently doesn't see, has no idea that it's going on.

Other than band-aid programs that they come up with, there's no real help — not the kind of help that the NDP proposed in doubling the program that was provided by the federal government. We want to thank the federal government — or I want to thank them — on behalf of the forest workers and their families that I've talked to that have said it was good to have some transitional money and some tuition money, some training.

Unfortunately, the pleas of this side of the House fell on deaf ears. There was no corresponding funding provided by the Liberal government. But boy, they sure talk in hushed tones about all of the wonderful things that they're going to do for business. They're going to help their corporate pals.

But the letters that come in and tell them about the families in distress, the workers that are 55 to 60 years of age that right now were looking forward to the opportunity to retire with some dignity in places like the Queen Charlotte Islands, the mill of Western Forest Products in Nanaimo….

I know of at least five forest workers. I talked to one just last week at a picnic. Wayne Kaye said to me: "You
[ Page 312 ]
know, I'm 57 years old. I've done all the things on EI. I've retrained to do some senior care work. I've found only part-time — a couple of days a week. If I could have had the money available for senior workers that used to be there — that program for 55- to 60-year-old workers — if I could have taken some of that transitional money and retired with dignity, I may have been able to save the family home."

But this government sits on their hands, and now forest workers throughout British Columbia are running out of EI. Some of them are forced to sell their family home. I know of some in Nanaimo that have sold their home for a $50,000 loss and moved to Alberta to find employment.

Now, just some of the money that this government talks about — $140 million in tax savings. They're going to benefit the industry not just next year but the year after that and for the foreseeable future with their wonderful tax plan, but they have no plan to help senior forest workers and their families that are suffering right now.

There were three suicides in one local union that I'm aware of. I talked to the leader the other day, who said that since this government came to power, three forest workers in his local alone committed suicide. Why? Because the industry that they dearly love is collapsing around their ears. They're up in years, and they have no hope.

This government has no plan to help forest workers and their families. So the majority of British Columbians are ignored while the few, the friends that they may drink champagne and eat caviar with, are being treated real well, real royally over there.

Interjection.

B. Routley: Yeah, I'm sure you think it's garbage over there. The reality is that…

Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Chair.

B. Routley: …at the end of the day, they want to help corporations, not workers.

Deputy Speaker: Member, your time continues, but I remind you to speak through the Chair.

B. Routley: Okay, I'm ready to go again. I want to talk about….

Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Member. You did have some time remaining on the clock, but since you had sat down and another member had stood up, I think that the other member now has the time.

B. Routley: Okay.

D. Barnett: This government is protecting workers. I come from the Cariboo-Chilcotin. I have been there for 40 years. I have been in small business. I have been in real estate. I have friends who have brought their families up. Their families are now in the forest industry. I can say that I am proud of the record. We are in a global recession.

There are funds out there. We have community transition programs. We have worker benefit programs. We as communities are working together to do what we can, but you know, there is no magic wand out there. There is no magic tree, as my colleague said earlier this month.

[1040]

These are times when we have to work together and take our dollars and spend them in the best fashion we can. That is what this government is doing.

This government is proud. I look back to the 1990s when the opposition was in power, when our economy was good. There were so many regulations put in that our industry closed. Industries didn't upgrade. We spent more time saying: "We can't cut this. We can't cut that. We have to save everything for the future." They saved for the future, all right. There was no investment in new technology in the mills on the coastal part of this province of British Columbia and in other parts.

Madam Chair, I am proud to be on this side of the government. I am proud of what this government has done to protect families and workers.

B. Routley: I find it interesting how proud the member on the other side is of the government and their failed policies and programs that have let down forest workers throughout British Columbia.

The reality is that this government knows full well that through their revitalization program, their softwood lumber program and now the HST, the common theme they have is that we're going to see reinvestment in British Columbia. It is going to be wonderful, folks. Stand back. You'll hardly be able to believe how wonderful it's going to be, all the things that you're going to do. [Applause.]

Well, thank you. That is a nice introduction, in fact, for under the softwood lumber agreement alone, three B.C. mills…. What did they do with their portion of the rebate? Did they reinvest in B.C.? No, they shut down B.C. mills. They reinvested in more than four mills, just Interfor alone…. Canfor Corp., West Fraser Mills, Interfor together spent more than $620 million of the money that they got back from softwood lumber to upgrade U.S. mills. That's what happened. They're shutting down mills and exporting logs.

We've got companies like TimberWest. What have they done? They've shut down their mills. Their latest casualty was the Elk Falls mill. They're shutting down mills, exporting logs. That's the kind of government reinvestment we have: shutting down mills and exporting logs. It's shameful. It's unacceptable.

They know that there's not going to be any reinvestment in British Columbia. They know that these companies
[ Page 313 ]
will take the money and run. Do they honestly believe that Canfor is going to have — what? — two-for-one 2-by-4s on Tuesday? Is that what's going to happen with their wonderful program — that somehow the money is going to come back to the consumers?

The oil and gas — what are they going to have? A special day where it's seniors day free gas on Sundays? Not likely. Do they really believe that consumers and real people throughout British Columbia think that trickle down is going to amount to a row of beans? There won't be any trickle down to British Columbians. They're going to take the money, and the workers and their families are left out in the cold yet again — no help, no program.

There are literally forests full of dead and dying beetle wood out there where you could put people to work. There's no plan for forest health. The Minister of Forests and Range sits over there. What is his plan to deal with the forest health issues? There is no plan. That's the reality. We could be putting forest workers and their families to work to help them in a time of crisis, but no help exists. It's totally unacceptable.

Protecting Our Future

N. Letnick: Hon. Speaker, I would like to thank you and the people of Kelowna–Lake Country for once again having the privilege of addressing the citizens of British Columbia through the good members of this assembly.

I stand before you today to remind all members that governments don't create wealth. People do, through innovation, taking risks and investing their capital and time into small businesses which, with a little luck and encouragement and the support of sound government policies, grow into mid and large businesses employing British Columbians.

[1045]

In 2007, 98 percent of all businesses in B.C. were small businesses providing employment for over a million people. Over 56 percent of B.C.'s private sector jobs are with small business, the highest rate in Canada.

I remember a five-year-old boy who, during the peak of the last recession, emulated his older sister and set up a lemonade stand on the sidewalk. I'm sure everyone's familiar with the story. Business was good, but he wasn't satisfied with the status quo, including the perceived high cost of goods charged by his parents for the lemonade.

The following day he had an idea, and he went to work setting up a magic trick stand instead of a lemonade stand. That's right, hon. Speaker. He placed a table on the sidewalk, threw a magic cloth over it, donned a black top hat and cape and offered to perform magic tricks to all comers — for a modest fee, of course.

Before this young businessman was done, he had attracted many more customers than his lemonade stand ever did, including the passengers of a limo who were driving by but couldn't believe what they had seen. They went around the block, came back, and in return for a demonstration and pictures for their story to prove to people back home, they contributed quite handsomely to his fund.

With no taxes, no red tape and a creative mind this young entrepreneur increased his bottom line over selling lemonade many times over. J.P. is now 21, a graduate of an excellent business program at Okanagan College and running his own computer business company. His business is growing.

I have no doubt that soon he'll be employing others and helping to expand our economy, protecting our future, helping to pay for our health care and strengthening our community with the confidence and financial security that only a successful business can bring. I'm sure that he and his fiancée, Katie, will soon be married and perhaps even thereafter presenting his mom and me with some grandchildren.

This is a story that, thankfully, has been repeated over and over again all across our great country and province. Government does not create wealth, but by reducing red tape on businesses and by reducing personal taxes, this government has certainly sent a clear message to entrepreneurs and capitalists everywhere around the world that B.C. is open for business, that we're open for investment, and that we look forward to people coming here and staying here to expand our economy and to protect our future.

Since 2001 our government has embarked on an aggressive regime of regulatory reform. Businesses face an ongoing challenge in regards to regulatory requirements, which can have significant impacts on their ability to grow.

The province has reduced the regulatory count by over 42 percent since 2001. This has been enhanced by the implementation of Straightforward B.C., attempting to streamline regulations and increase accessibility to information.

The implementation of BizPaL in the Okanagan and in communities around the province also enables small business to identify establishment requirements and licensing. The province's move to a single business licence, which I had the privilege of helping to set up in the Central Okanagan, has provided opportunities for company compliance and allows for the opportunity to work in as many as 17 communities with one single business licence, lowering red tape and costs for businesses.

In the area of tax competitiveness and complexity, the province is assisting small business by more than doubling the small business tax threshold from $200,000 to $500,000, taking B.C. to the highest threshold in this country. And that's not all. Business owners around the province will soon have more money at the year end for reinvestment and job creation as our government proceeds to eliminate the small business tax altogether.

The numbers don't end there. This government has increased training tax credits for businesses that take on
[ Page 314 ]
apprentices, doubling the amount from $2,000 to $4,000. Government has introduced video conferencing centres in partnership with Community Futures, FrontCounter B.C. and chambers of commerce, allowing greater access to business workshops, training and seminars in communities across this province — reducing travel time, costs and, of course, reducing carbon emissions.

The results of these and others progressive members have been outstanding. Small business growth in B.C. is leading the country — nearly 9 percent between 2002 and 2007, almost double the national average — with average earnings for business workers increasing 21 percent. That's more than twice the increase for workers in large businesses.

[1050]

What's more, since 2001 nearly 40,000 new small businesses have been created in B.C., an increase of 12 percent. Along with other small businesses, they have created over 159,000 new jobs, helping our citizens establish families, buy homes and send their children to college and other post-secondary institutions.

While the numbers are impressive, it's the cumulative impact on our pro-business, pro-competition, pro-consumer policies that have had, over the years, the true story to tell.

The impact on people like Nick Kellet, an executive with Business Objects who moved to Canada from the United Kingdom four years ago. Nick, upon his arrival, created a board game called GiftTRAP. This game has been recognized as party game of the year in Germany and has received over 20 international awards, including best party game of both GAMES and Creative Child magazines.

Nick didn't stop there. He was the brains behind Twitter Business Day or TwitBizDay on September 9. I'll avoid making a comment on that one. Using his entrepreneurial skills, Nick has encouraged over 800 businesses to sign up to Twitter and begin communicating about their small businesses.

There are thousands and thousands of small business success stories like this, like Nick's, around the province.

N. Macdonald: I think the member is sort of out of step with the message of the day. Two years ago that was sort of the message of the day, when things were on an upward swing. The message of the day for the government now is around how they have no control over a collapse of the economy, which is the reality of what's happening. Government policy has driven that, in part.

If we talk about forest policy and about people that I've met from the Okanagan, very often the concern is around the drive by this government to deregulate in ways that don't make sense — a drive to get rid of the contract between communities, between workers and the resource that sits around them.

What we have seen in the forest industry…. I think the member will be familiar with this because there used to be a forest industry in the Okanagan. There used to be a vibrant industry in the Okanagan. It has collapsed.

The defence from this government is that it has no control over aspects of the economy that have allowed this collapse. I think that's partially accurate, but for the member to stand up and talk about things being rosy…. It's simply not the case.

If we're going to talk about economic measures that this government has taken, the one that they claim is the most important part of their economic recovery plan is the HST, a tax they were so ashamed to talk about that they refused to talk about it during the election. In fact, they told people who they were seeking a mandate from that the HST is something that they would not consider. It was not on the radar. They would not proceed with it. Yet now they stand up and talk about it being the best thing that they could possibly ever, ever do.

From the member's area that he represents, from the Okanagan, Big White talks about the HST as being devastating. It's like a wall — the exact words, "like a wall" — that they and other ski resorts are heading towards.

In the area that I come from, we had HST meetings over the past week. Small businesses across the area that I represent came in and talked about the HST. They are in the hospitality industry. They represent ski resorts.

These people will come and meet with ministers and make the same case that I am making here. The HST for ski operators, for back-country lodges, for the hospitality industry in the Kootenays is devastating. That's their word. Public policy from this government — devastating.

Now, let's take a resort like Panorama. It's not that different from what Big White or Silver Star or other resorts would have, but 80 percent of the people that are going to come and use the services that are available at Panorama ski resort will come from either Alberta or the prairie provinces.

[1055]

They will have to drive past Lake Louise, in Alberta; past Sunshine Village — some of the most prominent resorts in Canada and in the world, well known throughout the world — and come to a resort which will now charge 7 percent more for meals, 7 percent more for lift tickets, 7 percent more for ski instruction, 7 percent more for ski board instruction. The member is hearing the same thing from Big White — the same concerns, exactly the same concerns.

If this is a government that cares about small business, it would not be devastating small business in the way that they choose to do it. Aside from the fact that the member was elected with a promise not to impose the HST, if all that they were to do now was to listen to the people that they represent, they would be coming here and arguing strenuously against this piece of public policy.

That's what small business is talking about right now. If you go to a meeting, that is what they're talking about
[ Page 315 ]
— their concerns about a tax that there is no mandate for and which will be destructive.

I look forward to the remainder of the member's comments.

N. Letnick: It just so happened that last week we had the Finance Minister in the Okanagan, in Kelowna, and we did meet…

Interjection.

N. Letnick: Very well, actually.

…with 25 of the business leaders, including those from Big White, who actually, at the end of the day, said the HST would be fine and what they really needed was Open Skies. We are working on this side of the House to encourage our federal governments to bring Open Skies.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

So perhaps members opposite can come to the Okanagan and have similar meetings with our business leaders. Maybe they'll be up to speed with what's going on there.

You know, I believe the members opposite don't fully appreciate that we're living in a highly competitive global economy. Each day our province competes for capital, for human resources and for sales. Competition is good. It keeps us on our toes, makes us more productive, more efficient, more innovative and more successful.

The alternative is a sense of entitlement, sloth, wasting time protecting one's position instead of adding value, and avoiding the risks which are necessary to innovate, improve productivity and grow our economy.

Lee Iacocca said that you either lead, you follow, or you get out of the way. Small business owners in this province get it, and we get it on this side of the House. For example, in the Okanagan our growing technology sector is driving innovation through collaborative partnerships and projects like the Okanagan Research and Innovation Centre, the Okanagan Science and Technology Centre, the Central Okanagan Economic Development Commission. All these ventures work together to develop new ideas, grow networks and instigate success.

Small business owners like Andre Blanleil get it. In the last five years Andre has taken a small electronics store, Andre's Electronics, to over a hundred employees in Vernon, Castlegar, Kamloops, Cranbrook — and yes, Kelowna as well.

A property developer like Renee Wasylyk, CEO of Troika Developments, gets it. This young mother of three started her own development company from scratch, building revenue from $35,000 a decade ago to $35 million last year, creating over 160 direct jobs right here in British Columbia.

Then there's the on-line social networking Kelowna-based business Club Penguin, launched in October 2005 by Lane Merrifield, Dave Krysko and Lance Priebe. This B.C. company now boasts over 700,000 subscribers worldwide, who pay almost $6 a month to take on the identities of penguins and waddle around, chatting on ski hills, igloos and coffee shops.

Recently, the Walt Disney Company agreed to pay $350 million U.S. for this company, allowing it to keep its 130 employees in the Okanagan, in British Columbia. Through Disney, Club Penguin hopes to make inroads into markets in Europe, Asia and possibly branch out into merchandise or even other movies.

No one gave these entrepreneurs a free pass. No one gave them job security.

Hon. B. Penner: I call private members' motions. I believe that there is a motion put forward by a member of the opposition.

[1100]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 6 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 6 — creation of
INDEPENDENT BUDGET OFFICER

B. Ralston: I move the motion on the order paper in my name.

[Be it resolved that this House support discussion and debate of the creation of an Independent Budget Officer.]

Speaker's Statement

rules for motions recommending
expenditure of public money

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member, if we refer back to Standing Order 66, the House will not receive any resolution stating an express or abstract opinion of the House on recommending an expenditure of public moneys unless recommended by the Crown.

But if the member wishes to take out the offending section, which would be "of the creation" and "House support," the Speaker would certainly entertain looking at that.

Motion ruled out of order.

B. Ralston: I'd move a revised motion in the wording that the Speaker has suggested.
[ Page 316 ]

Mr. Speaker: So the revised motion would read: be it resolved that this House enter into discussion and debate of an independent budget officer.

Is the mover prepared to go there?

B. Ralston: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: If the mover is prepared to go there, we're prepared to move along.

Continue.

Private Members' Motions

(continued)

MOTION 7 — INDEPENDENT
BUDGET OFFICER

B. Ralston: Mr. Speaker:

[Be it resolved that this House enter into discussion and debate of an Independent Budget Officer.]

The idea of an independent budget officer as an independent officer of the Legislature — similar to the Ombudsman, the Police Complaint Commissioner or the Auditor General — is an important idea that would assist in restoring trust and accountability to the badly damaged B.C. budget process.

As part of his accountability package in 2006, the current Prime Minister, Mr. Harper, introduced this legislation and created this office in the federal parliament. It has been recently supported in an open letter by over a hundred Canadian economists who value its work for the openness and accountability it has brought to the budget process at the federal level.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Such an office exists in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, in the American Congress and in a number of other jurisdictions. Such a budget officer would have access to neutral data of revenue and expenditure and would provide objective, timely analysis and updates to the Legislative Assembly and the public about the estimates of government, the state of the province's finances, and trends in the British Columbia economy.

Unlike Finance department officials, however capable they may be and they are, this budget officer, being an independent officer of the Legislature, would not be subject to the ultimate political direction of the Minister of Finance. Similarly, I expect members opposite might refer to the Forecast Council, which is a group of 12 independent, typically, bank economists who, at the request of the Minister of Finance, make forecasts at regular intervals.

It was clear in the budget process in 2009 that when that council's members wanted to return to update their forecast, the Minister of Finance decided not to entertain them, and the subsequent forecast reflected that deficiency.

An independent budget officer would offer the public, the media and all members of the Legislature, not merely the Minister of Finance and the Premier, an independent, objective view of the budgetary process. This year's budget, given the events that have taken place — an absolute insistence on a $495 million deficit maximum; the Premier's words exactly quoted on April 23 in the middle of the election campaign; and the subsequent tabling of a $2.8 billion deficit, which would have been $3.5 billion were it not for the $750 million of the $1.6 billion HST signing bonus allocated to this year's budget….

Those events — that lack of transparency, that lack of accountability — prove the need for the creation of this independent budget officer and the benefits that it will have for the public and the media and help to restore confidence in the budgetary process of British Columbia.

[1105]

D. Horne: Well, it's a great pleasure to rise today and speak to this motion. I actually find it quite amusing that we're speaking and have this motion before the House today. It's typical of the opposition.

Basically, one of the things that I think is important to note….

B. Ralston: In your vast experience.

D. Horne: Well, in my vast experience and in theory, the review of the budget — the review of any government statement or document — is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. With this motion and the motion that the member has put forward, it's clear that the NDP, the opposition of this House, is incapable of dealing with the budget, is incapable of reviewing the budget, is incapable of understanding the finances of the province and, therefore, needs an independent officer and needs to spend more money.

It's just typical of the opposition — the thinking that money grows on trees and that basically, you know, we should just keep spending it whenever, willy-nilly and as they see fit.

I will note that the NDP government of the time in 1998 put forward a provincial budget review process. I understand, and the opposition critic for Finance should understand, that that process is currently ongoing, that that process will report back by the end of September. We, too, used the same individual that was selected by them in 1998, so this process continues to be ongoing and, obviously, is something that the opposition seems to not understand or fully comprehend.

The difficulty with this is that there seems to be a complete lack of understanding of the independence of a professional civil service — that basically the civil service we have that runs this province is independent. They are professional in nature, and they work very, very
[ Page 317 ]
hard for the people of British Columbia in order to put forward the best projections and the best advice that they can.

This government, unlike previous governments run by the opposition, seems to feel that that advice is taken and is well-taken, whereas the government in 1996…. I will note that they decided not to take the advice of that professional civil service, and they used additional optimism in their forecasts, and we all know where that got us.

I will note that no one on the opposite side has said, with the budget that was presented this year by this government, that we were overly optimistic, that we overruled the Finance officials, that we took any political ideals to what was put forward. The Forecast Council that was mentioned by the other member obviously played a significant role in producing those numbers.

I will note the two other provinces — both Alberta and Ontario, in similar timing to this province of British Columbia — put forward budgets, and both provinces have, as well as ourselves, changed and updated their projections based upon the new numbers put forward.

The difficulty is that, while the opposition clearly doesn't understand math…. We went into that the other day when we talked about the HST. I don't think it's up to the province of British Columbia and the people of British Columbia to continue to fund an office that would simply provide them with additional support, from a research standpoint, in doing their jobs. I would suggest that perhaps they hire some people that actually understand the economy and the budget process better, and maybe they'll do well.

These are very, very difficult economic times. I will….

[1110]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, order.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please.

The members will come to order.

D. Horne: I think I made clear, obviously, the importance of having independent advice, the importance of having a Finance staff that's very capable of putting things forward, the importance of the review process in general. And the importance of having a loyal opposition that actually gets it would actually add considerably to this process.

So thank you, Madam Speaker. I'll sit down now.

D. Donaldson: It's an honour and a privilege to be speaking in favour of this motion by my colleague from Surrey-Whalley. I'm going to take a different tack than my colleague from Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, who seems to be out of touch with the citizens of this province. I say that because the position of an independent budget officer would be a significant step in restoring the credibility of politicians of all stripes.

The credibility has been damaged by the behaviours of this government, especially in the past six months, and that behaviour ends up reflecting on all of us here because people often paint all politicians with the same brush. So I see this as a non-partisan issue to restore some faith in what we do in this chamber.

By supporting it, we are sending the message that we believe accountability is important. By not supporting it, we would send the message that behaviours like this government has displayed, such as saying one thing and doing another, will remain the norm. And we need change. Look at the percentage of people voting: barely 50 percent in the last election. That's because people don't feel that by voting they can make a difference.

On voting day I was at our campaign office in Smithers. An elderly first nations man was sitting there. I went up and introduced myself and began speaking with him. He said he was 67 years old and it was the first time he had ever voted in any election. So we need to encourage him to continue doing that and going along that path. But when he hears about things like the government misleading on the budget deficit, withholding information and not being forthright, then what are the chances he will vote again?

It's not just him but others as well. I know a fellow in his 40s, an educated fellow. It was the first time he ever voted, in the last election. And a young group of Gitxsan people who voted for the first time in 2005 were extremely excited to tell me they voted again in 2009. But the recent actions of this government in relation to the lack of openness and accountability around the budget do nothing to encourage young voters to believe they can make a difference by participating in democracy.

When I got elected, there was a theme from Stikine: "Don't end up like the rest of them down there." Well, here's an example of how we can begin to turn this around together. It would be good for the members on that side, it will be good for the members on this side, and most importantly, it will be good for the people in B.C. altogether.

I urge everyone in this chamber to support the motion for an independent budget officer and, by doing so, demonstrate that we are listening to the people of the province in their wishes to restore credibility and reduce cynicism in this democratic institution.

R. Sultan: I find it astonishing that the member for Surrey-Whalley would add yet a sixth layer to the existing five layers of scrutiny and budgeteering that guide the fiscal affairs of this province. Let me enumerate them.
[ Page 318 ]

First of all, we have a superb, independent, well-qualified, well-trained, well-honed civil service whose job it is to bring forward credible estimates despite the winds of the political moment which may prevail. And those winds can be rather fierce, as the history of 1996, which I will refer to in a moment, has demonstrated. But the first layer is the people who actually produced these numbers and the budgets, and we have superb confidence in them, with good reason.

[1115]

Secondly, we are overseen in terms of the means by which we keep the public accounts of this province by the stewards of GAAP, the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Having declared that we will adhere to the GAAP rules, these folks are very proud of maintaining the integrity of that declaration and will point it out if we do not adhere to their honesty and integrity.

Thirdly, the budget process itself covers the full gamut of very detailed budget documentation — the lockup, the media briefings, the subsequent debate in this House. Then we have the Auditor General, who on an ad hoc basis can choose to pry into any area of the fiscal affairs — and general management affairs, for that matter — of this Legislative Assembly and the government.

I would be remiss not to mention the Public Accounts Committee, which is charged on a bipartisan basis, with both sides of the House represented, to examine the integrity of the budget process. Finally, we have the opposition itself and persons officially charged, such as the member for Surrey-Whalley, with standing up with all of the experience and acumen at his disposal — which is considerable — to criticize, pick apart and suggest ways in which improvements could be offered in terms of the budgets of this House.

This is a multi-layered apparatus which already exists. For the members opposite to propose yet another layer, I suppose one might say, is an illustration of the classic NDP response to unemployment: "We're going to hire a bunch more government civil servants" — to be paid for by the taxpayers of British Columbia, I fear.

Now, the NDP model of budget management has been well displayed, historically. If I may just for a moment refer to the 1996 history, whereby the budget numbers were prepared with integrity under the stewardship of Deputy Minister Brenda Eaton, who many of us know personally — a person described in a BCBusiness profile as a person singled out by a subsequent Auditor General in a report about the pre-1996 election fudge-it budget as a beacon of honesty, resisting pressure to produce an optimistic report despite the gloomy numbers and who, with more than mere reverence for facts and numbers, seems to be hard-wired for honesty.

She herself is quoted as saying: "It's particularly challenging in the public sector to feel comfortable speaking truth to power." Now, I presume members opposite feel that we don't have enough Brenda Eatons in the civil service to carry on the reputation for smart budgeting, integrity in reporting and standing up to those in power, as represented by the Brenda Eaton story.

After being worked over in that previous government by Tom Gunton, a deputy minister straying far from his non-political role to sort of tell the Finance Ministry what the numbers should look like, Brenda Eaton, to the misfortune of the taxpayers of British Columbia, left the government she felt so strongly about it. The circumstances are not completely clear, but suspicions are rampant.

Let's just talk about the cost — because this is a fiscal issue at the core — the cost of the member for Surrey-Whalley's proposal. The cost of running this legislative establishment is in the order of magnitude of about $73 million a year. That pays for our salaries, the helicopter ride I had this morning, our constituency offices. It pays for the salary of the Clerks and the deputy Clerks, the heating of the building, etc.

In other words, the cost of running this parliamentary institution is getting close to a million dollars per MLA. If we are being paid a million dollars each, directly and indirectly — "supported by a million dollars" perhaps would be a better way to phrase it — surely to goodness we have an obligation to make sure that almost million dollars is spent prudently.

[1120]

It isn't as though we're here with some little, two-bit operation, taking notes on the back of an envelope, without computers, telephones or anything. We have a vast array of apparatus here to do the public's business. To suggest that we are inadequate to the job, which is what really this member is proposing — we cannot cope with the complexity of budgets; we should hire yet another independent officer — is, I think, a travesty of public accountability. We're individually costing the taxpayers of British Columbia a lot of money. We should do our job and spend it wisely and do the job ourselves.

I would be remiss if I didn't also point out that that $73 million to run this place, according to the published estimates — which, by the way, are presented in great detail, available on line, and which will be debated thoroughly, I am sure, before the end of this session — doesn't begin to encompass the cost of our eight existing independent officers. Guess what that number is. That number is $75 million. Now, half of it, of course, is Elections B.C. Maybe we should set that aside. But the cost of running an independent officer in this setting ranges from a low of about a little less than half a million dollars to as high as $15 million.

So I would ask the member for Surrey-Whalley: what sort of a budget for this proposed ninth independent officer of the Legislature does he have in mind, and do we really need another, what someone characterized as celebrity officer playing to the media more than to this parliament?

We are the elected representatives of the people. We're the people who every four years have to explain
[ Page 319 ]
ourselves and justify our existence and be chucked out of office if we haven't done a responsible job. These are the people with responsibility, not some person with a rather large budget playing not to parliament but to the media and to the public. We are the first line of response to the public, I would argue, and should remain so.

In that context, I was told that the federal government's budgetary officer in Ottawa has recently been refocused and directed to serve parliament and not directly the media and the public. I think that that's a healthy development in terms of the stature of this place and our constitutional responsibilities.

So I find this to be a bad suggestion, if I may say so rather directly. We are rather overburdened with institutions of one sort or another pecking away at the responsibility we each bear to hold the government to account for how it spends the taxpayers' money. I don't think we need to hire somebody and contract this job out to somebody else.

S. Fraser: I will be speaking in favour of this motion for an independent budget officer and office. I guess I'll start by just referring to what the Liberal member for West Vancouver–Capilano was talking about: not wanting to spend the money on an independent officer.

I'll give him some credit for this. In a perfect world it should not be necessary to have an independent officer to oversee the budget, to protect the people of British Columbia.

I would submit that it should not be necessary for this House to have an independent officer to oversee the protection of children in care, but this government has shown through their betrayal of children in care that that office is absolutely necessary. This government's betrayal of seniors in this province has shown a desperate need for an independent officer — a commission — also.

[1125]

In a perfect world it should not be necessary for such oversight for the budget, but it's clear to the people of British Columbia that that's necessary. An independent officer could ensure that government never again produced deception in the name of a budget, and that is the gist of the necessity for this office, this independent commissioner.

Carl Jung once stated that no problem can be solved with the same level of consciousness that created it. The duplicitous consciousness that created this Liberal budget is either grossly incompetent or dishonest and deceitful — or some combination of both of those. The Liberal consciousness has no credibility.

Therefore, it is necessary for the people of British Columbia to have an independent commissioner to protect the finances of the province. The people of British Columbia and the members of this House, both opposition and government members, deserve to know the truth about the true state of the economy at any point in time.

I'll note that the member for Parksville-Qualicum made the news on Saturday in the Victoria Times Colonist — Les Leyne. He was speaking to a business group. He was referring to and trying to justify the HST, essentially saying that it was mishandled by transfer. Les takes it the next step, referring to the budget, and he says: "It can't be comfortable when you have to counter charges of deceitfulness by using the excuse of incompetence. But at this point the Liberals are ready to try anything."

It's clear to the people of British Columbia, to the people of the press and, obviously, from statements made by members of the government that absolutely we do require the extra expense of an independent commissioner because of this government. If any government brings in a budget and they're off by a bit, say a few hundred million, it might be explainable but difficult. If you bring in a pre-election budget and you are off by 600 percent, then the public has been betrayed.

Therefore, it is necessary to bring in an independent officer, an independent office to oversee the budget, so that the people of British Columbia can never be a party to election by deception, as in this case, because the pre-election budget has no similarity to the post-election budget. I think most people of this House, most people of the province, have noticed that already, and that's certainly reflected in recent polls.

If the public had had the benefit of an independent officer, they would have known the truth and would have naturally made an informed choice at election time, at the ballots.

The Liberals have shown the flaw of the system, as I've pointed out. But the flaw also is in democracy, as they have pointed out. By winning an election by proposing a budget, a mythical budget that had no basis in reality, by winning an election by deception, they have betrayed the people of B.C., yes, but they've also betrayed the basic premise of democracy. They've shown a flaw in democracy, because people vote based on trust, and that trust has been betrayed.

Therefore, we need an independent officer of the Legislature to oversee the Liberal budget process.

J. Les: I'm pleased to take my place this morning and join in this debate as to whether or not we should have an independent budget officer serving us here in the Legislature. Obviously, I will be taking the position that that is not necessary.

I agree with my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano that when we have serious issues that need to be examined, our first impulse should not necessarily be to create more bureaucracy. That, too, is an expensive process. I think British Columbians are expecting us to do more with less money, rather than find ways to increase the expenditures of the province on their behalf. If for no other reason, I certainly would have trouble supporting the motion that has been presented, but the member, in
[ Page 320 ]
presenting his motion this morning, talked about this being a matter of confidence.

[1130]

It is, obviously, extremely important that not only British Columbians but the wider economic community have confidence not only in the budget-making process but in the general financial management of the province. As I thought about that for a minute, I thought: "Well, what would be the indicators that would express a third party's confidence in the handling of the finances of the province?"

I thought that perhaps it would be good to look at the bond-rating agencies, which consistently downgraded British Columbia's credit rating in the 1990s and have issued nothing but upgrades in terms of our bond rating, to the point where British Columbia today enjoys the very best possible credit rating — triple-A. I would suggest that that, as a measure of confidence, is not a bad place to start.

Now, I know opposition's role in life is not necessarily to make government look good, and sometimes great fun can be had with some of these issues. But these are pretty serious issues, and I think it's important to understand the economic climate that we have come through in the past year.

When you have governments all over the place, provincial governments in Canada, the Canadian federal government itself, the American government, European governments…. I think that without exception they have tabled budgets and almost consistently have had to restate their deficits right across the board.

Our neighbours in the province of Alberta serve as, I guess, almost the epitome of an example, where a year ago they were predicting an $8 billion surplus. They presented a deficit budget. They have since had to restate their deficit, and now they are projecting a $7 billion deficit. That is a $15 billion swing, and I think it's emblematic of what has been going on around the world over the last ten to 12 to 15 months.

We in British Columbia are not immune to that. Back in December when the Minister of Finance was putting his budget together, he does as he's always done. He consults with the Economic Forecast Council. The consensus of their opinions was that there would be zero growth in British Columbia in the current fiscal year.

The Finance Minister, taking that advice, wanted to add a bit of a note of caution, and the budget was based on a 0.9 percent negative growth for the current fiscal year. That was considerably more pessimistic than the advice that he was given by the Economic Forecast Council.

Now, in the event, we know that revenues further deteriorated after that time, and that has caused a budget deficit, as was recently presented — a $2.8 billion deficit. Believe me, it gives me no joy, and I'm sure it gives no one on this side of the House any joy whatsoever, that our budget has reached that level. But it has to be looked at in the context of what has gone on around the world — collapsing revenues and, in some areas, increasing expenditures as a result of the economic contraction which has left many people unemployed.

I mentioned collapsing revenues. It was interesting to me that when the New Democratic Party campaigned in the recently completed provincial election, not only did they take as given the budget figures that were included in the February budget, but they actually included a further $600 million worth of revenue. I think it's an old habit that they picked up in 1996 and simply upgraded for 2009. The old notion of "we need a little bit more revenue optimism" still seems to be very alive and well in the New Democratic Party.

That was clearly not the case with our Minister of Finance today. He was careful to be prudent, to be conservative in his revenue estimates in the event, as I've said, that the state of collapse in the general western economy, if not the global economy, was such that every government's budget has been negatively impacted in the months past. So I think the situation that we've seen is not a lack of prudent management on behalf of this government but the global economic collapse.

[1135]

As well, as my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano has already pointed out, we have many layers of financial scrutiny already built into our processes, not the least of which is that our books are kept according to generally accepted accounting principles. We were the first government in Canada to adopt those principles. We were appropriately recognized for that, taking budget transparency to an entirely new level at the time that we did that. That accountability and transparency are still very much there.

I would suggest that the motion as presented by the member opposite is unnecessary. The finances of this province are already very capably looked after and very capably and transparently reported. Outside agencies, I think, have agreed by the way they have commented, whether they are professional accounting organizations, bond-rating agencies, etc. Anytime you consult with those types of people, you will find that they approve of the way the finances of the province are kept.

K. Corrigan: I'm speaking in support of this motion. I don't think anybody questions the integrity of staff, and nobody questions the competence of staff. Our questions lie elsewhere.

I think it's been very clear over the last few weeks — it's been made very clear — exactly what the state of the budget was in the spring. I think it's been increasingly clear that government knew about the budget shortfalls and didn't disclose that information publicly, and that's why it is necessary for us to restore public trust and accountability by creating and appointing an independent budget officer.
[ Page 321 ]

Unfortunately, the people of this province couldn't rely on government to reflect the true state of finances, and that's why we need an independent budget officer to restore that trust and accountability of government.

The Parliament of Canada has an independent budget officer, and I think it's worth pointing out right now that in the past couple of weeks government evaluations — the independent budget officer's evaluations — of the EI estimates were completely debunked. In that case, the Conservative government had overestimated the price tag of the Liberals' proposed employment insurance plan by nearly four times the actual cost — an error about the same as we found with the projected budget here. That was according to the Parliamentary Budget Office.

The Conservatives had said the cost of the Liberal plan was $4 billion, but the independent budget officer has said that the cost was actually closer to $1 billion.

This is a federal issue that could trigger an election, so credibility around the cost is critical. This demonstrates yet another example of why another government can't be trusted to come clean with the public and also clearly demonstrates why we need an independent budget officer in this province. I think if we'd had an independent budget officer here last spring, we would have had a very different picture painted.

The Economic Forecast Council was mentioned. I think it's also important to point out that this council — consisting largely of bank economists in tune with the international movement of money — relied upon by government to make recommendations around the budget, asked the minister if they could come back and offer new forecasts prior to the tabling of the budget, but that request was refused. The Premier said that he relied on that, but he only relied on it as long as it was consistent with what apparently was something of a fiction with regard to the budget that was tabled.

I'd also like to point out that there are lots of other jurisdictions that already have an independent budget officer. The Parliament of Canada has an independent budget officer; the United States Congress; the U.K. Parliament; several other countries; the World Bank; the state of California and New York City. So I think that it is something that many countries and organizations are now seeing as an important part of government.

I would wish that we didn't have to spend the money on an independent budget officer. I wish that we didn't have to spend money on police officers. I wish that we didn't have to spend money on Auditors General. But unfortunately, if you can't rely on your government to tell the truth, you need to put those kinds of mechanisms in place.

[1140]

I'd like to close by repeating that we need to have an independent budget officer in order to hold the government accountable and look after the money of the taxpayers of British Columbia.

N. Letnick: I've heard my colleagues here today mention a lot of the points that I'm going to make, so actually I'd just like to say ditto. I'll start with ditto and then go on from there. Ditto for our side.

I'll be more specific. It's worth noting that the NDP opposition tabled their election platform two months after the February budget. Not only did they use exactly the same assumptions that the government did; they actually added $600 million worth of new revenue over and above what government had projected in the February budget.

The members opposite are clearly using the same information that government has. It's the same information, provided by professional staff, that already costs taxpayers millions of dollars a year to put together; with which the bond-rating agencies decided we should get, as a government of British Columbia, a triple-A bond rating; that our accountants use GAAP, generally acceptable accounting principles, to come up with and to record; that 12 members of the Economic Forecast Council used to provide the best projections they could; and that our Auditor General and comptroller general review after the fact to make sure that we are following all of the procedures that I just mentioned.

I guess I just want to reiterate that the members opposite are using exactly the same information that we are, so it really comes back down to the question that they want an independent, objective view that can act as a watchdog. That's what I got from the motion — an "independent, objective view that can act as a watchdog."

I guess I have to come back to the same conclusion that some of my colleagues have come back to. What's the purpose of the opposition? To my mind, the purpose of the opposition is to provide that independent, objective view of what government is doing and to act as a watchdog.

At a million dollars a person, I think that instead of them talking amongst themselves or strategizing whatever it is they're going to do outside of the House at question period, I would presume that they're discussing with their economists, with their experts, whether or not the government is actually moving forward with the plan that it had in place, following GAAP, following all the rules that we're supposed to.

I have no details as to whether or not this particular motion has any budget attached to it, so I looked on the Internet. The member in Ottawa says, according to Hill Times, that considering his office just started out, a $2.5 million budget, he thought, was "reasonable" — $2.5 million to start.

I assume that "$2.5 million is reasonable to start" means that he or she is looking for a lot more money down the road. I can't for the life of me understand how I can go back to my constituents and say: "Well, you know what? The opposition wasn't doing its job, so we decided as government to use your taxpayers' dollars to do their job for them, and I can no longer bring you all the things that my government…."
[ Page 322 ]

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Continue.

N. Letnick: "I can no longer bring you all of the things that you told me you wanted" — the cardiac care unit at Kelowna General Hospital, the expansion of Highway 97 and Highway 33, the Spirit Squares, the full-day kindergarten. All those things that they said they wanted I can't do, because the people on the other side of the House have decided that they'd rather spend government money to do the job that they were elected to do in the first place.

I'll just conclude by saying that this is typical of the opposition — to come up with short-term political points just so that they….

Interjection.

N. Letnick: You know, I spent the last ten years teaching business students, and I can tell you that if a business student had come up to me with a proposal like this — with no details, no budget, no support — he or she would have gotten an F. That's exactly what I'll give this a proposal, an F, not even an A for effort, just an F — period.

[1145]

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast will come to order.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to speak to this motion for an independent budget officer and to speak in favour of this motion.

It's interesting to hear the comments from a number of the members on the other side, who talk about things like the capability…. I believe the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain talked about the capability to deal with the budget.

That, in fact, is what we're here to talk about. We have to look at the situation that we face here. The problem that we have and the reason that…. One of the imperatives for this office to be put in place and this officer is exactly the situation that we've seen occur in this province over the last number of months since last February.

What happens is that we get a government that introduces a budget, and the day after that budget is introduced, a $495 million deficit. Everybody in this place knows, everybody in this province knows that the day after it was introduced, it started to unravel.

But we have a government over here and a Finance Minister and a Premier and their friends sitting in those benches over there who were oblivious to that for months and months as the economy unravelled in the province. They sat silent and refused to tell the people who pay the bills, the taxpayers, what the real situation is. That's the problem we have.

So now we have a situation where 80 percent of the people in this province believe they were deceived by the government, where 80 percent of the people believe that the Finance Minister and the Premier did not deal in a competent way with the economy in this province.

The reality of it is that it's because every day that economy continued to unravel. I don't think there's any question that the ministry officials knew that. They were aware of that. I believe they informed the government of that and the minister of that. And I believe the minister chose to stay silent through that period in order to ensure an election victory because that was much more important to him. Political opportunism was what was important to him, not the state of the economy and the way it affects British Columbians. That's the problem.

We have an Auditor General who will tell us after the fact what the situation is. They told us after the fact in terms of statement of accounts for last year after this government went on and on about how fine the economy was. Well, we find out, in fact, we had the ninth-best economy, not the second-best economy, last year — regardless of what we heard from a minister and a Premier who told us a whole lot of other things.

What we require here, and what this office provides, is somebody whose obligation and job is to make sure that British Columbians, in fact, do know the facts — something that the ministry officials can't do. We know that ministry officials when told by their political masters to be silent are silent. All you have to do is look at what happened during the election as it came up on things like welfare caseloads. When those numbers were going to be released to show the dramatic increases, they were told to be silent by their political masters, and there was silence.

Those of us on this side of the House and the vast majority of British Columbians believe those officials were told to be silent during the election about the reality of the economy, as they were told to be silent about the HST, because it would have, in fact, hurt the political chances of the B.C. Liberals. And that was all that mattered.

So when the member for West Vancouver–Capilano talks about scrutiny…. Well, we should talk about scrutiny. Scrutiny requires somebody who has the independence to be able to do that assessment, do that analysis, and has not just the ability but, in fact, the mandate and obligation to speak out when numbers aren't right. That's what an independent budget officer would offer us.

But we don't get that today because this government keeps a muzzle on officials. This government keeps a muzzle on the people who are the experts in order to ensure that their political agenda is met. And that's not good enough.

[1150]

The reality is that we now have a situation where confidence is diminished in the political process. There
[ Page 323 ]
is no confidence in this Premier and no confidence in this Finance Minister in this province anymore.

Now we have a situation where we have serious lack of confidence in the ability of the government, which sadly, reflects on this Legislature and the ability of this Legislature to do the work it's here to do for British Columbians. That's because of the conduct of this government, this Premier and this Finance Minister.

So anything that can help to replenish that, that can shine a light on what's really going on, would be a critical benefit and addition today. An independent budget officer would do that. British Columbians would be well served — maybe not B.C. Liberals — and that would be a good thing.

R. Cantelon: I rise to oppose the concept of an independent officer for the budget committee. I think that we hear from the opposition, basically, what is fundamentally an apology. The member for Alberni–Pacific Rim said, "It should not be necessary," and I agree with him. It should not be necessary.

Given an adequate opposition, given a well-informed opposition, whose mandate, to quote the member for Vancouver-Hastings who has the mandate responsibility: "It is indeed the opposition's mandate and their responsibility to come forward with information…."

Where were they on budget day? On budget day they seemed to be quite happy with what we presented, with what was presented to us actually by the Ministry of Finance's officials. I commend the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, who acknowledged that we have the finest financial officers in the country, I believe.

I think validation of the hard work that they've done over the years is validated, as the member beside me commented, that the credit rating is outstanding. We continue to manage this budget in a very responsible way, making hard decisions.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Now, it would seem to me that the opposition would like to have something else. Philosophically, they're torn here. "We need help. It's a cry out for help. We're not up to the task. We need more information, and in fact, according…." They not only accepted the Finance Minister's advice that he received, but they increased it by another $600 million. They were happy enough with the financial projections, which were done from a number of economists, that showed that actually there would be growth. But not only that, they suggested that $600 million more was going to be forthcoming.

On the other hand, though, philosophically speaking, I do quite appreciate that it isn't anathema to them to increase, yet again, the size of bureaucracy.

It's not enough, as the member from Capilano has said….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Cantelon: Apparently, it's not adequate that we're funded to the tune of a million dollars each. One would think that would attract the minds sharp enough to project what other economists have failed to do in this worldwide collapse of the economy and have some sort of insight into the inner workings of this mysterious world that we live in today.

It is a global collapse of the economy. Certainly, the presentations that were made to the Minister of Finance by, as the opposition acknowledges, his very fine staff were up to date, were accurate and were bang on at the time. No one foresaw — certainly the province of B.C. nor the province of Alberta — what the impacts would be globally, and that's where we are.

Now we have an apology. "Let's find an officer who perhaps will have those answers." Well, I think it's quite clear that those answers don't exist. What does exist is an opposition that wants to basically have an alibi for their inadequacies. That's what it would seem to me. Yes, let's have some more money. Let's spend more money.

These are tough times. We do need to manage with hard decisions. We do need to face our responsibilities head-on. We do need an opposition who understands, and I appreciate that this might be beyond their ken or analysis to appreciate the global implosion that has happened. They somehow have to look towards some sort of other agenda that caused this to happen.

Well, it is economics, and we are dealing with it.

[1155]

I think the member for West Vancouver–Capilano has indicated several reasons. We have an excellent civil service, which the members opposite acknowledge, which presented the best advice that we had and which the members opposite were quite happy to extrapolate to another $600 million of revenue. Talk about mythical budgets or mythical revenues. That certainly existed only in their minds and could only exist in their minds.

We were the first jurisdiction that, of course, adopted GAAP principles, which require proper transparency and proper accounting principles for accounting for the money.

We do, as the member for Vancouver-Hastings pointed out earlier, have an Auditor General who will advise us and, basically, do a report card on our budgeting procedures. We have a comptroller general who also approves all the budgets and is an independent officer.

We have a Public Accounts Committee which the members opposite participate in and a Finance Committee. The member for Surrey-Whalley, of course, recommended, for example, that we examine HST, and I think it was very adroit and proper of him to do so.

So I think all of these things argue…. And we accept it. We can accept an apology from the members opposite,
[ Page 324 ]
an apology for their inadequacies. I think it's clear that this is their dilemma. Also….

Interjections.

R. Cantelon: Thank you, Member opposite. Speaking of rich, coming from you, you're the member opposite who endorsed the HST.

I think it very ironic and hypocritical to stand up and say he endorsed it and then deny any knowledge of it being a subject in the House. But I digress. I digress, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Member.

Member, do you withdraw that comment, please.

An Hon. Member: I do.

Mr. Speaker: Stand, please.

An Hon. Member: I do withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member, noting the time.

R. Cantelon: Noting the time, I would summarize and simply say I understand and appreciate the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim acknowledging it should not be necessary, and indeed, given an astute and well-informed opposition, it is not necessary. Thank you for this time.

R. Cantelon moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Penner: After that lively debate, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175