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)

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Morning Sitting

Volume 3, Number 1

[ Page 629 ]

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2009

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — WOOD FIRST ACT

Hon. P. Bell presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Wood First Act.

Hon. P. Bell: I move that Bill 9 be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Bell: Today I introduce Bill 9, which requires provincially funded buildings and projects to use wood as their primary construction material. Today's bill will guide the province in providing best-practices advice and recommendations on how to use wood in provincially funded construction projects.

The province funds a significant amount of capital projects every year — about $3 billion. With wood used in just 19 percent of the commercial institutional buildings across Canada, there is a significant opportunity for us to increase the overall amount of wood that is consumed in highly technical projects.

[1005]

Putting a wood-first lens on this spending is an effective way to generate incremental demand for B.C.'s forest products while promoting climate change–friendly construction techniques. Using wood first will create revenue and benefit for all B.C. communities, not just forest-dependent communities.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 9, Wood First Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. B. Stewart: I ask for leave to introduce a guest.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I'd just like to introduce my wife, Ruth Stewart. Ruth and I have been partners for the last 31 years and raised three children, of which one just recently got married, two weeks ago. We're very happy, as well, to be welcoming a new member to our family — November 2, we believe.

Hon. P. Bell: Leave to do an introduction as well.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Hon. P. Bell: I see Sindi Hawkins is in the gallery. We had an opportunity to spend a few hours with Sindi last night. I know she's working through challenging times in her life, but she's looking awesome.

Sindi, we all love you down here, and we're pulling for you. [Applause.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. I. Chong: In this House we call continued debate, second reading on Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2009, and in Committee A we're calling budget estimates debate for the Ministry of Citizens' Services.

Mr. Speaker: Member for North Coast continues.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Budget Measures
Implementation Act (No. 2), 2009

(continued)

G. Coons: I rise to continue debate on Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act. This is continuing from yesterday, for those people that are just joining us.

This is giving the government the opportunity to amend a law that they put in about deficits. This is now allowing the government to have a deficit for the next four years, versus back in February, when it was some legislation just allowing it for two years.

I find it interesting that the government has put forward a bill that no member on the other side — the government side, other than the minister responsible — feels the need to get up and endorse and take a stand. They feel they don't need to come forward and explain why it's a bill that we need.

I believe it's basically about the items that are in this bill. There's a tremendous amount in there that is embarrassing to this government, and they would find it embarrassing to try to come up and defend it.

I'm sure some of the members would want to get up and defend this piece of legislation. I know they would want to get up and support their own Finance Minister, so I look forward to that as we move forward with debate.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]
[ Page 630 ]

With this bill, Bill 2, we have pieces of legislation that were put forward in previous bills with a lot of fanfare and media. Now this government, with its head hanging and its chin down, just like it had the wind kicked out of it….

It's very similar to the thousands of young kids, how they're feeling, from every sport in the province — whether it's minor hockey in Prince Rupert, where they lost up to $30,000 from their bingo grant and may have to raise fees by $150; or the Prince Rupert Swim Club, which may lose half of its members and its coach; or the Special Olympics team in Prince Rupert, which depended on the funding so that they could travel; or the B.C. high school sports, which lost $130,000; or the parent advisory committees all over the province that were crushed with their cuts.

You name it. This bill exemplifies how this government does things, with its arrogance — it's out of touch — and the deceit that we've seen in the last eight or nine months. Those guys on the other side, as far as this bill, as far as what's been happening since the election….

They've dropped the ball, they've struck out, they've cross-checked from behind, they've thrown a gutter ball, they got pinned, and they should be red-carded out of here for what they've done to sports in this province.

As far as passing legislation, if you're going to turn around and amend it so that ultimately nobody has to pay a price…. No accountability. Just a stroke of the pen.

[1010]

We look at section 3 in this bill. A while ago the Finance Minister…. Section 3 deals with the ministerial budgets. It says that cabinet ministers will lose up to 20 percent of their annual salaries due to a provision in the Balanced Budget Act. It cuts ministers' pay if their individual ministerial budgets are in deficit and if the entire budget is in the red. But if we go to section 3 in the act, you know, there's an out for the ministers and the ministerial bonuses.

In section 3 it establishes that when supplementary estimates are presented, the minister must also make public the revised budgets to which the ministers must adhere in order to avoid losing part of their ministerial budget. Just to their own purpose, this government. They're arrogant. They're out of touch. Nobody pays a price. No minister actually loses any money. No minister has actually lost any money or ever loses any money. Nobody gets punished.

This government isn't serious about improving fiscal management. They're just protecting themselves. British Columbians don't believe that this government will follow through with any accountability legislation it brings forth. They deceived, misled and misinformed too many people for far too long. When we look at the bill before us, it just exemplifies the financial mismanagement and failure of this government. Before the election, these B.C. Liberals purposely omitted telling people — the public — their true intentions.

Nobody heard about a $2.8 billion deficit, the largest deficit in B.C. history, or a record-setting $5.4 billion deficit over three years. If you add on the HST payoff, it's actually a $7 billion deficit over the next three years. Nobody heard about a four-year deficit that broke their own law, and now they want to amend it with the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Act for the second time this year with this bill before us, Bill 2.

Nobody was told about the HST and the MSP premiums that are going up by 6 percent. Nobody was told that there would be a $60 billion debt by 2013 that would cost British Columbians $8 million a day to service this B.C. Liberal decade of debt. Again, in 2001, when the debt was about $33 billion and ballooned to $60 billion, a 75 percent increase in B.C. debt in about 12 years, which is unbelievable…. British Columbians just don't believe this government.

Bill 2 is about the fiscal mismanagement, the incompetence of this government. Change the law, basically, to suit your needs. Nobody was told about the vicious cuts to libraries, arts, culture, sports or cuts to health care, to tourism. Besides misleading British Columbians about the HST, the public was never told that vital access grants were about to be axed.

In our communities we're served by thousands of volunteers and parents who are devoted to the arts, to the diverse cultural sectors in our communities, societies, local organizations and a multitude of other activities that exemplify why this is the best place on earth. But the government has put all this in jeopardy.

This bill before us, Bill 2, is about the government covering up its budget tall tales, their falsehoods. They told the arts community before the election: "Don't worry. The budget is stable." But now they know their funding is not stable, and they're going to be hit with massive debt and closure of programs and services.

These cuts, as we've heard from the government on the other side, are economically shortsighted. It doesn't make any sense economically to cut the arts. In their own study, a dollar invested in arts and culture gets back about $1.38 in taxes. But this government, with their actions, is just laying off people and cutting the programs and services necessary and costing the government lots of money.

[1015]

If we look at section 6 in Bill 2, under the Continuing Care Act it says that certain subsections are added, 5(3) and 5(4), which allow a minister or a person authorized by the minister to require information to be provided in order for a person to receive continuing care for which a payment will be made by government.

I don't know if there's anybody on the other side of the House that is concerned or curious about this section. If so, please stand up, stand tall and be heard. You know,
[ Page 631 ]
what kind of information is required or must be provided for a person to keep receiving continuing care?

Hopefully, as we get to third reading, as we get to committee stage of this bill, we can actually find out what's happening in section 6. It's obvious that no members on the other side are curious about the bill before them.

Also, section 15 in this bill. Section 15 deals with the board of directors of Tourism B.C. It repeals subsections that deal with the composition or appointment of the board of directors of Tourism B.C. without any consultation with the board of directors of Tourism B.C. Then the amendment in section 15. The amendment to subsection (6) allows cabinet to appoint the chair of Tourism B.C. without reference to any recommendation of the board. Not only that, it's made retroactive to August 14.

As far as the tourism industry, this is a vicious betrayal of our vital tourism industry. It's devastating not only to the tourism industry but to Tourism B.C.

We know this government doesn't have the expertise, the knowledge or the structure. They don't have what it takes, but that's what they did. They axed Tourism B.C. They took the 3 percent hotel tax and messed up one of the best organizations that we have in the province.

Now, Madam Speaker, section 4 is interesting. It may be a sensible move on the part of the government. It allows the Minister of Finance to delay the presentation of the budget from next February, due to the Olympics — pushing it forward to, I believe, March 2, 2010. It may be a sensible move, especially after the deceitful budget that we just had recently.

I'm surprised, if we look at section 11 that removes Tourism B.C. from the list of public bodies which are subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act…. I'm surprised that this isn't used more often throughout the bill. One of this government's claims to fame is lack of accountability, lack of transparency. Making Tourism B.C. exempt from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is something that this government enjoys doing.

B.C. Ferries. We saw that happen with B.C. Ferries. In less than two days they transferred over a Crown corporation and $1.5-or-so billion into this quasi-privatized model which we're seeing — no accountability, no transparency. We see it with the review coming up on salaries of the CEO and the directors, and the mess we're in with B.C. Ferries — fares skyrocketing, service going down. B.C. Ferries is also exempt from freedom of information.

Again, just their lack of accountability, no transparency — we're seeing it in this bill.

The last section that I'd like to look at is section 9, and I think it's making sense now. I think it's making sense, and none of the members on the other side seem to want to stand up and defend and support this bill. It might be because of section 9, and I can see why the members on the other side are muzzled.

Basically, in section 9…. It's a self-muzzling basically. In section 9 under the Financial Administration Act, it allows non-cabinet Members of the Legislative Assembly to be appointed to the Treasury Board. Okay. So you don't have to be part of the cabinet or an executive council. You can be non-cabinet members.

[1020]

So maybe it was a self-imposed gagging that we've got — a code of silence. Perhaps a stifling of their innermost thoughts because there might be that prize out there for them. You know, maybe you're being quiet because you want to be picked for the Treasury Board. You know, just more stipends, more following the leader without a word of any thoughtful debate, more lack of accountability and lack of transparency.

Perhaps as I get to section 9, it starts to make sense. Not one member on the other side has stood up to defend this. As we go through the most difficult economic times with a bill that's so significant, they sit there like bumps on a log, sitting on their hands with a self-imposed gag law, just because there's that opportunity that they may make it to the Treasury Board. Oh, a few more stipends, a few more in your back pocket.

Madam Speaker, noticing the time, I oppose this bill. I look forward to committee stage. Hopefully, at least one member on the other side comes forward to support their Finance Minister with some thoughtful debate and with some integrity.

Introductions by Members

D. Barnett: I have the privilege today of introducing some guests from my community, and they are from the Canim Lake Band. The Canim Lake Band is the Shuswap territory on which my community and my area is — mostly from Shuswap Nations.

I'd like you to welcome Chief Mike Archie and Councillors Don Dixon, Roy Christopher, Eddie Dixon and George Archie. With them are Fred Baxter, John Kalmokoff and Leonard Joe. I ask you to welcome to this House my constituents.

Debate Continued

S. Herbert: I rise today in opposition to Bill 2, which is known as the Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), but I see it more as the budget betrayal act or the budget deception act, based on what measures are included in this act.

I'd like to share with the House that the other day, as many of us are coming into Victoria, setting up home so that we can be here for the long term and do our work, I was unpacking a box. It had a bunch of newspaper wrapped around glassware, things like that. Colleagues, friends in Victoria had come and donated things so that I could set up my home here, and I started digging through this box.

A lot of the glassware was old, from the '70s or from the '60s. Nice stuff, but not of today. Some lamps and other
[ Page 632 ]
things were in the mix. I pulled out one of the newspapers, pulling it open, seeing the glassware, nice and dusty — probably hadn't been used in years. Wrapped around it, though, was a newspaper from just this spring, from around the election time. I opened it up, the Globe and Mail. On the cover it said, "A Majority Built on Economic Trust," and it had a picture of our Premier. It was from a newspaper the day after the election.

I looked at it, and I had to read through it again: "A Majority Built on Economic Trust." It seemed to me to be from a different era, from another time, from some time in the distant past where people said what they thought, and they told the truth, and they spoke openly, accountably and honestly. It seemed from some other time. I couldn't quite juxtapose that with today in a way that was comprehensible. I had to read it a few times.

It seems that today that cover really speaks in direct opposition to this budget bill, Bill 2 — the second bill that this government has introduced in this House. This bill is about deception and covering up for things that were said before the election to what we see today, which is completely the opposite.

Just like that old lamp from the '70s or '60s that we now have in our home, that newspaper is really something we could frame and put up on the wall as a piece of fiction.

[1025]

There was a majority built on economic trust, but you go around the province today, and trust seems to be a vanishing commodity, seems to be something that maybe we need an endangered species list for. What this government has done, what this government continues to do, I believe, is betray the trust of the people.

When you run an election, you tell people what you're going to do. You tell them what you believe. You tell them about your values. You tell them about your vision for the province, and you should follow through with that vision. You should follow through with those promises, because that is what the people elected you to do.

This bill is about a government that said before the election that they would have a deficit of $495 million maximum. This is about a government that said they would balance the budget in two years, tops — oh, and maybe even a little bit earlier. Oh, and that $495 million maximum that they said the deficit would be? Well, our Premier said: "Oh well, it might actually be even less than that. Don't you worry. I've got a steady hand on the tiller. I'll keep B.C. strong." That's what they said, and that's what they promised.

They said that we've got the best economy. Now we hear from their own economists, who actually say that we had the second-worst-performing economy at that time.

It was a promise built on protecting education and protecting health care, whereas now we see cutback after cutback through many of these essential services — whether it's slashing of surgeries, whether that's taking it to the parents who do that great volunteer work in each of our communities' schools, because of the cuts in the parent advisory committee budget from the gaming revenue.

We think about the arts community, to whom they promised: "Oh, don't worry. Your funds are secure." Only now to be rudely awakened, to be seeing their companies shut down, to see them thrown out of work, to see the heart and soul of our province being torn up because of these brutal cuts — cuts to investment, cuts to things that actually do build our economy.

So this budget really highlights some of the big betrayals of this government, speaks right to the core of what a government is. If they say one thing, they should follow through. If they say one thing, and their staff have indicated that there are challenges….

I remember back in this House before the election. The province's own economists wanted to meet with them again to say: "Actually, things are much worse than we thought before." But that meeting wouldn't happen. That meeting never happened, because the government thought that would not, I assume, be helpful for their election chances, so that they could continue to say: "This is a strong province. We are strong. Everything is okay."

Well, I turn back again to "A Majority Built on Economic Trust." We think about trust. Leaders get trusted because they trust people. They say something, and they follow through. Leadership in B.C., I believe, should be about trusting each and every one of our citizens, reaching out to them, listening to them, respecting them, giving them the facts, showing them the trade-offs and moving forward — listening, responding, acting with integrity, trusting them so that they can trust us as leaders of this province.

But what we see from the government, illustrated in Bill 2, seems to be this belief that if they just say: "Trust us. We're the government. You can trust us. We will say one thing; we'll do another. Somehow you can still trust us, because we have your best interests at heart...." Really, it's back to that old saying of, "Read my lips: no new taxes," as we saw with presidents down in the States. "Read my lips: you can trust us. Keep B.C. strong — $495 million." On and on and on. Protecting health care, protecting education — all one by one falling, falling, falling.

Now, that's not the kind of leadership that I believe our province deserves. That's not the kind of leadership that our voters trusted us with. That's not the kind of leadership our voters, I believe — had they known this would be what happened — would have supported. It's just not credible. It's just not the way to build our province.

[1030]

Now I'd like to turn to something — an industry betrayed. An industry that looked to this government for leadership. An industry facing incredible challenges right now, whether that's because of the high dollar or because of the visa restrictions coming through from the States, whether that's because of the H1N1 scare…. A huge range of issues because of the economic recession.
[ Page 633 ]

Now, of course, I talk about the tourism industry, the second-biggest industry in our province, an industry where many people in our province get their first work, one of the biggest employers in our province. This is an industry that we need to be supporting, to be engaging with, to be listening to, to be working with to help it weather this storm, to help it grow.

They're doing everything they can — these individual operators, these associations. They're working their butts off for us so that we can have the revenue so that we can support the programs that our people want and need — things like health care, education.

Instead, what this government does is use this industry during the election. They used this industry to say: "Oh, look. They like us; we like them. We're all going to be a happy family and work together. Just trust us. Just trust us."

What do they do after the election? Well, as we see here in Bill 2, they take the axe to the leader of the industry, Tourism B.C. They chop it down. They take, really, what everybody that I have talked to has seen as a world leader, that other jurisdictions say they want to emulate…. And you know why? It's because of what the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head said back in 1997, when this bill was introduced by the NDP. It's because of what the member for Saanich North and the Islands said when the NDP introduced this bill, and these are Liberal members of the House.

They spoke out in support of the bill because they said that we need a leader for this industry to market our province which is independent of political interference. We need a leader which gets dedicated funding through the hotel room tax so that they can market the province year in, year out in a long-term fashion, not just willy-nilly to the winds of the day, where you take a little bit of the money this year, because: "Oh, we've got a problem to patch up over here."

Then next year you realize: "Uh-oh, we didn't market the province so well because we hadn't put in the funds necessary." Then the revenues are down. So it's just downwards, downwards, kind of like this government.

Now, they spoke out in support of it then. I'm proud to stand with the party that introduced that bill and introduced that legislation in partnership with the tourism industry. It created a dedicated marketing arm for our province — an independent arm, a group led by industry professionals, people who know the business, people who do it day in, day out because it's their livelihoods. These are the people who are out there working for us, with respect for us and trusting the people of B.C. and trusting the people of the province. They know what they're doing.

We've seen the industry weather storms, which every other industry has suffered through, because of that professionalism, because of the expertise of these industry professionals. And the government praised them. Both governments, the NDP and the Liberal governments — they praised them.

Tourism B.C. lasted for eight years under this current government. Then, after the election, after saying to the tourism industry, "Trust us," they take the axe to it. When asked, "Well, why would you do such a thing?" the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts at the time says: "Oh well, maybe it's for cost savings."

Then they asked him: "So what kind of cost savings?" He couldn't come up with a number. He was unable to say, really, with any credibility why they were doing this. People still are asking the question: why have they done this? I think that in part the answer is because of the HST betrayal.

They promised the industries: "We would not bring in the HST." After the election they slam it down our throats, just as they have done with so many other pieces of legislation — not listening, not respecting, not trusting the people of B.C. to be involved in the decision-making process.

Instead, you come up; you rise up. They knock you down. You speak out; they shove the legislation down your throat. So we see an industry baffled, confused, angry, betrayed, speaking out against this government's decision on Tourism B.C.

[1035]

I'd like to read some of the remarks. At a historic meeting…. They describe it as historic because they brought together over 100 tourism industry leaders from across the province to speak out against the dismantling, to speak out against the axing of Tourism B.C. They say they're gravely concerned about the decision to dissolve Tourism B.C. and to bring the agency under the direct management of the provincial government.

I understand why. Instead of a board of industry professionals whose credibility lives or dies based on the decisions they make, whose careers, whose families' livelihoods, whose industries' livelihoods live or die based on their decisions around how to market the province long term, we get a politician full of bluster, a politician who makes remarks which make our heads spin all the time.

I speak, of course, of the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, who claims things like that the arts industry is not concerned about massive cuts to their industry, who claims they're not lighting their hair on fire. Or what did we see the other day? The minister decided to go after a parent in his constituency who was complaining, concerned about the future of her child's education because of the cuts to parent advisory committees. This minister attacked that person and said that they should be ashamed of themselves and to stop whining.

That's not a minister and that's not a government that is respectful of the people. That's not a government that can be counted on to listen to the tourism industry and work with that industry. That's another reason why I believe people are concerned.

Now, they say the key principles that made Tourism B.C. a world leader and that the industry would like to
[ Page 634 ]
see incorporated include the autonomous, industry-led governance model that is independent of political interference, that operates on sound business principles. They also ask for formula funding, which enables long-term strategic planning over a multi-year time horizon. Both of those two things are the key things which made Tourism B.C. such a leader. They're asking for them back.

So far the government says nothing and does nothing. The minister refuses even to stand to defend this decision — so an industry betrayed by the destruction of Tourism B.C., an industry betrayed by the introduction of the HST.

When you talk to a tourism operator that is right close to the border of B.C., near Alberta, they say: "How am I supposed to compete when Alberta doesn't have any of this kind of HST tax?" You talk to the ones on the border with Washington State. "How are we supposed to compete when our product costs much more now thanks to this government, when we're already suffering? How many jobs does this government want me to lose? How many employees does this government want us to lay off?"

My party trusted the industry to do what's best for itself. This government across the way seems to play "Father knows best." That, again, goes back to leadership — their version of leadership, our version of leadership. We trust the people. We respect the people. We work with the people. We listen to the people.

The government doesn't trust the people, except to shove decisions down their throats and hope they don't scream for too long and hope they forget. That, to me, is not what good government is about, and that's not what leadership is about.

So I turn to a song. When I'm dealing with an enormity of challenges, when I'm facing things that I'm trying to figure out, often I will turn to arts and culture. It helps me open up my mind, think through different things. It's a Beatles song. It's called "I'm Looking Through You." I'd like to read some of the lines from it for you. You may know it well.

This, to me, really exemplifies what I'm being told by B.C. Liberal supporters who call themselves angry former B.C. Liberals, who call themselves ashamed, who call themselves embarrassed for believing what this government sold. It says:

I'm looking through you. Where did you go?

I thought I knew you. What did I know?

You don't look different, but you have changed.

I'm looking through you. You're not the same.

That's really the truth behind this government. They say they are one thing, but they're something else. You look at them, you think you see something that's the same, but it's different.

Interjection.

S. Herbert: Yes, I hear some of the other members saying that we should sing "I Am the Walrus." Maybe that's about their own members, so I won't go into that song, and they can sing that if they'd like.

Your lips are moving. I cannot hear.

Your voice is soothing, but the words aren't clear.

You don't sound different, but I've learned the game.

I'm looking through you. You're not the same.

So that's really, to me, what exemplifies this government.

[1040]

Now, I think back to our Premier. He also sang a Beatles song. That was back in the '90s. I remember. He put on, I believe it was, a red plaid shirt, took out the guitar and tried to be an everyman, tried to reach out to people who were not respecting or trusting him. He sang "Taxman," I think it was. Yes, that's right. He sang the famous Beatles song about the taxman. "If you try to walk, they'll tax your feet," etc.

Well, maybe he needs to pull out the guitar again and sing, "I'm the taxman," but add in the HST, because: "Oh, if you try to eat, I'll tax your meal."

I'm not a songsmith or a wordsmith, so I won't go too far down that road, but I'd like to turn to the next part of this budget. This is the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, so they say, or the budget deception act. Within this Bill 2 they've introduced yet another change to this balanced-budget act.

I think that this is the second time this year they've said: "Don't worry, trust us. The budget will be the same. The budget will be balanced soon, soon. We're such excellent economic managers. We're the ones responsible for the boom in our province. We're responsible for everything — oh, except for the economic recession. We're responsible for all the good things but none of the bad things."

We look to this bill, and we see…. "Oh, right. Back to trust us." So for the second time in a year they introduced more amendments to the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act.

They say $495 million maximum in deficit, but it might be less. What do we get? We get more than four times that — maybe a little more. Three times? Five times? Six times? Oh, well, it keeps changing. It keeps changing.

My colleague from Fraser-Nicola talks about this as a smudge-it budget. He creates the image of a chalkboard, where you write up the number and: "Oh, that's not quite true after the election, so let's wipe it off and write in a new number." That seems to be the way this government is leading our province: "We'll just make things up and then move along."

I think the next part of this song really speaks to what the B.C. population — what my constituents, what many of these other constituents for the members on the government side of the House — are saying: "Why? Tell me. Why did you not treat me right? Love has a nasty habit of disappearing overnight." Right. In the election:
[ Page 635 ]
"We love you, British Columbians. We're listening to you. We're working with you. You can trust us because we like you."

Oh well, that love disappeared overnight. Must have been on May 13 that the government woke up and went: "Oh, who am I sleeping next to? Oh, British Columbians — right. Sorry, I'm not going to make you breakfast, and you get out of the room, because we've got the people's business to do. Oh, I mean we've got our own business to do, but we'll just call it the people's business. We'll call it the people's business, and we'll slam you. We'll slam you."

"No more eggs in the fridge to cook breakfast. Why? Because you can't afford it anymore because we've increased all of your living costs. Why? Oh, well your rents are going up because of the HST. Why? Well, because your strata fees are going up because of the HST. Maybe we'll go out for breakfast. Sorry, can't do that. It's going to cost you 7 percent more. Oh, and your job…."

Deputy Speaker: Member, I have in the past said that we're not discussing the HST. This is not part of this bill. Therefore, it will be discussed when the HST is brought forward.

Please discuss the parts of this bill….

S. Herbert: Absolutely, hon. Chair. I take that, and I will move on from that one.

So again, in the morning. "Why? Why can't I make you breakfast?" says the B.C. Liberal government. "Oh, because you don't have a job anymore, because tourism has taken a massive hit, and hey, we don't really pay much attention to those who are suffering. We don't really pay attention to those who are in the middle, who are falling further and further behind. No, that's not who we serve. We serve ourselves. We'll serve ourselves breakfast while you can't have any."

That only goes on so long before the people you've treated disrespectfully, the people you've betrayed, the people you've broken trust with speak out, stand up and take action.

[1045]

This is the final part of the song that I'd like to say:

You're thinking of me the same old way.

You were above me, but not today.

The only difference is you're down there.

I'm looking through you, and you're nowhere.

That's really where this government should be. That's where these people should be who tell one thing and do something else. They should be nowhere. They should not be sitting in this chamber — when you say one thing and you do another, when you betray the public trust in such an obvious way that you need to introduce Bill 2, the budget betrayal act, the public deception act — and on and on.

I believe I've made my point. I believe that I've stated clearly why this government should not be trusted, why this government should not be in this House, because I believe the public of B.C. were betrayed.

Now, we need to do better for our people. We need to reach out and listen to these people, listen to our constituents, so I would appeal to the members opposite — if any of them want to be loved tomorrow, not just on election day, if they want to be respected tomorrow, trusted tomorrow — to vote against their own party's budget, because it is a betrayal of the public trust. It is a betrayal of what I believe should be good government.

J. Brar: I do rise to oppose Bill 2. This bill proposes a number of changes, but one of the major changes that this bill proposes, which is very, very important for me to discuss, is that it amends the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act for the second time this year, extending from two years to four years the amount of time that the B.C. Liberal government will be exempt from the prohibition against running a deficit.

Basically, what this bill states is that, before the election, the B.C. Liberal government made a promise to the people of British Columbia, and the promise was very clear. The promise was very firm, and there was no room for change. The promise was that this government would run a deficit for only two years — a maximum of two years, not a day more. That was the promise made to the people of British Columbia before the election.

But as soon as the election was over, the B.C. Liberal government made a U-turn. They broke the promise they made to the people of British Columbia just before the election. Now this government is saying that it will take four years. From two to four years — it will take double the time. They made the commitment to the people of British Columbia just before the election.

That raises a number of questions that the people of British Columbia are asking of the B.C. Liberal government. The question is: why did the B.C. Liberal government need to make this U-turn now? Why? Why is the B.C. Liberal government breaking the promise they made to the people of British Columbia just before the election? Why did the B.C. Liberal government fail to tell the truth to the people of British Columbia before the election? Why was this government not able to identify, to find out, if they had all the information that, in fact, the budget will not be balanced in two years?

They subsequently failed to tell that information to the people of British Columbia before the election.

[1050]

So the issue here is simple. What did this government tell the people of British Columbia before the election, and what did they tell after the election? The theme is very clear. Before the election this government failed to tell the truth to the people of British Columbia. They failed to provide the facts to the people of British Columbia, and they betrayed the people of British Columbia. The theme is very clear.
[ Page 636 ]

If I look at this bill and the need to propose this bill, what I see is that there are four things attached to it. Those four things are the four key promises this government made before and during the election to the people of British Columbia.

The first promise was that they would run a deficit only for two years. And they not only made the promise. They actually brought and tabled a piece of legislation in this House with big fanfare. They said they know it, that they will do it. They understand the economy, and they can do it. They passed that bill to convince the people of British Columbia that they understand everything about the economy. That was before the election.

The second thing which is attached to this bill is that they said they will not impose HST on the people of British Columbia. Madam Speaker, I'm bringing in HST from a different angle because I see that HST is part of this bill, because if there would have been no money from HST, this will not take four years. Probably, it will take much more time than four years, because this government is getting $1.6 million from the federal government under that agreement.

The third commitment they made to the people of British Columbia before the election was that the maximum deficit will be $495 million maximum, not a penny more — $495 million maximum, not a penny more. That promise and that statement were repeated by the Premier to the people of British Columbia time and again during the election.

That was the figure — $495 million. Based on what? This government passed the legislation in this House to balance the budget in two years. And they were challenged on that — that that projection is not right — by the opposition as well as by the economists. I will come back to discuss that in detail as well.

The fourth promise they made to the people of British Columbia was that there will be no cut to education and health care, that they will maintain full funding to the people of British Columbia for both health care and education. That is also very important, but that was before the election. As soon as the election was over, they broke that promise to the people of British Columbia as well.

So four things. Maximum deficit will be $495 million, not a penny more, they will not impose HST on the people of British Columbia, the budget will be balanced in two years, not a day more, and they will maintain funding for education and health care. Those were four major commitments, and they're all attached to this bill. And after just three months — just three months, 90 days — they broke all those four major commitments to the people of British Columbia. They broke those promises in just 90 days.

What does that tell us? That they did not tell the truth to the people of British Columbia before the election, that they did not tell the truth to the people of British Columbia during the election and that they have not been truthful to the people of British Columbia after the election.

[1055]

Let's look at this $495 million budget deficit figure. The Premier said this many times, and the Premier was challenged by the opposition as well as the economists. Surprisingly, some of the economists were part of the Premier's own advisory committee.

Do you know what the Premier said to them? The Premier said to those people…. They are economists. They are professionals. They know what's going on. They said the deficit could be between $2 billion and $3 billion, but this Premier continued deceiving the people of British Columbia, saying that the deficit will be $495 million only.

The Premier said to those economists — who were giving the right information to the people of British Columbia, who were giving warnings to the B.C. Liberal government that they should be truthful to the people of British Columbia — that they are pessimistic, rather than saying that those are professional people providing us the right information so that the people of British Columbia have the right information to decide who they should cast their ballot for. When the NDP, the opposition, challenged their figures as well, they said they were fearmongering.

That was before the election. What we know now after the election is very simple.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The same government that was saying the deficit will be $495 million maximum, not a penny more…. Now we know that the deficit of British Columbia is the biggest in the history of British Columbia, and that's $3.5 billion. That's seven times more than what they told the people of British Columbia just before the election — seven times more if we factor the amount $1.6 billion this government is going to get from the federal government through the HST agreement.

So who was right? Certainly, this government was not right. The economists were right. The opposition was right. That clearly states that they did not tell the truth to the people of British Columbia about the real deficit figures before the election. In fact, the Minister of Finance admitted after the election that he knew the revenue was falling very fast as compared to what they thought. The revenue projections were going down very fast, and he knew about that about two weeks before the election.

The Premier also admitted after the election that he was aware of the falling revenues in the province of British Columbia a week before the election. But both the Premier and the Minister of Finance did not tell that to the people of British Columbia. They did not tell that to the people of British Columbia before the election. People only found out after the election the real size of the deficit, which is seven times more than what these people have been telling the people of British Columbia.

The people of British Columbia — can they trust this government? The answer, simply, is no.
[ Page 637 ]

This government now is saying that it needs permission to balance the budget in four years. They can run a deficit for four years. One of the effects of that is that the money they are receiving through HST, which is $1.6 billion…. I think that with the help of that money, they are now projecting that they will be able to balance the budget in four years. Think about that. Had that money not been available to this government, this will be even longer than four years.

That's why now we know that before the election, when they were asked, "Will you introduce HST on the people of British Columbia?" they said they had no plans to impose HST on the people of British Columbia and businesses.

Deputy Speaker: Member, HST is not referred to in Bill 2.

J. Brar: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

But after the election we found different things.

[1100]

That clearly tells us that they betrayed the people of British Columbia before the election. They betrayed the people of British Columbia during the election, and they continue betraying the people of British Columbia after the election.

The people of British Columbia expect honesty. They expect to be given the facts so that they can make the right decisions, particularly during the election. Elections are very important in democracy. In democracy elections are very important, and more important is that people have the right to know the facts at that time so that they can choose the government they believe in.

That's not what happened in this election, whether you talk about the deficit in two years — the government wanted to run a deficit for two years only, which was wrong — or whether you talk about the deficit size, which was $495 million maximum.

With this piece of legislation going through…. One of the other things the people of British Columbia are worried about is the funding for education and health care, because now there is a deadline that this government wants to balance the budget, which is not a bad thing, by the way. Balancing the budget in four years — from two to four years — is a bad thing, but balancing the budget is not a bad thing. It's a good thing.

People are worried about how it's going to impact the funding for education and health care. What people got from this government before the election was that it will maintain the funding for education and health care, but after the election it's a different thing. It's a completely different thing.

Now there have been funding cuts in health care. We know that. A 10 percent subsidy will be cut. We know that the Mission emergency room is under attack. We also know that sports funding for our schools has been cut. So people are worried about what this government is going to cut, because people cannot believe this government anymore.

The promises they made during the election. I just want to give you a couple of examples of that. In my riding, Surrey-Fleetwood, there's a school called Johnston Heights Secondary School. The funding for the repair of that school was approved before the election, which was $3.5 million. They need that funding urgently. They need that funding now because the roof of the school is leaking, because windows of the school are leaking, because the sunroof of the school is also leaking.

That's why the funding was approved before the election. As a result of that, all the preparation work was done by the school board. In fact, they moved in what they call temporary classrooms, portable classrooms. They moved to the school so that kids can be moved to those classrooms when the repair work is going on. But to the surprise of the parents and the students, as soon as the election was over, that funding was gone.

People now ask questions, with the extension from two to four years of this budget. How can people trust all this when they broke all the promises which they made about 90 days ago during the election? That funding is gone, so parents and students of that school are very, very concerned.

Similarly in the city of Surrey, which is the fastest-growing community in the province, there are two promises that people are very, very concerned and upset that this government made to the people of British Columbia. One was to build a new hospital. The promise was made that the new hospital will be ready by 2009, and now it has been postponed to 2011. Now people are concerned with what's going on — all the funding cuts, whether they will be able to make it even by 2011.

[1105]

Similarly, the other pressure point, when we talk about health care, is the emergency room, because there's a huge wait-list — a wait-list for six, seven, eight, nine hours sometimes. That emergency room was to be built. As for the promise made by this government, the former Minister of Health, it was to be ready by 2010. It was postponed to 2011. It was subsequently postponed to 2012. It was subsequently postponed to 2013. It was subsequently postponed to 2014.

Four years. That will actually complete the third term of this government, and the people of Surrey didn't get even one 2-by-4 from this government when it comes to improving health care.

The people of Surrey are now very concerned as to what will happen to that emergency room when all these funding cuts are going on.

So the issue is very clear. This government says one thing before the election and another after the election. This government says anything before the election to win the election, but when the election is over, those promises are not promises anymore.
[ Page 638 ]

That is true when we talk about Bill 2. I still remember — and Madam Speaker, you also probably remember — that when they tabled that bill that they will balance the budget in two years, they were very, very confident, very firm that they will do it, that they know the economy, they understand the economy, and they'll do it. But just in the same year, after a few months, a kangaroo jump from two to four years.

How can people believe — now they understand four years — that they will be able to balance the budget? How will they balance the budget? Where would they cut to balance the budget? Those are the questions. They cannot, Madam Speaker. This government cannot continue betraying the people of British Columbia. That has to stop. This government cannot continue deceiving the people of British Columbia. That has to stop.

With that, I would like to conclude by saying that I oppose this bill because this bill is based on the information they provided to the people of British Columbia that was not the right information. That was not the information based on facts. So this government needs to be truthful to the people of British Columbia. So I oppose this bill.

D. Donaldson: I rise today to speak against Bill 2 because if I support it as an overall package, then I become complicit in the financial mismanagement of this government — complicit with them, creating the largest deficit in the history of B.C. This Budget Measures Implementation Act endorses the mismanagement, and so I cannot be part of that.

I have some specifics. This government presided over running up a deficit from what they said before the election would be $495 million to one, just after the election, of $2.8 billion — almost six times as much — and they said they didn't know. Well, experts in B.C. and Canada-wide were saying otherwise. This is the financial mismanagement that I can't be part of by supporting this bill.

So what does the government do? Well, in section 1 of the bill, they want to amend the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. It's the second time this year they've amended the act. Now they're extending from two years to four years the time they have to balance the budget. "Oh, run a deficit? Oh, it's illegal? Oh, no problem. We'll just change the law." That's the attitude that we're getting from this government.

Well, let me tell you, when I was on municipal council — and I was on municipal council for ten years in the north — we had to legally balance our budget every year. And you know what? We did. We just couldn't change the law, amend the law because we weren't able to meet our goals. But that is what this government is doing with this Bill 2. It makes a mockery of the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act.

[1110]

The way this government is behaving, you may as well not have the act. Changing the law to suit your own mismanagement — it destroys credibility. This is a government that sets legal obligations and then just changes them. That's not good for democracy, hon. Speaker. It's not good for faith in public institutions. It increases cynicism in the electorate. The people of B.C. want truthfulness and honesty, not subterfuge, from this government. But that is what we are getting — saying one thing and doing another.

Another section of this bill that I want to address is section 20. It deals with the Carbon Tax Act. I concur with my colleague from Surrey-Whalley that the details on this amendment at the committee level are something I look forward to hearing, to actually determine the exact outcomes of what is being proposed. I say that because we know the carbon tax in its current form is a failure, because it has failed to reduce the amount of gasoline consumed and, therefore, carbon emissions.

This government is sending contradictory messages. The Minister of State for Climate Action was quoted in the Globe and Mail recently, saying: "Core government will be carbon-neutral by 2010." We know this is legislated. Later the minister said: "I'm still optimistic over the next two years we'll be able to meet our goals." So we can ask: what is it? Is it next year, or is it the year after, or is it the year after that? Oh yeah, remember the attitude of this government: if you can't make that goal, don't worry. Legislative change is coming your way. We'll just change the date.

Well, it's no wonder the Minister of State for Climate Action is confused. His own government just cut the climate action secretariat's funding by 50 percent — 50 percent, hon. Speaker. They gutted the people who are doing the heavy lifting of addressing how we get to a low carbon economy. No wonder this government is doing some early waffling on its commitment around carbon neutrality.

I look forward to committee work on the adjustments to the Carbon Tax Act proposed under this bill, because I'm willing to work with this government to improve their failed carbon tax so that it actually makes a difference and to make some meaningful moves towards a low carbon economy supported by policy and legislation.

There's another section in this bill — Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act — and it deals with Tourism B.C. It actually provides for the elimination of Tourism B.C., and that's another section of this act that I just cannot support.

In the north, and particularly in the northwest, we have an incredible rate of unemployment. The traditional approach to the economy has failed us, so we're looking at as many means as possible to diversify our economy, and tourism is one of those means. It's a viable option.

Now, we know it means oftentimes seasonal work, but that work is the kind of work that people in my constituency enjoy, because many people in the north and in Stikine live where we are because they enjoy the
[ Page 639 ]
quality of life and the lifestyle. So stringing together two or three seasonally related occupations is a viable way to stay living where we are and to stay connected to the land and the land base that we all love and enjoy. Tourism is a part of the diversification of the economy.

Tourism B.C. was an important part of the mix. They were, and are, a well-respected organization internationally and globally. In the Stikine we get many visitors from around the world for fishing, for touring, for the cultural tourism as well. Tourism B.C. did an excellent job of advertising our assets to the global tourism market.

[1115]

Now this bill calls for the elimination of Tourism B.C. That will not be good for the Stikine and not good for the province overall.

I want to conclude my comments on this bill by saying that as a new member, I find it very, very strange that no one on the government side is rising to speak in defence of Bill 2. This is supposed to be a chamber where we engage in debate around ideas. You know, not one party has all the lock on all the good ideas. So we're willing to go back and forth and debate around ideas.

That's what we owe our constituents. That's what we owe the people of the province of B.C. And yet no one from the other side is rising to speak in defence of this bill. If they think changing their own legislation on running deficits is a good thing, then they should stand up and defend it.

I particularly think of the people in my next-door constituency of Nechako Lakes. The representative from Nechako Lakes is sitting here on the other side today. I'm sure the people in Nechako Lakes would like to hear this government and this member in particular defend the bill that we are debating today. So I would ask him to rise in this House and speak to this bill, because being silenced is not good for anyone.

This is a place to debate ideas and have an honest and respectful discussion back and forth. But the entire government on that side is silent. It's a very, very strange way to behave. With that, I once again register my opposition to Bill 2 as a package and will be voting against it.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member for Stikine, the absence or presence of members in the chamber is not noted.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for reminding me of that.

H. Bains: It is indeed my pleasure and my honour to stand up here again today and talk about something that is before us. In my view, it is one of the most important issues that we are going to be debating in this House. We are debating, of course, issues around the budget and Bill 2 that has been brought before us by this government.

I, too, must say that I will be voting against this bill, because I have gone over and over and looked at every clause of this bill, and there isn't much in there for me to stand here to support. Like my colleague before me said, what we have before us is a litany of mismanagement by this government.

If you go back eight years when they initially took power, when they were handed a $1.6 billion surplus, they were able to manage to bring, within a year, the highest deficit in the history of this province. If that's not mismanagement, I don't know what it is.

Bill 2 now speaks to cover up that mismanagement. What we have before us is that they have mismanaged the first term, they mismanaged the second term, and then they told people before the last election what the budget would look like. Despite all the experts' opinions that a $495 million deficit is not doable, despite the fact that the opposition brought this issue to their attention, this government refused to budge. This government continued to say that the budget will be no more than $495 million — not a penny more.

Madam Speaker, you have heard the Premier. I heard the Premier. The minister is on record to say that the maximum budget deficit will be $495 million. That was before the election. Now, they are going before the electorate asking for their support to give them another mandate. Now, all political parties go to their voters and ask for another mandate, but I've never seen a government that misled their voters as this government has done in the last election.

[1120]

When I walk the streets of Surrey-Newton, any streets in Surrey or other areas of this province for that matter, deceit, betrayal and lies — that's what you hear from the public out there. They feel that they have been betrayed. They feel that they have been misled.

Deputy Speaker: The Member will come to order.

This Member is aware that he cannot say indirectly what he is not permitted to say directly.

H. Bains: Madam Speaker, I wasn't….

Deputy Speaker: I would ask the Member to withdraw.

H. Bains: Thank you, Chair. I withdraw.

I'm just repeating what members are phoning us and telling us, what you hear on the streets, but you get the flavour. The kinds of comments you hear on the street — that's not good for the government.

The government is about priorities. Government is about setting the course for the coming years. Government is about being honest. Government is about transparency. In fact, this Premier, when he first ran in 2001, promised the people of this province that their government would be the most honest and transparent in Canada.

Now, you go out there and talk to anyone on the streets if that promise has been kept. In fact, they feel on the streets that they've been betrayed. They feel that
[ Page 640 ]
this government misled them. They feel that the truth was kept from them in order to win the election. How can you, within a month, describe their anger otherwise, when government, within a month, have changed their story of the budget deficit from $495 million to, in real terms, a $3.6 billion deficit?

Had they not sold this province and the people of the province to the federal government for $1.6 billion on the HST deal, the real deficit would have been $3.6 billion. They are already using that portion of the budget that they're receiving from the federal government added on to this budget, and as a result, they're saying the total deficit is $2.8 billion. The real deficit is a $3.6 billion deficit, if you take that out of the equation.

They also promised to the people of this province…. Not only did they say that $495 million was the deficit. They also said that within two years they will again have surpluses. Within two years they will have surpluses. But within a month the economy that they were warned about by all the economists is going down the tank. They were warned that the real deficit is going to be much closer to $2 billion by experts such as economist Helmut Pastrick. They said to that economist that he's too pessimistic.

Well, guess what we found out. They ought to have known that what Mr. Pastrick was saying was correct. When the opposition was bringing to their attention that the deficit is closer to $2 billion, we were told that we were fearmongering. But soon as the election count was in, guess what. They woke up. "Hello. Yes, you guys were right. We kept it from you, but we won the election. We've got four years, and now we're going to go on our merry way again for four years, and come the next election, we'll try the same trick again."

I have heard on a daily basis on the streets that they will not forget the deceit that they went through before this election, by this government, come next election. They will not forget that. This government better pay attention.

[1125]

The economy is one thing. The economy going into the tank is one thing, and having to have a deficit…. Sometimes you're forced into it. That's a reality. But to keep it away from the electorate is the part the people don't understand, and I don't blame them. I don't blame them.

So now they're saying that they need four years to balance the budget, not two years as they said before the election. Now they need four years. They also promised: "Yes, the budget is $495 million, but we will not cut all those important vital services that people need on health care and education and all the other services that the people need."

Guess what. What we have before us because of their mismanagement, because they kept that information from the public, is that all kind of cuts are coming to health care. Surrey alone…. Fraser Health Authority is facing a $160 million deficit alone.

This is a region where people dread going to hospitals because they believe if you go to Surrey Memorial Hospital for emergency purposes, you will not be seen by a doctor for a good eight, nine hours. They have to wait in pain and bleeding sometimes. It's that kind of situation that we already have in Surrey. Now there's another $160 million cut in that budget.

Introductions by Members

L. Popham: I'm seeking leave to make an introduction. I'd like to welcome one of the two secondary schools from my constituency, Claremont Secondary School. I have 26 grade 11s visiting with their teacher, Aaron Macri. I'd like to make them welcome, and please join me.

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker: Member continues.

H. Bains: Now we'll give you some of the reasons where this mismanagement comes from, why we are in a situation that we are in right now. It's all because of lack of vision. We had some really good years for the past five or six years. Economies all around North America were booming because of good commodity prices. Oil and gas prices were booming, and the moneys were coming like there was no tomorrow.

The responsible government would not simply squander away that opportunity that they had in the previous five or six years. They would actually work towards the bad times ahead of us. We all know what kind of economy we have in British Columbia. It's very cyclical, and they refused to prepare for the time when the economy is going to go down at the lower level. Now we're facing all these cuts.

Then you look at…. They had the convention centre — $500 million cost overrun. This is the government that was telling British Columbians that they are good managers to deal with the megaprojects in this province. They were telling us that they know how to run the economy. But that one example alone — from $495 million it had gone to close to a billion dollar cost overrun. That's pure mismanagement.

It's not just my words or anybody else's words. The Auditor General mentioned that in that report. It was pure mismanagement by this government — half a billion dollars. Can you imagine that half a billion dollars available to us today, where those kids' sports are being cut? It's $130,000 that these kids need, with a dream to one day compete in the Olympics.

In the meantime they find $500,000 about a month ago so the Premier can have a photo op so they can promote themselves to the rest of the world. Those are
[ Page 641 ]
the priorities, and that's mismanagement — what we face day in and day out.

Now Bill 2 is before us, and they expect us to support this. There's no way that we are going to be party to that mismanagement. It's their mismanagement. We're not going to own it. They're going to have to own it. They're going to have to explain it to the public how they mismanaged and why those cuts are coming to those schools and those health care facilities that we have. They need to tell them why they mismanaged and why they kept that information from them before the election.

[1130]

They deserve to have those questions answered. Those are the people who are paying our wages. Those are the people that elected us to be here, to be honest with them, to give them all the information, and then allow them to make the right decision when they go to the ballot box. They kept that information from them. That's the real anger that I feel in the community out there.

The other mismanagement example I gave you…. Remember all those hidden Olympic costs? This government, the Premier, minister after minister stood up in this House and outside. Remember that there's not a penny more than $600 million for the Olympics? You folks must have heard it. They heard it on the street.

The Premier was in here saying $600 million — not a penny more. But then they went ahead and off-loaded onto the local municipalities, off-loaded onto the other public institutions such as UBC and other municipalities.

You know what? The road to Callaghan Valley — $20 million. It's not coming out of the $600 million, but it comes out of the Ministry of Transportation, and then they try to convince the public out there that that's not Olympic cost. How do you explain that?

Those types of mismanagement and bad decisions that this government made are the reason that we are dealing with this situation right now — that they need four years to come back to the balanced budget, not two years as they promised before the election.

The first thing they need to do before they ask for our support is to promise to be honest with the public, is to promise to be truthful to the public. Then they could come back and apologize to the public for not being upfront with them and ask for our support to work with them so we can go through this bad time that we have, that we are all going through.

But you know what? I've seen this group working here. They will not bring themselves up to that level. They will not. So we will continue to have these debates in this House.

They didn't even spare all the taxpayer-supported Crown corporations when it comes to the Olympics and hiding the cost of the Olympics. They went to ICBC. They are to come up with $15 million to pay for the Olympics. They went to B.C. Hydro. They are paying $15 million to pay for the Olympics.

In the meantime, the kids' support is hurting all across this province; $130,000 is all they need. I attended a tournament in my constituency two weeks ago. Here we have the local clubs supporting local children to learn the sport, to compete in the world level.

I want to mention a couple of them. The Khalsa Wrestling Club in Surrey is preparing the children to the world-level competition. Their wrestlers? No support from this government. They are waiting for some support from this government. Instead of giving support, they're cutting a little bit of funding that they had — the kids' support. Khalsa's support didn't get a penny from this, but they're preparing wrestlers to compete in the world competitions.

Hargobind Wrestling Club in Surrey is another club preparing them through voluntary efforts to wrestle in the world competitions. Instead of standing with those clubs, standing with those community groups and helping them as they need, this government is pulling the rug from underneath them. The little support that they ever had in schools — that funding is cut so that the Premier can have a photo op, the Premier can have his image redone in the world's eyes at a cost of $500,000. Those are the priorities of this government.

They had a priority to come up with the $365 million to put a roof on B.C. Place, but a block away from B.C. Place there are homeless people staying and sleeping under the bridges. This is the country that people of the world look up to. This is the promise. This is the province that people look up to, but this government is giving us a bad name in the world community — the way we are treating our poor, the way we are treating working people, the way we are treating our sick.

[1135]

It's all about priorities. Their priorities are to have multi-million-dollar photo ops, multi-million-dollar projects where they can bring their friends, the international community so that they can stand with them, rub shoulders with them, have photo ops and say how great we are.

But the other side of this government's decisions is that the homeless numbers have grown four times since this government took over. Four times. In one of the richest provinces in the world we're not looking after those people who, by no fault of their own, are suffering right now because this government does not come to their aid and provide them with the support that they need to deal with their addiction problem, to deal with their illnesses.

We have Canadian government statistics. Under their watch, because of the mixed priorities, we have in this province the highest rate of child poverty in all of Canada. This is the time when we had record surplus budgets. This is the time when we had, at the same time, the highest child poverty in Canada. Those are not my statistics; those are Canadian government statistics.
[ Page 642 ]

Another part of the Canadian statistics….

Interjection.

H. Bains: Just do some homework. It's there. It was brought up in this House. Just go to the Hansard. Take a look. You know, don't argue with me. Take a look.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, Member.

H. Bains: Through the Chair, Madam Speaker. We also have a record, also parts of statistics, that for those people under their watch since 2003, for those people who were at the lower end of the earnings, their real buying power has gone down since 2003. It's really gone down from 3.5 to 4 percent since 2003. This is another Canadian government statistic.

But for those at the high end, their real earning power has gone up 16 to 20 percent. This is a direct result of this government's policies. They have downloaded the tax shift from the big corporations, the multinationals, on to the working people and middle class. That's the direct result; what we are facing, those statistics call for. That's why we are having that.

Another part of mismanagement I want to tell you about is how they mismanaged the forest industry. The forest industry was, and it should be, the economic engine that drives our economy. It has been, ever since the existence of this province. For 150 years, that was the industry that drove the economic engine in this province.

But under their watch since 2003, when they brought in the forest revitalization program, that industry is decimated. The communities are uprooted. Over 20,000 forestry workers are on the layoff list right now. Over 60 sawmills have been shut down. In the meantime, a record number of raw logs are being exported across the line.

That's the kind of mismanagement we're looking at. The forest industry is at a standstill, thanks to the policies of this government. Instead of standing with the workers and the communities that they live in that are forestry-dependent, this government gave more to the multinational forest companies and asked them to do whatever they please. They basically allowed them to write the Forest Act and do whatever they please.

As a result of that, McDonald Cedar, which was employing about 100 employees in good-paying jobs in the Fraser Valley, went about 20 kilometres south across the line to set up their shop there — the Interfor plant, McDonald Cedar. Why? Because they could do that. They are able to take their raw logs across the line, process there and create jobs in the United States with our raw material.

It is about time that some government stands up, so that our natural resources are used to create jobs and future opportunity for British Columbians, not for someone else. But you can't expect that from this government because they are in the deep pocket of the donors that actually run their campaigns. One of the biggest supporters is the forest industry.

[1140]

That's the reason we are facing, with Bill 2 right now, complete mismanagement. Not a $495 million deficit, not two years to come back to have the balanced budget, but now they need four years with a $2.8 billion deficit — another record, by the way, in the history of this province. This is from a government who campaigned that they are very good economic managers. But if you look at the list that I have given you, it's anything but.

Had we had a government that had even an iota of knowledge of how to run an economy, how to look after the people of this province, we wouldn't be in the financial mess that we find today.

When the United States economy started to go down about a year ago, this government thought everything was fine here. Nothing is going to happen to us. You know how closely tied we are with the United States economy; 75 percent of our trade is with the United States. That's another mismanagement of this government — that they have refused. They have no ability to expand our trade in the international community.

We have India and China, a real growing opportunity for us to have trade with. We have the Middle East. We have Southeast Asia. All of those economic giants are dying and crying for our input into how we can trade with them in their economies, but this government thinks everything is fine, that nothing's going to happen to us, because they have allowed their friends in the big multinational industries to look after our economy.

That may be good for the multinationals, but it's not good for the people of this province, that approach. But if this government continues on with that approach, the next four years…. I really feel for the folks out there, because this is the time that they will use again — that because of the bad economic times, this is another opportunity that they were looking for. They will use that to cut more social programs for these folks who are already having a tough time meeting their ends. The vital services that they need will be cut even further. They will try to use the excuse that we are going through bad economic times.

In the meantime, they're giving corporations tax breaks. Can you imagine that? Next year corporations are going to get a tax break, and the year after that again. But in the meantime, if the local taxpayers need transit services, health care services, help with the sports side for their children or if they need help in delivering education to their children, they are going to go even deeper into the pockets of the same taxpayers. They have been actually taking money out of their pockets for the last eight years.

More money will be coming out of the taxpayers. More money will be coming out of the middle class so that they can keep their friends in high places happy. That's the priority of this government.
[ Page 643 ]

Our priority here is that we will continue to stand. We will continue to stand with the taxpayers, with the middle class, with the poor, with those who are sick, who need our support. We will continue to raise those voices here in this House, despite the fact that this government will try to use their majority to ram through their policy to continue to help their friends in high places.

But they will not get away with it, as they tried to do before the election. We will be the voice of the people. We will be taking this information out to the streets. We will be going into the communities, passing that information to them of what is reality, what's going on in this House, despite the fact that they will try to hide from them as much as they have done in the past.

Madam Speaker, I just want to talk about a couple more things. Also in this Bill 2 they are talking about the elimination of Tourism B.C. This is the time when we are inviting the world. We are inviting the world to come visit us during the Olympics. This is the time we are cutting funding. In fact, we are eliminating Tourism B.C.

[1145]

How do you explain that? How do you explain the contradictions coming out of this government?

On one hand, they want to promote British Columbia, but I guess their idea of promoting British Columbia is to promote the Premier at the cost of $500,000 so that they could try to bring his popularity with the public…. Because right now, his popularity is down to his shoe size, and they are trying to boost that popularity with $500,000.

In the meantime, they're cutting Tourism B.C. This is an organization that should be out there trying to promote British Columbia, trying to explain what British Columbia is all about and inviting those folks to see British Columbia. But no. Because their priorities are out of whack, they are going to go through that again.

We're not even talking about all the other fees that they are going to impose on the taxpayers, like the MSP premiums, the HST that is coming. We're not even talking about that under this Bill 2, but that's also coming.

You know, it's the people who are already having a really tough time trying to hold on to their jobs…. Many of them have already lost their pensions. Others do not have the services that they need. Their children's sports programs are being cut in schools. The community link program in the schools that provides meals to hungry children and some support to go on the field trips — all of that is being cut.

On top of that, they will be asked to pay more; although it's not part of this bill, so we can't talk about that. But that's coming, folks. That's coming. It's on its way — more MSP premiums, and you will be charged HST on items that you never paid it before.

It's a pattern that they established about eight years ago, that they will shift the tax burden from the big corporations and their friends, multi-millionaires, onto the working people, onto the poor people, and cut services to those who actually need those services every day on a daily basis.

But people have woken up. They know the real face of this government now after the last election. They don't believe a word that this government is saying to them — not a word. They don't believe them; they don't trust them. They are crying out for some democratic means so they can have their say.

I think one way, if they want to save face and to bring some integrity back…. What they need to do is put all of those bright ideas that they have to a referendum. Let people decide. Let people decide what they'd actually like to pay and what kind of services they'd like to keep.

My time is up, Madam Speaker. I have a lot more to say, but you know, I will stop at this time. Thank you very much.

Deputy Speaker: I would remind all members that we are debating Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act.

N. Simons: It gives me pleasure to note the time, but before I do that, it's my obligation to stand and speak on behalf of the constituents of Powell River–Sunshine Coast against this bill for a number of reasons, many of which I'll get to after we've all had lunch. And in order to maintain our ability to digest our food appropriately, maybe we should wait until then to get into the details.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

N. Simons moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:50 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CITIZENS' SERVICES

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 10:10 a.m.
[ Page 644 ]

On Vote 20: ministry operations, $164,136,000.

The Chair: Minister, if you'd like to make opening comments.

Hon. B. Stewart: I'd like to, first of all, introduce, to my immediate right, Deputy Minister Kim Henderson, Deputy Minister of Citizens' Services; on my immediate left Beth James, president and CEO of Shared Services B.C.; and immediately behind me here is Lynda Tarras, the head of the B.C. Public Service Agency; and John Bethel, the ADM for alternative service delivery and executive financial officer.

I'm honoured to rise today and introduce the budget estimates for the Ministry of Citizens' Services. The Ministry of Citizens' Services is committed to providing leadership across government for the effective delivery of public services that meets the needs and expectations of citizens, businesses and clients. The creation of this new ministry brings together the responsibilities for information, people, technology and service delivery — touchpoints between government and the citizens of this province.

The B.C. Public Service Agency provides human resource leadership for all organizations represented by the 30,000 employees working to serve British Columbia. The public affairs bureau leads and coordinates communications, ensuring that citizens are informed about government policies, programs and services, and that information is communicated in an open and transparent manner.

Shared Services B.C. provides a wide range of cost-effective infrastructure and services to ministry and government organizations that support the technical achievement of their mandates. Shared Services B.C. is accountable for government's facilities, technology, procurement and supply.

We have built a budget for fiscal 2009-2010 that supports the mandates of all parts of the ministry. The ministry will operate with a net budget of $164.137 million, including Vote 21 on benefits. In response to the tremendous economic and fiscal challenges the government faces, the ministry will be operating with a smaller budget than last year. While this month's budget update means that difficult decisions have to be made, it also challenges us to work together to modernize the operations of government and to become more efficient and focused on what we do.

I'm looking forward to building on the solid foundation and accomplishments achieved under the former Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services as we work towards new successes.

Service B.C. When it comes to delivery of services, no one has been doing it longer or doing it better than the B.C. government agents. Last month I had the opportunity to visit Kamloops and Prince George and had the opportunity to visit a number of Service B.C. centres. I am proud of the outstanding and diverse array of the front counter services delivered by Service B.C.

This year a Service B.C. point of service in Masset opened, as well as the new Port Alberni location. The new Service B.C. centre in Port Alberni combines front-of-counter assistance of Service B.C. and the services of the Ministry of Housing and Social Development, and ICBC This is a great example of how we are working together to provide easier access to government services such as drivers' licences, registration of Medical Services Plan, income assistance, job search and training programs.

As well, this year Service B.C. introduced multilingual welcome signs in all 60 locations across the province. These welcome signs feature 12 different languages, including French, and they go a long way in supporting multiculturalism and diversity in this province.

With respect to multiculturalism, I am proud of how every year we welcome new British Columbians to our province to live and work. We have a huge opportunity as we continue to build welcoming and inclusive communities that embrace multiculturalism and cultural and ethnic diversity.

[1015]

New cross-government funding has gone towards building a provincewide culture of inclusion that accepts and embraces differences. The EmbraceBC program that was recently announced is just one example of how this government supports diverse groups and sectors in promoting multiculturalism.

This past year we held the first-ever provincial Nesika Awards to honour and celebrate British Columbia's cultural diversity and indigenous communities. This commitment is reaffirmed in the budget for the fiscal 2009-2010 year. Last year's program was a great success, and I'm looking forward to the 2009 provincial Nesika Awards.

High-speed Internet is important for the citizens in all corners of the province to share in health, education and economic opportunities. It is also the foundation of economic diversification in rural and remote areas. Today 92 percent of the citizens in British Columbia have access to high-speed Internet connectivity. There are 123 of 203 first nations with access to high-speed connectivity.

NetWork B.C. works with local community groups, all levels of government and the private sector to encourage and facilitate high-speed Internet connectivity, closing the gap for the citizens of this province. NetWork B.C. remains committed to bridging the digital divide in British Columbia and supporting first nations as they connect their remaining communities.

This year the government's information and privacy operations were centralized, now under our Ministry of Citizens' Services. By bringing all freedom-of-information staff together, response times will improve, services will be streamlined, and freedom-of-information requests will be given consistent treatment. We successfully manage over 6,500 freedom-of-information requests a year.
[ Page 645 ]

As of 2008, B.C. received three times as many requests per capita as Ontario and four times as many as Alberta. Since January, when the government's information and privacy operations were centralized, we have improved response times from 71 percent to 81 percent being released within the legislated timelines.

This ministry is broad in scope, and the opportunities and challenges are many. I am pleased and proud to be the Minister of Citizens' Services. I now welcome comments and questions about the budget estimates.

D. Routley: I rise to respond to the minister and bring some questions to him regarding this new ministry, which is rather amorphous in the way that it is integrated into so many other ministries and the businesses of so many other ministries.

But first of all, I'd like to thank the minister for the opportunity to ask him these questions and for his appearance here.

To all of the staff who have accompanied him and, I'm sure, will help us bring answers to the many questions we do have about the ministry, I'd like to extend, on behalf of all the opposition members, our thanks for your presence here.

What we've heard from the minister, of course, is his take on exactly what the ministry is doing, how far they've come along and how they represent the goals and principles of what the government has stated to the people of B.C.

I'd like to offer a different view of what has occurred here. I'd like to offer a view that would encourage us to dismantle the language that we're hearing from the government and from the ministry and from the minister. I'd like people to look a little beyond the labels and the titles.

Freedom of information. I'd like people to consider what we mean when we say Orwellian language. In the United States there was a bill that allowed more pollution into the atmosphere, and it was called the clean skies act. Many people have come to refer to it as the dirty skies act in response to the truth.

[1020]

When we hear the label, the term "freedom of information" and when we remember back to the promises made by the Premier around freedom of information and access to information in this province, I think people can readily see that there's an Orwellian tinge to what's being said. You know, we've been judged second worst in Canada for freedom-of-information requests, and that was in an audit by the Canadian Newspaper Association.

This is a province where the Premier promised that we would have the most open and accountable jurisdiction in the universe, that there would be no withholding of information. There were very strong statements made by the Premier when he was in opposition and ever since around just how open this government would be.

Then we switch our attention to the public affairs bureau — which, indeed, is the largest news agency in the province now, far larger than the newsrooms of Global and the Vancouver Sun and the Vancouver Province. Indeed, many of their reporters are now working for the public affairs bureau. So again, people have to question just what they're being told and really compare the stated goals with the realized outcomes.

Shared services. Well, "shared services" is a rather nondescript term. It encourages us to view very positively the notion that ministries are sharing services, and indeed they should. But what is the intent, and what is the effect on people's lives? What is the effect on British Columbia and the functioning of our government when, in fact, these mechanisms are used instead to reduce service and to reduce the opportunities for British Columbians?

Service B.C. The minister said that they've been doing it the longest. Well, their employees have certainly been doing it the longest. They've been doing it the longest at the wicket on their own. I visited many of the offices over the past few months and, without announcing myself, stood in line for a long time — in most cases, half an hour or more — waiting for service and listening to people in the lineup complain about the lack of service and wonder how the government can be taking so much revenue from the province and delivering so little to them.

Inevitably, they would start to point to the people sitting behind the wickets. Again without announcing who I was, I would ask them: "Do you think it's because of those two people?" In the case of several of these offices, there'll be six or eight wickets with two people on duty because their staff has been cut so far, so close to the bone.

I'd ask the people in the lineup: "Do you think it's the fault of the person standing behind that wicket that we're standing here in line? What do you think is really responsible for that?"

It doesn't take them long to point directly up the chain towards the people who are responsible to them, the people they've elected. It doesn't take them long to equate the same notions that I am — that what they're being told is Orwellian in nature. You know, they see the welcome signs, multilingual welcome signs, and they wonder: "Is there a multilingual wait-time notice?"

They talk about the time that they're giving up from their businesses, from their jobs, from their families to stand in line for services. They're frustrated by the lack of coordination in the implementation of services.

Then when I get to the wicket, that's when I announce who I am to the employee, and I ask them questions about what their working conditions are and just how difficult it is to implement programs.

In fact, computer programs delivered on Monday morning…. On Friday no news of this, and then they have to, in their own time, come up to speed on how to deliver a new service. Then, in frustration and exhaustion, they greet citizens who require service, and there are problems.

I've heard about the rate of sickness and the rate of dissatisfaction on the job. Disregarding the kinds of
[ Page 646 ]
polling that the ministry does and asking…. For example, the public affairs bureau was asking five ministries at the deputy minister level: "How do you think our service is?" "Great, 100 percent satisfaction." Hardly a wonder.

Any survey that would find 100 percent satisfaction also leads one back to maybe the writings of George Orwell, when people are afraid to, in fact, inform people up the chain about what the truth is.

[1025]

Democracy. We're talking about democracy. We're talking about our role. I think my role and the role of the minister is to represent people and represent principles and ideals, a set of ideals, a format that people can count on and believe in.

As a school trustee, as an MLA, I've come to realize that these good people sitting with the minister are managers of the bureaucracy — indeed, are the people with their hands on the wheel of the ship. I believe that we are more or less the tide in the storm that affects the course of that ship, but really, the people who steer it are these good people who are the managers of the system.

If there is such a culture of fear that builds in within government that people cannot honestly report up the chain what they're facing, what the realities are, then we are in a very bad place, and democracy is not in a healthy state and, in fact, dysfunctions. I think we're seeing it. We're seeing it throughout government.

I can only imagine what led the government and the public affairs bureau to coordinate recent announcements, like the cancellation of high school sports programs on the same day that they announced the $500,000 mascot program — having the Olympic mascots tour the schools. So this is obviously a fumbling. No one would do that intentionally, I don't think.

I think it points back to a culture within government and within the public service where people are afraid to say what the truth is. They're reporting to a government that, by my reckoning, has failed to tell the truth to the people of B.C. around so many issues.

They are frustrated when they hear, from us and others, how much is spent on government advertising, all coordinated by the public affairs bureau. Then they become frustrated by the fact that we, with our tax dollars, are paying millions of dollars to support an agency that…. Its sole purpose is to support the image of government.

If I may, Ms. Hawkins…. I'd like to recognize that Ms. Sindi Hawkins has been with us here this morning and thank her for being here and wish her all the best.

People in B.C. could hardly be condemned for becoming cynical when they realize that millions upon millions of dollars are being spent to spin notions and create a reality that isn't reflected in their lives or in their communities. We look at the Premier's record, his stated record, of wanting to run the most open, accountable and democratic government in the history of the universe. Well, the reality of that, I think, is wanting, just as the reality of the freedom-of-information performance is wanting.

I know that people within the system want to do the best they can, but if we don't empower them — one of the two roles of government, to empower — we fail them.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

I think it comes down to a question of principles and values. That's what I'll try to get at during this discussion. I'll try to get at the fact that what we're seeing here is a papering over of a failure to represent people's values and principles in a real way as represented by the actions of government, and I will ask questions that I hope will help us improve that situation.

I'd like to thank the minister for the opportunity. And thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay. First, I'd like to start generally with some budget questions. Given the government's stated intention of cutting costs, can you please explain the government's decision to make Citizens' Services a stand-alone ministry?

This is part of the largest cabinet in B.C. history. Instead of the former joint Labour and Citizens' Services Ministry, how creating a new superstructure of ministry can possibly…. How much do you have to save in government operations just to pay for the creation of this new bureaucracy?

[1030]

Hon. B. Stewart: Thank you very much for your comments, and we're looking forward to having a constructive and important dialogue here today.

The creation of the Ministry of Citizens' Services reflects the government's shift to a model that unites responsibilities for information, people, technology and service delivery. Recognition of all of those elements defines the relationship between the government and the people of B.C.

The change responds to three key forces: first, an aging and increasingly diverse population that places new and greater demands on services and that is expected to result in a smaller public service workforce as employees retire; second, the potential and pressures created by emerging technology; and third, shifting citizen expectations for greater openness and for accessibility of services.

All these factors require government to adapt and modernize its operations and the human resources practices to ensure an efficient delivery of public services. The ministry has a mandate and the resources to ensure that this happens.

D. Routley: Could those goals not have been accomplished within ministries, and shouldn't that be an overriding goal of every ministry in all budget years? Again, why is it necessary that so much money be spent to create this bureaucracy, with so many assistant deputy ministers and CEOs — so many people paid at the highest level —
[ Page 647 ]
to accomplish those goals, when, in fact, I would think that those would be overriding goals every single budget year of every single ministry to begin with?

Hon. B. Stewart: First of all, I'd like to take the opportunity to introduce to the Chair as well as the members of the opposition here Ron Norman, who's the head of the public affairs bureau. Ron has joined us here to answer questions today.

In answer to the member opposite's question about the creation of the ministry, the added costs, I understand, especially in these difficult times, how those concerns are of the foremost importance in every minister's and ministry's minds, and the government's.

The Ministry of Citizens' Services has actually been created by taking budgeted amounts that were pre-existing in other ministries. There are no new dollars. As a matter of fact, there's a decrease in the actual expenditures of the Ministry of Citizens' Services for all of the components that were taken away from other ministerial areas.

As far as the addition of staff that we're working with, the fact is that we actually have no new staff. The people that you're referring to are people that were working previously in government with responsibility for similar areas or different areas.

They've been brought together to help basically create an effective use of the technology and the service that we're trying to aspire to in being able to deal with the challenges that we believe the citizens of British Columbia face in getting services from the government as we see an aging demographic, as well as the fact that we're in a very changing and emerging society around technology.

D. Routley: Thank you, Minister. Aside from the labour programs, what program areas have been moved out of Citizens' Services to other ministries, and why were they moved?

[1035]

Hon. B. Stewart: The Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services presented a budget of $78.262 million in the February 2009 estimates. As a result of the reorganization announced in June, labour programs were removed from the ministry and created as a separate ministry, which included a budget transfer of $21.581 million out of the old ministry budget.

D. Routley: Which programs have been moved out of Citizens' Services to other ministries, and why?

Hon. B. Stewart: In the splitting of Labour and Citizens' Services, the labour programs were moved to a separate stand-alone ministry.

D. Routley: What program areas have been moved into Citizens' Services from other ministries?

Hon. B. Stewart: Transferred into the Ministry of Citizens' Services from the Ministry of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development was the B.C. Public Service Agency, with a budget of $74.706 million for program operation; and responsibility for the benefits vote, which is a $1,000 vote but has a gross budget of $437.275 million.

Transferred in from the Ministry of Finance was the public affairs bureau, with a budget of $28.113 million; and finally, transferred from the Ministry of Attorney General was the responsibility for multiculturalism and a budget of $667,000. The result of these changes is a new Ministry of Citizens' Services with a net budget of $164.137 million.

D. Routley: My understanding is that information-and-privacy operations were moved into the ministry and, also, workforce planning and leadership. In the case of workforce planning and leadership, where was it moved from and why?

Hon. B. Stewart: First of all, I think that in the first statement there the freedom-of-information operations were reorganized in the previous budget and moved in and were not a result of this reorganization that happened in the February 2009 budget.

Workforce planning and leadership sector has always been part of the Public Service Agency budget, and a small amount of budget was transferred in from the Office of the Premier.

D. Routley: How much was that budget transfer from the Premier's office, and who in the Premier's office was in control of that program before the transfer?

[1040]

Hon. B. Stewart: The amount of the budget transfer from the Premier's office was $320,000. The responsible staff member was the deputy, Kim Henderson, who remains responsible for workforce planning and leadership in Citizens' Services.

D. Routley: What was the previous budget for this function versus its current budget?

Hon. B. Stewart: As part of the June reorganization, this program was created from existing funding that resided in a number of different program areas. The B.C. Public Service Agency provided $5.693 million. Services to citizens and businesses. The web-based services was another $4.535 million, and executive and support services for internal communication staff was $428,000. The transfer of the two staff positions from the Premier's office responsible for the future work program was $320,000.
[ Page 648 ]

D. Routley: How many people work in this program area?

Hon. B. Stewart: The workforce planning and leadership branch has 114 staff. But the bulk of those staff are from the on-line channel office, which is also included in that branch.

[1045]

D. Routley: Mr. Chair, for the benefit of the people at home — I'm sure there are millions of them watching this — I should explain how this works. I'm supported by staff who have helped me prepare these questions.

In these interludes between my questioning of the minister and his answers, the minister consults his staff. In the beginning I referred to the fact that I think the people with their hands really on the wheel of the ship are the good people who manage the government, the bureaucrats, and we appear as the storm and tide that affect the course. I think it's pretty clear that the people that are with the minister are very much in the driver's seat of a lot of these programs. Again, I'd thank them for their input into this and for the excellent answers that I've been given.

To add to that, I have to jump up and ask my questions right away. I don't have the luxury of preparing my question, except while the minister is preparing his answer — just for the benefit of the thousands upon thousands of people watching.

How has the mandate of this function of government changed since it was moved into Citizens' Services?

Hon. B. Stewart: The workforce planning and leadership secretariat was established originally to lead the transformation of the operations and human resources of the B.C. public service and to ensure that it's able to meet the needs of citizens and the elected administration over the next decade. The only change in June was the movement of the on-line channel office, which was always in the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services. It's just part of this reorganization.

D. Routley: How has this mandate changed since the February budget and the new deficit difficulties that the government has now admitted to?

Hon. B. Stewart: The workforce planning secretariat was set up originally in January of this year, first of all with the goal and the view towards dealing with the ongoing shift in the public service. It always has existed in some form, shape or other. However, the emphasis became, obviously, much more of a priority for government when it was created with that terminology and the resources behind it.

[1050]

Today it continues to deal with the ongoing workforce adjustments that the government has been facing, and as you're aware, we've made some announcements. The secretariat is very much focused on dealing with the long-term view and trying to bridge the gaps in the near term.

D. Routley: Actually, in a briefing with your deputies I was told that this decision was made to allow flexibility for budgeting, to permit money to be moved between the main ministry and the public affairs bureau and the B.C. Public Service Agency.

Do you agree, Mr. Minister, that this is the rationale for the decision, and is there any limit to how much money the government can shift from core ministry programs now to the public affairs bureau?

Hon. B. Stewart: Hopefully, I've interpreted the question properly. The workforce planning secretariat, just to clarify, is a separate division that is a single vote that will provide the flexibility and help promote a unified culture through the one-vote structure, excluding benefits and one service plan.

D. Routley: My apologies. I should have been more clear. The public affairs bureau and the Public Service Agency used to be under separate votes. Now they've been rolled into one ministry. Why was the change made?

Hon. B. Stewart: Just to maybe kind of try to set the stage here a little bit, one of the things that the government has tried to do in this reorganization is make certain that we're not duplicating our corporate resources in terms of the fact that we have three different service plans.

[1055]

The changes that are made to establish the Ministry of Citizens' Services reflect a direction that aligns the human resource challenges that were being faced within the public service with the related priority of ensuring a more innovative and effective delivery of services to British Columbians and ensure that coordination and benefits are all in one service plan rather than three separate service plans.

D. Routley: It seems, from what I was told in the briefing, that this was an effort to allow flexibility in budgeting and, as I said, allow money to be transferred from core ministry functions to the public affairs bureau. If the minister agrees with this, what is the limit on the amount of money that could be transferred to the public affairs bureau from core ministry functions?

Hon. B. Stewart: First of all, that briefing, which was with yourself and staff…. Just to clarify, they talked about flexibility. It was not about moving budget into the public affairs bureau, as the member implies.

D. Routley: How would the public know if money is shifted, then, through this form of management from,
[ Page 649 ]
say, Multiculturalism or government agencies over to the public affairs bureau? Will the public affairs bureau put out a press release?

Hon. B. Stewart: Just so you know, it's not something that can move around, from the standpoint that it's published in the estimates book already, as part of the service plan, by subvote.

D. Routley: It seems that this step has made budgeting for the public affairs bureau even less clear. Why would the government take a step to make the budgeting and the potential resources directed to the public affairs bureau even less clear to the public?

[1100]

Hon. B. Stewart: You know, I don't know how to maybe present it so that there's any more transparency or clarity on this. The public affairs budget is published as a subvote within the estimates, as well as in the public accounts. It's completely open to any scrutiny that the opposition wishes to look at. The fact is that this year the public affairs bureau, as with many other parts of the Citizens' Services Ministry, has taken a significant reduction.

D. Routley: The public affairs bureau used to be a separate vote, and now this is all a single vote. So is the minister saying that funds cannot be transferred from function to function under that single vote? Funds cannot be transferred from other core ministry functions to the public affairs bureau or from any other program to another program. Is he saying that cannot occur?

Hon. B. Stewart: I want to be really clear. This flexibility that we talk about in terms of what we're looking for under the single vote structure, where it used to be separate votes, is for some flexibility in terms of the fact that we've compressed a number of different functions into one organization.

However, I want to reiterate that the government's plan is that we're not intending on moving funds between different subvotes. However, that is a possibility — that if it was needed, it could happen. The reality is that that's available through public accounts in a completely open and transparent manner.

I just cite one example where a lot of the resources that are needed…. I'll give you an example: the H1N1 virus this year. The episode that occurred in the spring cost the government, out of its very small and limited advertising budget, over a million dollars. These public issues or service issues are the responsibility of the public affairs bureau to make certain that they deliver the message in a timely and effective manner.

D. Routley: That makes the information available after the fact, but through the budget we have no ability to judge in a clear way what the intention of the government is. In fact, it seems to leave open any amount of transfer from any other ministry function to the public affairs bureau, or from any other function to another function.

So how will we know? Again, it's slightly facetious, but will the public affairs bureau issue a press release to let us know? How will we know how these issues are being affected? There's a high level of sensitivity in this province to the level of government advertising we've seen.

[1105]

Hon. B. Stewart: I want to be completely clear that the funds that are within each of the subvotes…. It's not the intention, nor is it within keeping of meeting the service plan goals, to move funds between subvotes. However, that option is a possibility.

As I mentioned, the public accounts is the only way…. It is after the fact, as you mentioned. However, as you can imagine with the significant financial pressure that we have faced and the reduction in overall costs, to meet all of the service plan goals…. It's very difficult to do additional things and move funds, as you purport in your suggestion.

D. Routley: Again, it seems to be a lack of clarity and a lack of transparency, where we should see more clarity and more transparency. Under one vote it means that we won't find out until after the fact — until, in fact, after the next budget is read. We won't find out until next July what the true amount is.

Can the minister reassure the people of B.C. that there is a limit to the transfers, ministry to ministry, because these functions…? The advertising appears to have been at a rate of $28 million, seven times the stated goal. I think that's double the stated goal for the coming year.

Hon. B. Stewart: I think that it's really important to know that it's not our intention, nor is it within any part of government, to transfer funds.

Let me just portray the situation. I referred to the H1N1 virus. The fact is that we've had to budget accordingly within Health to deal with a vaccine that wasn't an anticipated issue.

I think that you have to realize that a budget is a set of guiding principles. The record for this particular government is that it has successfully and successively delivered each successive budget, meeting its stated objective or exceeding in terms of the surplus that was expected.

I think that you have to look at the record of government and understand that even with this significant reduction that the government is making across all government services, the reality is that there are unforeseen pitfalls that we may run into. That flexibility, as the staff have
[ Page 650 ]
informed you, is absolutely essential for those types of public safety issues that may arise.

D. Routley: Let's look at the government's record. Let's look at the record of its stated intentions and compare that to the reality.

Let's look at what the public affairs bureau has spent money on in placing ads. They've been ads for the best place to live and work and whatnot in the world, and that kind of thing is what people object to. They object to multiple placements of ads immediately before an election or immediately before budgets that encourage people to feel good about their government. That's hardly simple information-sharing and informing an electorate in order to assist democracy.

Yeah, the demands of H1N1 can be offered up to explain some degree of required flexibility, but within the existing budget and goals, you'd think that flexibility could have been met. In fact, what's been stated as the goal for public advertising is 1/7 of what we saw in the last budget and half of what the government's stated goals are.

[1110]

Again, on stated intention, let's switch to the HST, the government's stated intention with the HST in terms of harmonization. If we're going to examine the government's credibility and if the minister wants me to entertain the notion that the government's stated intentions can be taken as anything worthy of promise, then I'd like to ask a few questions about the HST.

What does the HST mean to this ministry and its functions?

Hon. B. Stewart: Just to be, I guess, clear, the question is about how the HST affects the individual Ministry of Citizens' Services.

In terms of the key issues identified by specific sectors, we are working to address those as we move forward to implementation next year. That's why we announced the intention to move forward to a harmonized tax system in July of 2010 — to allow almost a year to work through the implementation issues.

If you have questions regarding the HST and its implementation, I would ask that you direct those to the Minister of Finance and the tax policy branch of the Ministry of Finance.

D. Routley: These are questions about the Citizens' Services Ministry, and I think it's only reasonable that the government…. Maybe it didn't share the intention regarding the HST with the public. It maybe didn't share the implications of the HST with its ministers if the minister can't tell us what effect the HST will have on the operations and budget of his ministry.

So again, I would ask: what does this implementation of the HST mean to the budget of Citizens' Services? How will it affect the functions of Citizens' Services? And maybe more specifically, what does this implementation of the HST mean for the outsourcing contracts under the Shared Services B.C. title?

Hon. B. Stewart: We're in the early stages of understanding the implications of HST in terms of Citizens' Services, and I think that the appropriate place to ask those questions would still be with the…. Direct them to the Ministry of Finance or the tax policy branch of the Ministry of Finance in order to get a proper and accurate implication for your question.

D. Routley: It seems incomprehensible to me that the government would not have run some sorts of models of how the HST would affect the ministries' operations. If the minister doesn't know how the harmonized sales tax will affect the delivery of services in a ministry that surely must be one of the most affected ministries, given all the shared service contracts that they have…. If they haven't examined what implications that has for the contracts they've engaged in, then I would suggest that there's something wrong with the planning here.

[1115]

Could the minister please share with me what implications the HST has on the ministry's stakeholders, on those people who have engaged contracts with the ministry for outsourced services?

Hon. B. Stewart: I appreciate wanting to have all the answers in front of us in terms of the harmonized sales tax. I want to remind the members opposite that the harmonized sales tax is a replacement for the existing PST system, and as with any tax structure, it's a very complicated and difficult system. As I'm not the Minister of Finance, I don't have all those answers in terms of the implications in terms of the stakeholders.

I think that the best way for the opposition members to get the answers that they require is to bring it up with the Minister of Finance as to how it will affect government services. We're still reviewing that. You are correct in the sense that there is a wide range of services that it may affect with government, and we're still working that out.

I also want to remind the member that the budget that we're talking about…. This is not an issue in terms of the 2009-2010 budget. The implementation occurs on July 1 of 2010 — which by the February 2010 budget will be a matter for discussion, I believe, at that time.

D. Routley: Again, it's incomprehensible to me that the government has stood up and claimed that the HST is the best thing that we could do for our economy. Indeed, the minister himself — in his response to the throne speech, the budget — stood and claimed that the HST would create jobs, that it would streamline functions in business and that it was the best thing since sliced bread
[ Page 651 ]
for our economy and for job creation in this province. Yet the minister can't tell me what affect the HST has on his ministry.

I really find it hard to believe — and we're hearing from many British Columbians that they find it very hard to believe — that these things weren't considered in fullness. If they weren't, it seems an incompetence on the part of government to introduce the act of harmonizing the sales tax without being aware of its broad implications on the economy, on the lives of British Columbians and even, specifically, on their own ministerial functions.

These shared B.C. contracts are long-term contracts. So how could the government impose the harmonization without considering the effect on those contracts, without considering the effect on the individual ministerial budgets and without considering the effect on the lives of the working people within those organizations?

It's all well and good to refer us to the Finance Minister for very general answers to the general effects of the HST. I'm here asking questions about the Ministry of Citizens' Services. I'm here asking questions of the Minister of Citizens' Services, and it's my expectation — I believe it's the expectation of those many thousands of people watching — that those questions be answered by their minister.

Will the minister please share whatever information he has, however slim, on what the effect is of the harmonized sales tax on the contracts of Shared Services B.C., on the outsourcing that this ministry is engaged in and on the budget of his ministry? I'm sure they must be planning more than one budget cycle ahead as to the effects of their policies.

Hon. B. Stewart: I want to make certain that…. You know, we announced the HST as early as we physically could to allow for people, as well as government, to be able to properly understand the complexity of what embedded provincial sales tax exists. It exists in our outsourcing agreements. It exists in government.

[1120]

The reality is that that embedded provincial sales tax is going to be something that is still being worked on, as I mentioned, by the Ministry of Finance, as to the savings to government and how or what effects it will have on the ministerial budgets. Again, until that work is complete, and the budget is going to be coming forward in 2010, we won't be able to properly answer your question.

I can tell you that I do believe in the HST. As a manufacturer I can tell you that there are two things. One is that the government is not the economy in British Columbia. The economy is people outside working in business, whether it's in the resource sector, whether it's in forestry. Those people depend on having the lowest cost of goods possible to make certain, as a province that depends on exports, that we can bring the lowest and most competitive price for our goods into these international markets and a global economy.

D. Routley: The minister, I understand, is an excellent salesman and is a good businessman. I was a salesman too. I used to manufacture bicycles and sell them to people. You have to stand behind your product and believe in it.

But there's a limit. When you sell a product to someone and make claims of its quality and then can't back that up with any information that would support the claim, you have a problem. In fact, the minister and his government have been trying to sell to B.C. the notion that a harmonized sales tax is good for our economy. In fact, they have made such a claim like a lifetime warranty, that it's the best thing for the economy ever. How could you make such a claim without knowing the facts?

It seems to me that the minister doesn't know the facts, that the government itself doesn't know the facts. By these answers, he's made wild claims about the qualities offered by their product, the HST, without any supporting facts.

They've said that this will create jobs in the province of B.C. The minister has said that there are embedded provincial sales tax costs along the production chain of either a service or a product. How could a government take such a dramatic step that its leader said for a decade it wouldn't do, that you didn't believe in it? How could this transformation occur?

Was it a leap of faith? Is this transformation to endorsing the HST simply a leap of faith or a leap at a $1.6 billion carrot that the federal government offered? How is it supported by fact?

How can the minister stand in his response to the throne speech, the speech from the Crown, and the budget of his own government and claim that the HST is the best thing for our economy and not be able to offer a single fact as to its effect on his own ministry — not a single fact on the cost of his budget, the cost to the many contracts that our government has, I assume in good faith, entered into with these outsourcing agents? It seems impossible. It seems either that things have not been shared with British Columbians — the facts of the effect — or that there's an incompetence in implementation.

I'd like to know more. The people of B.C. would like to know more. How could this decision be made with so little awareness of its effect on their lives, on their businesses?

The minister is right. The economy isn't government, but the government is a player in the economy, a very large player, $30-some-odd billion — $37 billion, is it? That's a large player in the economy. It provides a multitude of services — health care services, education services and citizens' services, a major player in the economy — yet we don't have a single fact coming forth as to the effect of their decision.

I would again ask the minister who is responsible to administer this ministry, Citizens' Services: what effect will this have on his budget? How many jobs will be created in the chain of production of Citizens' Services? Those were the minister's claims in his own speech, and
[ Page 652 ]
they're the claims of his government — that this decision will create jobs. How many in his ministry, and what will be the effect on his budget? I'm sure he must have considered that before he made those speeches.

[1125]

Hon. B. Stewart: You've raised some very important questions, and I don't disagree that the citizens of British Columbia deserve answers to what you've brought up. We don't have all those answers today, because we're still doing the analysis in our own area. I know that it would be nice to have all the answers, but as business persons, both of us, and having produced things, we have to sit down and go through the process of how much embedded PST — or those types of discussions we can have — is in every single item that we have in our production chain.

We're here today to talk about the estimates, which are not subject to HST and don't have any component in the $164 million budget for this Ministry of Citizens' Services. I would like to offer, to be able to debate and have the discussion about the embedded HST in the upcoming spring of 2010 budget. I give you my assurance that we'll try to answer those questions at that time.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

D. Routley: Entirely unsatisfactory. I'm sorry, but the throne speech and the budget both refer to it as being the best thing since sliced bread for our economy. This minister stood and made those same speeches supporting the decision. It just seems impossible.

I'd like to ask the minister: how can he make the claims that he has about the HST's effect on our economy if he can't give me even the most basic answer about the effects on his own ministry? Just the most basic: which services would be affected, and which stakeholders would be affected? It seems absolutely impossible and it seems irresponsible to make claims such as the government has made on the effect of the HST without offering any kind of fact.

If you can't offer any fact, then it seems that it is haphazard. Why weren't the people of B.C. consulted about this implementation before the decision was made? If the government now has to take this whole year and can't share with us the effects of the decisions that you've made on our own government, on our own services, then why weren't the people of the province, the stakeholders in your own ministry and those people who have engaged in contracts to outsource government functions consulted openly about the effects of the HST?

If the government as represented by the minister can't stand up in this room, related to his budget, and reflect and relate to British Columbians the effect of the decisions the government has made, then we're all in trouble. What is the motive of the decision?

Was it simply the $1.6 billion carrot, and now we must, in all our ministries, stand up just like those public service employees who are afraid to report up the chain? Are the ministers afraid to report up the chain that we don't know whether this is good or bad or how good or how bad, but we can take our marching orders and our messaging from our friends in the public affairs bureau and make claims, make warranty claims, on the effect of the HST on the economy? It seems impossible, but it seems also impossible to get any answer related to that issue.

I'll move on and ask the minister how many FTEs the minister is budgeting for. How many FTEs are budgeted in each of the main program areas for this year?

[1130]

Hon. B. Stewart: In answer to the FTEs that the Ministry of Citizens' Services is budgeting for, I'll read each subvote and give you the exact number we're budgeting for — services to citizens and businesses, 395 full-time employees; workforce planning and leadership, 114; the office of the chief information officer, 118; Shared Services B.C., 1,552; the Public Service Agency, 340; the public affairs bureau, 197; executive and support services, 55; the benefits department, 51; for a total of 2,822.

D. Routley: Just as an aside, I missed the total. If you could add that to the answer to this next question.

Where are the FTEs, which the minister has spoken of, expected to increase and decrease? Could he relate those to previous levels?

Hon. B. Stewart: That number, just to clarify, was a total workforce of 2,822.

The decrease forecast to services to citizens and businesses is a decrease of approximately 10 percent. We're even in workforce planning and leadership. The office of the chief information officer is down 28 percent; Shared Services B.C., up 16 percent; Public Service Agency, down 11 percent; public affairs bureau, down 9 percent; executive and support services, down 19 percent; and benefits, down 19 percent — a net increase of 5.6 percent.

D. Routley: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that information. I wonder why that information wasn't included in the budget.

[1135]

Hon. B. Stewart: One of the reasons why that information wasn't included in the budget is that we're working on taking a more corporate approach in terms of the way that we look at workforce adjustment. Our plan is to publish a corporate HR plan this November, and those numbers will be included as part of that plan with adjustments as required.

D. Routley: It seems absolutely a corporate approach, and one of the complaints people have about the corporate approach is that it's top-heavy. So I look at the increase
[ Page 653 ]
in FTEs in Shared Services B.C., the agency tasked with downsizing government, and in fact, they're increasing by 16 percent.

Are there more senior executives being hired into Shared B.C. on the corporate model? That's facetious, granted, but I'd like to know how the agency tasked with downsizing government finds itself in such an increase and where those FTEs are.

Hon. B. Stewart: First, I just want to restate. In the opening we referred to the fact that there are no new executives that have been…. This is an amalgam of different operations from around government. So there hasn't been, as suggested, a hiring within Shared Services.

What was done, as I mentioned earlier as well, was that in January of 2009, Shared Services B.C. took on the responsibility of freedom-of-information requests, and this is where the entire increase comes from. It was a transfer over of staff. I think that should answer your question.

D. Routley: It does answer where they are applied. The minister has suggested that there are no new executives. Well, the B.C. Liberal government promised to reduce senior executives by 20 percent. So where are the reductions in senior executives?

Hon. B. Stewart: In terms of corporate reductions, in the February 2009 budget the budget objective of the Minister of Finance was to reduce government expenditures by over $1.9 billion. In the February budget there was a 20 percent reduction in the number of ADMs and deputies within government, and that's where the corporate reduction in executives has already happened.

D. Routley: This question is related to the public sector wage increase in 2010. How is the minister budgeting for the remaining 2 percent wage increase for government workers?

Hon. B. Stewart: The 2 percent that you referred to has already been budgeted in the budget in February, as well as this budget update.

D. Routley: What service cuts have been made to accommodate that increase?

[1140]

Hon. B. Stewart: I guess the best way to answer that question is that the government entered into contractual collective agreements that came into effect on April 1, 2006. As such, there were increases made on April 1 of 2007 of 3 percent; 2.5 percent on March 30, '08; and 2 percent on March 29, '09. Those are all budgeted for. There are no service cuts that have been scheduled as part of that.

D. Routley: During the recent budget it was announced that MSP premiums would be increased. I'd like to know how the ministry is budgeting for the added MSP costs for its employees.

Hon. B. Stewart: That extra increase that you refer to is about $1½ million, which is in the other vote we're going to discuss later on, called Vote 21. It has been budgeted for in Vote 21.

D. Routley: Well, it seems not a direct answer to the question. How has the minister accommodated, within his own budget, the MSP premium increases?

Hon. B. Stewart: I don't know how to be any more direct than telling you that the benefits vote that we will discuss after we're finished Vote 20 includes an additional $1½ million to cover that extra cost for MSP premiums in this current fiscal calendar year.

D. Routley: One of the other commitments that this government has made was related to carbon neutrality. I'd like to know how the minister in his ministry is budgeting for carbon neutrality costs.

Hon. B. Stewart: I'd just like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 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