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

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 3, Number 2

[ Page 655 ]

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2009

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, before we get started, I have a really special announcement to make. This morning at 7:57 my daughter-in-law Hilary and son Glen blessed me and my wife, Edna, and John and Janet Thompson of London, Ontario, with a seven-pound baby boy. Would the House please welcome Benjamin Charles Barisoff.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, first of all, congratulations to your family.

Visiting the precincts today from the storied state of West Virginia, from the House of Delegates, is the Clerk of that house of assembly, Gregory Gray. He is the Clerk. He is here with two staff members, and I hope that the entire House will make the delegation from West Virginia feel very welcome here in British Columbia's parliament.

[1335]

D. Routley: Would the House help me welcome two friends from the Cowichan Valley, Annie May and John Miller. Annie May has served our community in many volunteer faculties, and she's an excellent friend and supporter. John was a longtime PGE — formerly Pacific Great Eastern — and B.C. Rail employee. He has told me many stories about his railroading days. I appreciate their friendship, their support and their presence here today. So please help me welcome them to Victoria.

R. Sultan: Don and Anna Grant, who are in the House today, are hikers and skiers starting from the days when if you wanted to go skiing, you first had to hike up. There weren't any ski lifts.

After 35 years of teaching — with emphasis on music — in West Vancouver schools, Don and Anna have devoted their energies to the restoration of the Hollyburn Ski Lodge, which I can still remember from the days when if you wanted to ski, you had to hike. Would the House please make them welcome.

E. Foster: I have two guests in the House today. First, a longtime friend, neighbour and supporter of mine from Lumby, Ms. Jackie Hansen. Accompanying her is the most important of my supporters — my wife, Janice Foster. I would like the House to make them welcome.

S. Fraser: Today visiting us in the House is Mr. Wernart van Deventer, and he's here with the Port Alberni Christian School grade 5 class. There are ten stellar students and two chaperones. Would the House please join me in making them feel very, very welcome today.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I've got three special guests here today. Bob and Peggy Heywood worked tirelessly on my campaign. Bob is a retired superintendent with the RCMP and, most recently, retired city of North Vancouver councillor. His wife, Peggy Heywood, is retired and an artist, and her mom, Irene McIntosh, is a retired accountant from Duncan. Please make them welcome.

Hon. I. Black: I have two introductions to make this afternoon. It's a pleasure and an honour to welcome a very, very good friend of mine and a minister from the federal government. The Hon. James Moore is in the precinct this afternoon. He's the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages and the Member of Parliament for my area of Port Moody–Westwood and Port Coquitlam. I ask the House to make the minister feel most welcome.

My second set of introductions has to do with two good friends of mine, one of whom is very, very instrumental in my re-election. His name is Chris Barry, and his friend Katie Birj is here as well in the precinct. I ask the House to please make them feel welcome as well.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

fetal alcohol spectrum disorder

M. Elmore: I rise today to mark September as fetal alcohol spectrum disorder awareness month. September 9 is recognized worldwide as international FASD awareness day. It's vital that we are conscious of the impact of this condition on individuals and on our communities and that we support innovative responses to FASD.

FASD is an umbrella term that refers to a range of disabilities caused by the drinking of alcohol during pregnancy. It's an inherently preventable disorder, and effects vary greatly from individual to individual. The effects can include mental and physical disabilities, addiction issues, hyperactivity and lack of social skills.

Individuals with FASD are often misdiagnosed with behavioural disorders that don't take into account their underlying brain-based condition. People with FASD usually end up facing a variety of challenges in their lives: disrupted education, mental illness, poor employment records, drug and alcohol abuse. They often end up in the criminal justice system when our overburdened mental system fails them.

Raising awareness about FASD is key to improving the life chances of people with FASD. While prevention
[ Page 656 ]
is vital, there is considerable work we can do to improve the quality of life for people living with FASD.

[1340]

I would like to point to the Vancouver and Surrey FASD round tables as innovative models for responding to FASD. These round tables, created by grants from Justice Canada and the Victoria Foundation, bring together individuals with FASD, their families, MCFD, the RCMP, the Vancouver police department, educators and other agencies that deal with FASD. They focus on services for youth and children and strive to improve education outcomes and reduce involvement in the criminal justice system.

The integrated services strive to develop coordinated responses to FASD. They take into consideration the specific life circumstances and needs of children and youth living with FASD. Because of the complex impacts of FASD, this coordinated and individual response is essential.

I hope all members will join me in recognizing FASD Awareness Month, the real contribution these individuals with FASD can make in our society and the need for sustainable funding.

SCHUBERT CENTRE

E. Foster: I'm pleased to rise in the House today to talk about the Schubert Centre Society. Founded in 1984, the Schubert Centre is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year. The centre is located near where Vernon pioneer James Schubert built the first house in Vernon. The east wall of the centre displays a mural depicting this connection.

With the spacious interior and hard-working staff and volunteers, the Schubert Centre regularly provides activities such as dancing, singing and games as well as musical and fine arts performances. These along with the excellent food services keep the members and guests coming back for more.

Accessibility is a key component to patrons of the Schubert Centre. The facility is easily accessible for everyone with its free parking, close proximity to transit and well-kept walkways during the Okanagan winters.

All of this could not be possible without the hard work of the volunteers. President Fred Smilski, vice-president John Toporchak, treasurer Ron Denton and secretary Felinda Saunders lead a hard-working board of directors without whom none of this would be possible. A special thank-you is also in order to the centre's manager, Jack Gareb, and his staff for providing a truly exceptional service.

Whether you're in the mood for a game of snooker, cards or bingo, the Schubert Centre has a wide array of activities for the active Vernon senior. I would like the House to please join me in congratulating them on 25 years of service to seniors in the North Okanagan.

MAE-JONG BOWLES

G. Coons: Today I would like to share a motivational story about a constituent of mine from Prince Rupert — a teacher, a good friend and a magnificent sailor. Mae-Jong Bowles grew up in the orchards of British Columbia's Okanagan Valley.

Although she was a terrific athlete, Mae never learned to swim. When she was at a high school graduation, as a joke Mae was tossed into the swimming pool. One of her friends finally figured out she was really drowning and dove in and pulled her out.

Mae met and married Marty Bowles, with whom I taught for many years at the alternate school in Prince Rupert. Marty is an avid sailor with a severe passion for life on the sea.

If Mae were to spend time with Marty, she had to learn two things. She had to learn how to sail and how to swim, which she did with great tenacity. A few years ago they bought the Wild Abandon, a C&C 30-foot sailboat, and sailed the thousand nautical miles from Victoria to Prince Rupert through fast riptides, Pacific Ocean swells, surviving a mainsail torn to shreds and the usual breakdowns in remote locations.

Mae learned to sail, repair the boat, navigate and not get seasick. She then went to an all-female sailing school, which cemented the knowledge she had already accumulated.

Sailing with Marty means sailing around the north coast, going out day and night in all kinds of weather — dense fog, no wind, high wind, horizontal sheets of rain, hail and snowstorms. I can only imagine the courage it took for Mae to learn to sail after nearly drowning.

This month, in a cruising magazine called Latitudes and Attitudes Seafaring, which is the third-largest boating magazine in the world, Mae was chosen as the Seafaring Person of the Year. I'm thrilled to acknowledge Mae's accomplishment. Her passion for sailing and her love for Marty have made her a remarkable candidate for this prestigious award. Mae-Jong Bowles is now an accomplished sailor in her own right and definitely knows that you can't change the wind;, you can only adjust your sails.

ELLEN WHITE

R. Cantelon: Ellen White, Dr. Ellen White, Auntie Ellen or just Auntie to the Snuneymuxw First Nation, who love her dearly, was given the Coast Salish name Kwulasulwut, meaning "Many Stars." As a child Ellen was taught by her grandmother Mary Rice to be a midwife, herbalist and spiritual healer.

[1345]

Ellen is a grandmother, mother, spiritualist, healer, educator, author, community activist, feminist and, above all, a champion for her Snuneymuxw people. She
[ Page 657 ]
has worked on ensuring that the Halq'eméylem dialect is retained and that the cultural and spiritual knowledge is passed on to new generations. She is champion of the need to be knowledgable in both cultures. Her saying is: "When your hands are both full with the knowledge of both sides, you'll become a great speaker, great organizer, great doer and a helper of your people."

While she has been an early leader in cross-cultural collaboration, she has been a social activist working to establish schools closer to the reserve and substance abuse facilities as well. For many years she worked in the school system to bring cultural education to non-native students through dance, food, song and lectures. She has published books of Coast Salish stories in English.

Ellen has been a leader in developing cross-cultural understanding as elder-in-residence at Vancouver Island University for 13 years. Ellen's approach to teaching is to have fun because she believes people will retain the information better. As the elder-in-residence for VIU, Ellen has shared traditional teachings and rituals with students — both aboriginal and non-aboriginal. Ellen believes that rituals can connect people with higher powers of the universe and understanding.

Ellen has a special presence in any room she enters. She will bring traditional Snuneymuxw greetings and blessing when she attends meetings, and when she speaks, you hear the warmth, acceptance and respect she holds for each person. Everyone feels somehow better and the meetings are a little more positive after Ellen does her greetings.

So let's celebrate the work of Ellen White — 87 years young and still going strong.

FALL FAIRS IN KOOTENAY AREA

K. Conroy: A number of members have spoken about the various fall fairs held in their communities, and I, too, would like to. However, I have a slight problem. I don't have just one to talk about; I have a number. So in two short minutes, I will attempt to summarize those in our area in chronological order.

Slocan Valley Fall Fair is the last of the summer, first of the season, held August 30 in the beautiful Slocan Valley, showcasing all that the valley has to offer.

Rossland Fall Fair was part of Rossland Golden City Days on September 12, focusing on some of the activities from the past needing to be utilized again today to ensure healthy and sustainable practices.

Nakusp Fall Fair will celebrate their 100th anniversary next year — one of the oldest in the province. This year they had a trashion show with people modelling wearable clothing all made of articles from the recycling bin, and they also have the famous zucchini races. What a novel concept for that extra zucchini all of us in the Kootenays usually have at this time of year.

Hills Garlic Festival attracted thousands of visitors to this tiny community, so they now hold it in the neighbouring village of New Denver. This year was the 17th annual festival, and you've guessed. It's all about garlic.

Grand Forks Fall Fair has stayed true to its agricultural roots with an amazing show of produce from throughout the region.

Rock Creek, that little community you all drive through on your way to the Kootenays, averages over 20,000 people through their gates. The emphasis for this fair remains on agriculture and home crafts, and animal shows and judging are a central part of the program. There are numerous entries from young and old alike, all vying for that coveted blue ribbon.

This last weekend the annual Pass Creek Fall Fair, just outside of Castlegar, held its 14th annual fair with all the traditional displays, as well as a horse show and competition for riders of all ages.

All those fairs don't just happen, Mr. Speaker. They happen because of all the amazing volunteers who commit themselves to ensuring that rural B.C. and our rural ways that have sustained B.C. families for many, many years stay front and centre for many more years to come.

COMMUNITY GROUPS AND FESTIVALS
IN BURNABY

H. Bloy: Many volunteers and many groups make Burnaby the great city it is, and I'd like to just mention a few today.

We have the Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion, which helps residents with developmental disabilities. It was a pleasure to attend their annual summer barbecue again this year and to meet their outstanding volunteers like Gerry and their executive director, Richard Faucher.

Burnaby Family Life with their executive director Jeanne Fike and great volunteer Donna Cheltenham.

South Burnaby Neighbourhood House helps many residents to get support and services. At their annual barbecue I had the pleasure of talking to Antonia Beck, their executive director; RCMP superintendent Rick Taylor; and Burnaby fire chief Bob Cook, along with many local residents.

Kensington Park Fun Days is a highlight of every summer. They have excellent volunteers, like Ken and Lou Ryan, who make sure that it's always enjoyable for Burnaby families. This fair always features a lot of local community groups like scouting and guiding.

[1350]

As always, the Korean Heritage Festival was also terrific with great music and dance and drumming from local groups and from Paju, Korea. The festival was started by Michael Hwang and was also attended by the first Canadian Senator of Korean heritage, Sen. Yonah Martin.
[ Page 658 ]

In addition to these groups, Burnaby is fortunate to have other great groups like the Rotary, the Lions, the Kinsmen, and the optimist club, of which I am a founding member. All of these groups make such a profound difference in our communities, and it includes all the sporting groups.

I would like to ask the members of this House to give a hand to all these groups and individuals who make Burnaby a great place to live.

Hon. K. Falcon: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Falcon: Today in the gallery we have two students who are completing their doctorate of pharmacy degrees. In the gallery with us today we have the two students, Eugene Yeung and Sayako Yokoyama, who are completing and doing their residencies with Fraser Health. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR LITERACY PROGRAMS

R. Austin: Yesterday the B.C. Liberals claimed that hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on an Olympic luxury box wasn't discretionary spending. But on August 21 they made the decision to cut the entire funding for Literacy B.C.'s READ Line and the B.C. Literacy Directory.

To the Minister of Education: is cutting literacy funding this government's definition of controlling discretionary funding? And tomorrow, as the minister makes her Raise-a-Reader stops, what's her plan to show her priority isn't just more photo ops but to strengthen literacy in B.C.?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm really delighted to have an opportunity to speak about our record on literacy. We've invested almost a billion dollars in literacy programs. Close to $1 billion in literacy programs in this province since 2001 — it's an outstanding record. It is not matched anywhere in Canada, and certainly it's something that we should all be enormously proud of.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: In 2005 the Premier declared that one of his golden goals was to make B.C. the most literate province in Canada. So let's look at the record.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Austin: Let the new Minister of Education look at the record: cuts to Literacy B.C.'s Reading Link, cuts to B.C. Literacy Directory, cuts to 16 regional literacy staff positions, library funding cut by 22 percent and frozen for three years, grants for 18 reading rooms eliminated and adult literacy programs cut.

Again to the minister: how will cutting key literacy programs for adults and youth make B.C. the most literate province in the entire country?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This year alone we'll be investing $180 million in literacy programs in this province. I'm glad the member opposite has raised the Raise-a-Reader program, because that's one I'm very proud of. Over the last five years we have provided…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: …$3.3 million to the Raise-a-Reader program.

Tomorrow morning, very early, I will be out selling papers, and I really hope you'll come and buy one.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a further supplemental.

R. Austin: Here's what Literacy B.C. Executive Director Judy Cavanagh is saying about the cuts. "Thousands of British Columbians each year use these services to connect with education programs in their areas. This seriously jeopardizes their access to information."

[1355]

Again to the minister: the day before she goes out and encourages British Columbians to read, will she tell this House how cutting access to crucial literacy programs will improve literacy in this province?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: These are challenging economic times, without doubt. In spite of that, we are investing, as I've mentioned, $180 million this year alone in literacy programs.

With respect to library funding, we were able this year to provide 80 percent of the previous year's funding, but importantly….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Interjections.
[ Page 659 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Importantly, we were able to completely provide core funding. The reason we chose to do that is that that is funding that specifically goes to rural centres, preferentially.

I have a letter from Andy Ackerman from the B.C. Library Trustees Association, where he says: "We're pleased to see the provincial government recognizes the integral role public libraries play in community development and literacy."

D. Donaldson: The Premier's great goal of four years ago to have the most literate jurisdiction on the continent appears long forgotten.

He axed, just this summer, 16 regional literacy coordinators that provided adult education expertise to volunteers and learners in the communities. He cut $60,000, eliminating the B.C. Literacy Directory and the READ Line, services especially important to isolated rural communities — cuts that the executive director of Literacy B.C. said don't make sense.

On the eve of Raise-a-Reader Day, would the Premier please demonstrate that his words around literacy mean something by restoring these services in adult literacy?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We are providing this year for funding in many areas, but specifically, to adult literacy we'll be providing $4.6 million. This is the education guarantee which helps adults to upgrade their skills.

We're also making our commitment to literacy clear by our investment in StrongStart B.C. centres, a place where preschoolers can attend. This year we're expanding that program, and there will be over a hundred more StrongStart B.C. centres in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: We're talking about cuts to adult literacy here. For a government that says it cares about literacy, they sure have a funny way of showing it.

Again, on the eve of Raise-a-Reader Day we learn funding for reading centres in Atlin, Dease Lake and Telkwa is cut — a mere $1,400 in Dease Lake and $1,600 in Atlin to keep these reading centres going. They don't have public libraries nearby. This is all they have. The closest public library for them is in the Yukon.

Will the Premier show his words mean something by announcing, on the cusp of Raise-a-Reader Day, that funding for these reading centres is reinstated?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It's certainly great to be able to get up and talk about our investments in literacy in this province, and I'm pleased to have a chance to do that. Let's talk about some of these…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: …isolated rural communities that were absolutely overjoyed to hear in 2008 that the Premier announced $5.2 million, a multi-year grant which is rolling out now so that communities like Dease Lake and like Boswell on the east shore of beautiful Kootenay Lake are having $50,000 for high-speed Internet.

[1400]

These are the kinds of initiatives that we're all happy about. I would really challenge the members opposite to match this achievement of a $1 billion investment in literacy since 2001.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Simons: There isn't a community in this province that hasn't been affected by the literacy cuts by this government. Libraries and reading rooms across the province are trying to adjust to this blow.

Will the minister tell the residents of Powell River–Sunshine Coast, for example, how they can address the problem of illiteracy in this province when they're making these kinds of decisions in this House?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm pleased again to talk about more of our investments. One of the things that we are doing….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister. Continue

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: These are without doubt some of the most challenging economic times that have ever happened in this province. Yet in spite of that, our government has actually increased the budget by a billion dollars, and we've increased funding.

I see the member opposite shaking his head, but in fact, we've increased the funding for health, and we've increased the funding for education. We are investing $84 million more in education this year than we did last year in spite of declining enrolment. The reality is that choices did have to be made. We've made those choices, and they're excellent choices.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: In these difficult economic times, it's not the time to turn your back on community programs that promote social inclusion, that promote job readiness,
[ Page 660 ]
that promote literacy for adults and children. This government is making the wrong decisions.

So far, nothing the minister has said will reassure the people of this province that they're taking the right action in this file. So to the minister: what will she do to convince her cabinet colleagues to reverse these damaging cuts?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I know that there is disagreement on the two sides of the House about many things, but we do, in fact, agree on one thing. I quote the member for Skeena, who just a few days ago said this: "Obviously, you know British Columbia still has an outstanding public education system."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I would like to speak to students I met this summer, students like Ian and Julia, and their parents and say to them that, yes, we're continuing to invest record amounts in education, record amounts in literacy. It is a priority for this government.

D. Thorne: Books for B.C. Babies is another casualty of this government's about-face on its literacy promises. Introduced at the early stages of a child's growth, this program delivered books to 42,000 babies in B.C. and promoted reading as central to our children's future. Thanks to this government, that program, too, is on life support.

[1405]

I again ask the Minister of Education: as she and the Premier prepare to hand out newspapers on Raise-a-Reader Day tomorrow, do they not think that protecting literacy programs for young children deserves at least as much priority as putting 20 people in luxury boxes during the Olympic Games?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I can assure the members opposite that we considered babies, like brand-new babies that are just born today, as well as children that are in our public school system today but, in particular, the early learners. We've considered them, and that is why we are going to be funding full-day kindergarten. And 19,000 children will start full-day kindergarten next year.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We continue to fund programs like StrongStart B.C. that are really starting to make a difference in this province for preschoolers and their parents, who can attend these programs, where the children learn and their parents learn about early childhood education. We had over 200 of those centres last year, and we'll have over 300 by the end of this year. That's where we're investing.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Thorne: All that is well and good, but it'd be really nice if all of the children who come into all-day kindergarten could read when they get there. It would be very nice.

It becomes more obvious daily that this is a government that just can't get its priorities straight.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second.

Members, it's getting very difficult to hear.

Continue, Member.

D. Thorne: I was saying that it becomes more clear daily that this is a government that just can't get its priorities straight. This government had no trouble finding millions — millions — of dollars for hockey events at GM Place, half a million dollars for one Olympic party and hundreds of thousands of dollars for ministers' offices, but when it comes to protecting programs like Books for B.C. Babies, they say there's no money.

Tomorrow, as the minister takes part in Raise-a-Reader Day events, it's time for her and the Premier to demonstrate they care about literacy. On this Raise-a-Reader Day, will the minister commit to spending the money where it should be spent, on B.C.'s children and their future, or does this day, Raise-a-Reader Day, mean nothing more to this government and the minister than just another photo op?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I don't mind at all being repetitive, and I'm happy to review again our spending and our commitment to education. This year there will be about 7,000 fewer students entering B.C. classrooms, and we will be investing $84 million more than last year. We will be investing $180 million across government in literacy programs, and we'll continue to make those kinds of investments.

Our commitment is strong. We're demonstrating it clearly with the kinds of investments we're making. We're increasing investments in education year after year after year in this province.

N. Macdonald: Well, the minister has had seven chances to answer questions. Today she's reading a script. Tomorrow it's a photo op. You have had cut after
[ Page 661 ]
cut to literacy programs. When is the minister going to stand up and justify cuts that are indefensible?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1410]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Our record in literacy is not something to defend. It is something to stand on top of the building and shout about.

Where is there a province where a billion dollars has been invested since 2001 in literacy achievement? There is no one. And absolutely, in answer to your question, we have made some decisions. We are not fully funding everything we funded last year.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: But what we are doing is showing clearly our commitment to early learning, to our most vulnerable students, to our aboriginal students. Our record is clear, and it is something to be absolutely proud of.

FUNDING FOR
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROGRAMS

M. Mungall: My question is to the Solicitor General. B.C. already has the second-worst rate of domestic violence in Canada, and during times of economic downturn, like right now, the level of violence against women rises. Why, then, is the Solicitor General forcing funding cuts of $440,000 on groups that help women and children who are victims of violence?

Hon. K. Heed: Our government takes domestic violence very, very seriously. Matter of fact, we're spending $43 million on victim violence programs. We have several programs that deal specifically with people that are the victims of domestic violence and sexual exploitation. We have 161 victim services programs in British Columbia.

We are working with the service providers to ensure we continue to meet the needs of domestic violence in British Columbia, and in our discussions with them of what we should do here in the province of British Columbia, we are ensuring that front-line programs are not removed from our victim services.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Mungall: I have to say it's very difficult to believe this government's claims that during tough economic times, helping and protecting the most vulnerable is a priority for them. Women and children hurt by domestic violence are among the most disadvantaged group in our province. But here we are. We have the B.C. Liberals reneging on service contracts and cutting programs by close to half a million dollars. Next year the programs will be cut by even more; $1.2 million in government funding will be lost.

Again to the Solicitor General. Is he willing to break rank today, do what they actually say they are going to do, and protect women and children fleeing from violence by restoring those funding cuts?

Hon. K. Heed: We continue to ensure that we have programs in place here in British Columbia for domestic violence. Matter of fact, we are coordinating our efforts even more here. We are moving all programs related to domestic violence into one ministry, that being Public Safety and Solicitor General. That way, we are finding economies of scale in order for us to deliver front-line services to victims here in British Columbia. We are working with the service providers, and we have found efficiencies in order for us to keep front-line programs here in British Columbia.

The figure the member is responding to is actually what we found with working with several contract providers here in British Columbia. They are the ones that assisted us to find these efficiencies by moving all victim services programs into our ministry.

[1415]

M. Farnworth: The bottom line is that this is a $440,000 cut to a front-line organization — front-line services. The Solicitor General was a police officer. He knows, or should know, all too well the effects of domestic violence. He should know all too well the tragedy of domestic violence, and he should know all too well the dangerous situations that police officers find themselves in when they go to domestic violence situations. So how can he stand in this House and justify a $440,000 elimination in domestic violence programs in British Columbia?

Hon. K. Heed: I know very well what domestic violence does to people here in British Columbia and victims of domestic violence, because I spent over 30 years in policing having to respond to it.

We will continue to treat domestic violence here in British Columbia as a priority. As a matter of fact, we are working with stopping the violence counselling. We have 102 contracts. Children Who Witness Abuse counselling — we have 92 contracts. Outreach services and multicultural outreach services for women — we have 69 contracts. Ending Violence Association of B.C. contracts for provincial services, training and community coordination for women's safety programs — three contracts. B.C.-Yukon Transition House Society contracts for children who witness abuse — two contracts. Those are the contracts.
[ Page 662 ]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Instead of standing up and reading a list of, "This is a contract; this is a contract," why doesn't he stand up and admit in this House that a $440,000 cut is going to hurt service providers, front-line people, many of them volunteers who provided much-needed service to victims of domestic violence, and it needs to be restored? So will he stand up and restore the $440,000?

Hon. K. Heed: It's clear the members opposite are confused about the facts. I have given you the facts. We are spending $43 million this year on victim assistance programs in British Columbia. We'll continue to make that a priority to deal with this significant issue.

EMERGENCY SERVICES AT
ASHCROFT HOSPITAL

H. Lali: Will the Minister of Health please explain why the Liberal government is closing the emergency room at the Ashcroft Hospital?

Hon. K. Falcon: As the member well knows, one of the challenges we have in British Columbia is attracting particularly physicians and sometimes RNs to places like Ashcroft Hospital. It is an ongoing challenge — frankly, a challenge that would have been a lot easier had the NDP in the 1990s not frozen the training spaces for doctors and nurses in the province of British Columbia.

They conveniently forget that, and I'll tell you why that's important. It's important.…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: That is an important point, because actually to train these medical professionals often takes seven, eight years. But I am pleased to say that by doubling the doctor training spaces in our schools, by doubling the nurse training spaces in our schools, we are finally getting the kinds of professionals we need into the system and throughout the system.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1420]

H. Lali: The minister knows well that Liberal cuts to small rural hospitals are acting as a deterrent to bringing health care professionals and an appropriate level of doctors to small communities all throughout the province.

During the election campaign the Premier said that he actually did not support rural areas losing health care services. But after the election, over the summer months, Ashcroft's ER was shut down six days a week — like on July 6, when Gloria Duncan, suffering from allergic reaction to hazelnuts, was rushed to Ashcroft's emergency room by her husband.

Because this Liberal government had closed the Ashcroft ER, she did not receive critical care for an hour and a half. Gloria instead was transferred to Kamloops, where she died in the intensive care unit a few days later.

Gloria's family and the community of Ashcroft are raising legitimate questions about Gloria's not receiving timely emergency care and are worried about the ER being closed all of October coming up.

Will the minister please explain why the Liberals, after promising during the election to protect health care in rural areas, are failing to ensure communities like Ashcroft have adequate health care when they need it, where they need it?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member well knows that it has been a challenge to recruit physicians, particularly to small rural communities. It's one of the reasons why, in attempting to deal with this issue, the first thing you have to do is increase the supply of physicians. So doubling the number of training spaces was a very important step to make sure that we are producing more physicians into the system so that we can spread them through the system.

The second thing we did was have a rural recruitment program, where we specifically encourage physicians to go to rural communities like Ashcroft. That doesn't mean the problem has gone away overnight. It is still a challenge.

But I can tell you this. Having doctors being trained at the University of Northern British Columbia is one way you get northern students from the north becoming doctors and wanting to stay and practise in the north and through the Interior and through rural parts of British Columbia. That's exactly what we'll continue to do.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, continued second reading debate on Bill 2, and in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continued consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Citizens' Services.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Budget measures
implementation act (No. 2), 2009

(continued)

N. Simons: I stand to continue my comments about Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act. I started just before lunch but only had time to note the time.
[ Page 663 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members. Just a second, Members. Could those who have other duties please leave the chamber.

Continue, Member.

N. Simons: Many of us start our speeches or our talks or our discussions with how much pleasure it gives us to be standing in the House to talk about a piece of legislation. In this particular case, it's kind of disappointing to have to be standing here to talk about what is really a get-out-of-jail-free card for this government.

As much as they might like to characterize it as an adjustment based on external factors, what it really is, is a bill to excuse themselves for a number of indiscretions. For the information and benefit of those who are observing this debate, either in the gallery here or at home, Bill 2 represents a piece of legislation that gives this government permission to break its own law.

[1425]

They passed this budget bill some years ago that said it was illegal to run a deficit. At the time, it was lauded by themselves and seen cynically by others as simply a public relations campaign to say: "Look, we're never going to have a deficit because we're good fiscal managers."

Well, lo and behold, there'll be seven out of 12 budgets shortly that will be in deficit, and I think that sort of says more about this government's actions than it does about their commitments.

Twice now we've been in this House spending time talking about passing a piece of legislation that simply tells the government that it doesn't have to follow its own rules. But they've also broken the rules on this very act in other situations, with respect to ministers getting bonuses. Those bonuses were scheduled to be provided to ministers who used their budget according to plans. When they failed to do that, government introduced other legislation to forgive them for not meeting the expectations that the legislation laid out.

It's disappointing to have to be in this Legislature to talk about this particular piece of legislation, because what it really is, is simply, as I said, a get-out-of-jail-free card, one that offers government an opportunity to excuse itself and sort of get on their way.

It's the role of opposition — on behalf of my constituents, I believe it's required of me — to ensure that the truth of this gets out to the public. What it symbolizes to me is a government that's more concerned about public relations than it is about good public policy. Good public policy would suggest that you would know that economies go through cycles and that we cannot always predict every aspect of what we're faced with — global economic crisis or even local challenges.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

So in effect, what we're doing here is spending time to correct, to fix, the mistakes of this government's previous legislation. But we're going to be doing it again, and we're going to be doing it again. Every time we do it, it's a reminder that this government said one thing and did another.

Unfortunately, it leads to cynicism in the public, and it leads to a distrust of the word of politicians and, in this particular case, not just the word of politicians but the legislation that politicians have voted for.

Bill 2, the bill, the act that allows government to enact their budget, is really a large excuse for their mismanagement and their failings. It doesn't give me any pleasure to say that. It's not an individual insult, but I think it requires that members of the government side become a little bit introspective when they look at legislation.

They realize that legislation is not an advertisement. It's not a publicity campaign. It's not a billboard. Legislation is enacted in order to ensure that the public interest is protected. That should be the fundamental basis of all legislation. Unfortunately, the original act and this amendment to that act are purely facades. They are purely straw figures that hide the truth of the situation.

Really, it's like legislation that says: "You have to do this, this, this and this, except" — on the back page — "when you feel like doing it a different way." Really, that's to put it into plain language. Government passed a rule, and then they passed another rule saying that you don't have to obey the first rule.

It's troubling to me — and I think it's troubling to those who follow the politics of British Columbia — to see that a government manages to portray a certain image of itself, in some cases quite successfully, only to find out later that that image was really not an image but an illusion.

That illusion was fed to the people of British Columbia prior to the election, and now we see it for what it is. We see it for what it is: a government promising a $495 million deficit and actually coming in with a $2.8 billion deficit — I might add, the largest deficit in the history of this province.

[1430]

What makes that more troubling is that they claim to be good managers. The facts speak for themselves. The facts are before the people of this province in black and white. They have managed to actually take a province that was benefiting from high commodity prices, the natural resources that belong to the people of this province…. The people of this province expected benefits from the wealth that we co-own, and instead, mere months after the economy started to go down, we find our cupboards bare.

We find our cupboards bare because of mismanagement. Someone over on that side of the House was either not looking forward toward the future or they were woefully uninformed — or, as they call it in criminal law, wilfully blind. That refers to knowing something is coming down the pipe but pretending not to know it's there.
[ Page 664 ]

The example used in criminology is always about perhaps hitting another car, and without looking to make sure you didn't, you drive away and hope that noise wasn't you hitting that other car.

Well, in this particular case, all the warning signs showed this government that our revenues were going to be down, that our social assistance rates were going to be up. Instead of acknowledging that, because of political opportunism during a time of election here in the province, they chose to withhold that information only to allow it to come out after the deed was done and after they were re-elected — I think to the detriment of the people of this province.

There are a number of issues that this bill raises besides the duplicitous nature of the government's stated goals, and that is some of the content that includes the elimination of an agency called Tourism B.C.

I'm the former critic for…. At the time it was called Tourism, Sport and the Arts. I met with a lot of individuals working in the tourism industry. Those people are dedicated to showcasing this province in all its beauty, to inviting guests from other jurisdictions to see what a beautiful province we live in and to sharing that beauty with others and building goodwill.

Unfortunately, in this particular circumstance, the government has chosen to eliminate that entity in order to take the revenue that was previously allotted to it for their general revenue, to make up for the shortfalls that they found themselves facing in other areas.

This all has to do with government priority. It doesn't have to do with simply the fact that we're all undergoing a difficult economic period of time. It has to do with government priority, and I believe that the issue here is misplaced priorities.

We saw for years and years programs that were splashed across pages of our newspapers with bright colours and easy-to-read words extolling the virtue of programs that they felt — or they implied — would be beneficial to the communities, including literacy programs, programs that supported vulnerable families, programs that promoted sport in school. Yet really the true test is: how dedicated is this government to those goals when we see that the first things that they cut are those very programs?

What happened to the money? Where's the money? I think this government has some accounting to do, some explaining to do to the people of the province, to the people of Powell River–Sunshine Coast — the people of Powell River–Sunshine Coast, whose costs since this government privatized their only transportation link to the rest of British Columbia, the B.C. Ferries system….

[1435]

When they privatized that, our marine highway, we saw the prices of our transportation going up almost quarterly to the point where people are having a very difficult time — whether they're business people or residents travelling to visit families — making ends meet. These are fixed costs that individuals living in Powell River–Sunshine Coast cannot continue to bear at this rate. This is a government that allowed private interests to take over the management of what is essentially and should be a public service.

That just illustrates, I think, perhaps the ideology or the way this government likes to do things, and that is minimize government and maximize profit for private corporations that don't bring the benefits back to British Columbians.

We can also see examples in my riding of Powell River–Sunshine Coast, of energy projects that will benefit far more the offshore interests than they do the people of that region. The people of that region pay more for their food than many other areas of the province because of the transportation costs, and pay more for health care. They have to travel further for health care because the government has cut programs even in our health region that have served people so well.

People with mental health issues on the Powell River–Sunshine Coast, people with addictions problems, seniors who have mobility issues — all of them are feeling the cuts of the government's misplaced priorities. The handyDART services that allow for seniors to be in social situations with their friends and their peers and their families — these programs are being cut.

I've been told stories from senior citizens, one 80 years old, who for the first time, because of cuts to services that help her look after her husband with Alzheimer's…. Because of cuts to services to that program, her mental health has declined, and for the first time she needs to take medication to control her depression.

The impacts of government cuts are often perhaps not examined carefully enough, I believe, before decisions are made. They're made at high-level management levels. Organizations and agencies are being told to cut a certain percentage of their budget. When they're given no choice, the cuts ultimately do have an impact on people.

But why would a government in good conscience cut respite services for seniors who are looking after their loved ones at home? Would they do that, and when it's brought to their attention, would they change their mind?

That's the issue. My responsibility as an opposition member is to point out the impacts of their public policy and to point out the failures when they are clear. When I do, Madam Speaker, we're met with quotes about how things were when I was in first-year university. We're met with quotes about politicians who did things, who I never even heard of, instead of actually saying to me and to the constituents of Powell River–Sunshine Coast that we need to re-examine this.

This particular example, Sea to Sky. It's not my constituency; it's a bordering constituency. It's the area, essentially, from West Vancouver up to Whistler, to Pemberton. It's semi-rural. It's well travelled. In Squamish they have
[ Page 665 ]
mental health and addiction services. At least they did until they were notified at Sea to Sky Community Services that they were getting a budget cut of half a million dollars.

The government's explanation, when prompted, was that they were going to move all these services provided by six professional counsellors into the government shop itself, where 1.5 positions await the transfer of over 100 files of individuals who have mental health or addictions issues. Transferred with those individuals is a waiting list of over 80 people waiting for addiction services, waiting for mental health support.

[1440]

What happens when an MLA representing an area like that sits on the government side? Will they stand up and speak on behalf of their constituents? I think it's important to say that the role of the opposition includes representing those who find no voice on the government side. I'd just like to point out the irony of this. The government has also seen fit to approve the establishment of a casino or gaming room in Squamish….

Deputy Speaker: Member, may I draw you back to the debate of Bill 2.

N. Simons: Madam Speaker, pardon me if I was straying. I strayed from my constituency to another, and I suppose I did stray a bit from the actual guts of this particular piece of legislation. Thank you for reminding me.

I thought it was important to point out that here we have a piece of legislation ultimately making excuses for budget overruns. We see that even when we're spending more than the government has said they were going to spend, we're still cutting essential services that I think need to be shored up at times of difficulty, shored up at times when people are facing bigger challenges to their own pocketbook. I guess that's a wallet.

The connection between this legislation and the cuts to services in our communities is actually clear — for me, anyway — because what this government has done is said one thing and done another. In the case of cuts to health services, they've said one thing and done another. Promises made; promises broken. And it's not just the fact that these promises were not kept. The impact of these promises hurt individuals, hurt families, hurt service providers and, ultimately, weaken the social structure of our communities, prevent inclusion and cause hardship.

When the government cut Tourism B.C., they said that the 3 percent hotel tax would then go directly to general revenue. Perhaps they didn't say that. They said it would go to their funds to help promote tourism. Well, we've heard that before. Ask any firefighter in this province if they think that taxes originally earmarked for the promotion of fire safety and fire prevention have ever reached the office of the fire commissioner.

Ask members of the real estate community if they believe that the taxes earmarked as they were promised have ever found their way to the intended purposes. They go to general revenue. It's often seen, and it's not surprising, that government will say that this 3 percent will be targeted towards tourism. I wouldn't hold my breath. I've seen them offer one thing and then offer something entirely different when their mood changed.

Here we have before us a bill that basically offers government ministers — cabinet — the ability to break their law without punishment, to go against their own legislation without fear of repercussion.

I wonder aloud at the cost of the original legislation, the cost of its rewriting three or four times and the cost of this debate, and whether or not it would have been more in the public interest had they simply said: "We'll manage the economy however the world markets act, however the commodity prices change, in a way that protects the public interest." All economists will tell you that there are times when some deficits are required in order to protect core services.

In this particular case, though, core services have been so badly slashed since 2001 — you can ask any social worker in the province about that; you can ask any environmental protection officer in this province about that — that when it came time to start trimming, it's like cutting your fingernails too close. That's not a comfortable feeling, but they've cut so much already that it's going to bleed. That's where we are now.

[1445]

Sorry about the graphic nature of my illustration, but as a former child protection social worker, it was an actual case. I think that in this particular case, we've seen a whole province now being told this is going to hurt more than it had to. This is going to hurt far more than it had to because of excesses in the good times, because of the government's desire to trim the civil service which has provided so well for this province — to trim the civil service so close that there's almost no room to manoeuvre.

If you talk to civil servants in various ministries throughout the province, they've lost their ability to talk to each other, to coordinate forward-thinking programs, to evaluate programs. All they're doing is trying to get by on a day-to-day basis.

I would prefer to be in this House discussing public policy, discussing the values of government, the goals of government, the future of the province instead of talking about how we're going to excuse ourselves for breaking our own law. We have better things to do. We have far better things to do.

As I said before lunch when I started, I'm not pleased to have to be standing here talking about this bill. I would much prefer to be talking about the impact of programs on citizens. That's what we're supposed to be doing here.
[ Page 666 ]

I'm sure many of the members on the government side of the House recognize the charade that this has become, the charade that they started with their balanced-budget legislation. Instead of basing it on good, solid public policy, they based it on an image they wanted to project of themselves, which I think has basically been tarnished. Not on an individual basis, but as a collective, as cabinet and as government side, I think they've failed the people of British Columbia. I think the damage that we're feeling in our communities is only going to get worse while we're talking about these kinds of issues.

I would much prefer to see a government that showed a bit of vision, to actually live up to that vision if they're concerned about literacy. They should be concerned about literacy even when we don't have the same resources that we had before. If they're concerned about sport funding, if they're concerned about funding to individuals — young people — for sporting events, they should be as concerned about promoting health in difficult times.

In my constituency the food bank lineups have increased dramatically. In my constituency occupancy at our transition houses has increased dramatically. Services being provided to people with mental health and addictions have seen no decline in demand.

Homelessness, even in the rural parts of this province, is out of control. Since this government came into power, we've seen a 400 percent increase in the number of homeless people in this province, and that did not all take place during difficult economic times. That all took place when we had record revenues, when we had record-high commodity prices.

As much as we all recognize the difficult times we face now, what was this government doing with the money when we were doing so well? I think an examination of that needs to be undertaken. How is it that we continue to have the highest level of child poverty in the country?

[1450]

We had the highest level of child poverty in the country for six years in a row during economic boom times. For some reason the members opposite aren't yelling at me that it isn't true today. They yelled yesterday, and they yelled the day before. Not only are they, I guess, agreeing…. Maybe they're not agreeing.

I think it would be interesting to see some ministers go on record on the issue of child poverty. It was during the best times of this province that we've managed to see child poverty increase.

My previous work was with families and children, and often marginalized families who are living in poverty. I see the programs that are being cut now, and these are all programs that actually kept those families from the child welfare court system, often kept them from the criminal court system, and provided tools and techniques for parents to overcome their challenges, the stresses of their lives. When you see programs that were really like the glue that kept some communities safe, when you see those programs melting away, you know that everything tumbles after.

I'm speaking about Bill 2, about the promises that were made and the promises that were broken. I see a distinct and obvious parallel between the services and the programs that we were promised and the services and programs that were cut — the balanced or the small deficit budget that we were promised and this balloon of a deficit two months later that we got.

This government may well not have seen things coming. They might have been keeping their head down, or they might not have been using their windshield wipers. One way or the other, they didn't see the turn in the road, and unfortunately for the people of British Columbia, we're the ones that have to suffer from their mismanagement.

Madam Speaker, if you haven't already noticed, I plan to vote against this bill. I'll do so with the confidence that the people of Powell River–Sunshine Coast are behind me as I point out the duplicitous nature of this legislation.

Deputy Speaker: Members, second reading debate is typically wide-ranging, but I would ask members to draw their attention back to the substance of Bill 2.

R. Fleming: I will focus my remarks this afternoon entirely, of course, on the substance of Bill 2 because it's actually a much more wide-ranging Budget Measures Implementation bill than the standard that we're used to in this House. Many of my colleagues have already unearthed and spoken to some of the things that are in this bill.

The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast was touching on a wide-ranging number of elements in this bill too, and one of them that he spent some time on was Tourism British Columbia and its dissolution.

What an odd thing to put in a budget act — very odd — unless you're the government and you recognize how controversial and universally despised and panned and worrisome that decision is, how furious the reaction from what is a $12 billion industry that sustains hundreds of thousands of jobs and tens of thousands of small businesses in British Columbia, how furious that sector was with that surprise announcement this summer, this late August; and unless you're thoroughly embarrassed by how that announcement has turned out — as this government is.

Therein lies the reason as to why they would put in that controversial decision — one that I think will bode very poorly for British Columbia in terms of jobs and economic activity. That is why they would put it in a bill like this, this afternoon. I'm going to return to some points on Tourism B.C. later and speak to how important the industry is in my region and the risks that this government is taking.

[1455]
[ Page 667 ]

But there's something else that's curious in here too. There's a detail, a miscellaneous amendment in this bill to amend the Income Tax Act by $72. Madam Speaker, $72 is what individuals in British Columbia can expect back in pocket in terms of total basic personal exemptions.

That's the big so-called tax cut behind this massive tax transfer that is the HST, which this government has introduced and shocked British Columbians by saying one thing in the election only 110 days ago and, upon being returned to office, doing what they said they would never do and implementing that HST — which, by the way, the Toronto-Dominion Bank on the weekend released an analysis of and said will hurt average households by hundreds of dollars per year. Hundreds of dollars per year. So it's no wonder they wouldn't want to stack up the independent analysis from the banking sector in Canada next to very small personal income tax deductions in this bill.

You know what else isn't side by side with this $72-per-year basic personal exemption that ordinary British Columbians can anticipate — 72 bucks a year. What is that per month — $6? MSP premium increases. This budget, this throne speech outlined an 18 percent increase to medical service premiums. At the same time that the United States of America is talking about insuring more people and lowering costs for households for drugs and medical services, this government north of the border is raising the costs of health care for families by 18 percent. That's a tax increase.

Nobody is deceived by that at all — to call it something else. It's a mandatory fee that every household must pay and that every British Columbian must register for. It's a tax. It's a tax on business where it's paid in payroll. It's a tax on individuals where it's a shared cost. It's a tax on households and retirees where they pay. No wonder they wouldn't want to stack up that tax increase — because it dwarfs, after the full 18 percent of it is implemented, this $72 basic personal tax exemption.

So it's all about how the bill is constructed. This is a take-out-the-trash bill, Madam Speaker. We're taking out the embarrassment of dissolving and winding down what has been a successful, internationally recognized tourism organization. An arm's-length, independent Crown board has administered that for well over a decade and built an industry in British Columbia and raised revenues year upon year, often in the double digits annually. They don't want to put that front and centre in its own stand-alone legislation. They don't want to have that highlighted in separate stand-alone legislation.

Of course the main embarrassment of this bill is that for the second time in six months, this government has had to come to this House to beg permission to break one of its own laws. It has had to come to this House to say that we need to have a deficit, at the same time that it maintains this fiction that it is some kind of government that has made deficits illegal. For the second time in six months they have had to come into this place to change that law, to get an amendment, to get an exemption. It feels like yesterday — although it was only February, I suppose — that we were debating the very same thing.

But then it was in a stand-alone amendment act that authorized it. It was explicit for all to see. The government is coming in here and admitting failure, admitting its law doesn't work — the one they passed in 2004, which came into effect in 2004. They didn't want to quite have that stand-alone spectacle again for the second time in six months this week, so they tucked that main purpose of this bill into a plain, stand-up Budget Measures Implementation Act to avoid having that kind of debate and that kind of act proclaimed in this session.

[1500]

That's what makes up this miscellaneous bill — deficits, hidden tax increases through MSP which are not contrasted with the so-called tax savings that are allowed in the budget. There are other things that are inexplicable in here. Tourism B.C.'s dissolution put into a budget measures implementation act? Bizarre. Changes to Treasury Board allowing non-members of cabinet to sit at Treasury Board? What's that about? Which individual does that have in mind? And what purpose? And why wouldn't that deserve debate focused on that change?

As I mentioned, this government maintains a fiction that deficits are illegal in British Columbia, that there's a legal prohibition against running a deficit in B.C. and that that is somehow a hallmark of Liberal fiscal policy. That's one of their proudest achievements — so proud of it, in fact, that this unworkable law has come to this place for the second time now in six months, because the law doesn't work.

The hubris of the government to think that they could make the economy follow a law that they passed is unbelievable. Now they have to recognize, because it is law, that that's not in fact how things work, and they have to come to this House to change the law. They've done it twice now in six months. This legislation is only four years old. It's quite a record that's getting stacked up here.

I mentioned in February, when I responded to the deficit authorization act then, that it should be called the just kidding act, because the original law has nothing behind it. There's nothing there. It's a bold promise that deficits are illegal, but until the economy says otherwise, until the return of the economic cycle, which comes, sure as night follows day….

What is this that we're debating today, dressed up as the Budget Measures Implementation Act for the September post-election-tabled budget? This is the just kidding act 2.0. It's the same deal — the same thing, camouflaged as they try — that is needed today as six months ago.
[ Page 668 ]

For those of you keeping score at home, because this bill is being amended in this way to allow deficits to 2013, we now have seven out of 12 years in the Liberal mandate finishing in the red. That's less than a .500 average.

I've been a Canucks fan for my whole life, and I was trying to think back to the '70s. I've been a fan of the Canucks since the '70s. I'm trying to think of a worse season that that team — that storied, wonderful franchise — has had, and I couldn't think of one. But if this bill passes, that's exactly what will be confirmed about this government — that record, that average.

It's an interesting question, you know — for any government to look itself in the face when it finds itself in a position that it needs to amend a law that prohibits deficits twice in one year, twice in six months. Isn't it time that someone over there — the Finance Minister would be an ideal candidate — fesses up, talks to the public and tells them that they really ought to repeal the original act, because it doesn't work?

It doesn't work if you use the get-out-of-jail-free card twice in one year in the House, and that's what they've done. It doesn't work if you come in here and have four years of deficits tabled. You know, for four years the law will not apply. What's the point of having that on the books? The minister, if he's going to do that twice in six months, really ought to have that conversation with opinion leaders, with editorial boards, with the public about whether that law actually means anything anymore.

We have a law being amended today that isn't based in reality, and the worst thing, as I mentioned earlier, about what we're speaking to today is that we're not actually debating a stand-alone amendment act on the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. They didn't have the courage to table it like that, but they should have.

[1505]

They should have done it because that was the original intent of the bill that this government was once so proud of — that it would be done in that fashion; that the clauses of the bill that provided for situations like the ones we find ourselves in today, which this government finds itself in, would be brought before the House in that kind of transparent fashion.

Here it is hidden this way — snuck into a single line item, I might add — in a much broader budget measures bill — hoping no one is going to notice, hoping the about-face this government has done yet again on its law that prohibits deficits, hoping nobody noticed that this once-cherished political principle of this government….

Remember, the Premier says he can't sleep at night so long as there are deficits. He's going to have four years of sleepless nights apparently, if we believe him, in that way. But it causes him such great pain that he can't bring it in a bill into this House, as originally prescribed by the legislation when these situations arise.

I think that this government, if it could get away with it, would have scheduled no debate or invoked closure on this at the very end of this session or put it into the wee hours of the morning, if we still had the parliamentary schedule set that way. I really think so.

What a number of my colleagues have raised questions about this afternoon is really the big one. How did we get here?

How did we go from the Premier, only a hundred days ago on the television cameras and news outlets of British Columbia, assuring voters, assuring British Columbians that should he be re-elected, no worries, the deficit for the province of B.C. will be — and this is a direct quote, his words — "$495 million maximum…"? How did we go from there to a budget that was tabled just a couple of weeks ago by the Premier's Finance Minister, which has a sixfold increase in that deficit figure — $2.8 billion? Like, not even close.

We know now that the Premier actually was briefed during the election. He knew revenues were sliding sideways. He denied that all through the summer, before they were ready to reveal the deception and could no longer conceal that the deficit was indeed much, much larger than what they assured people repeatedly on the campaign trail.

But you know what?

Interjection.

R. Fleming: Maybe the gentleman heckling across the way is trying to get to this point, because the government, in its throne speech, said things can change really, really fast in this globalized world. It was going to be $495 million up until — I don't know — July, 45 days ago. But then things changed really quickly. We were, to quote the throne speech, "brutally deceived by the economy."

An Hon. Member: Someone was brutally deceived.

R. Fleming: Somebody was indeed brutally deceived.

You know, what's interesting is that if they really believe that now…. If they really believe that economic tsunamis or changes in the global economy can have an effect like that which creates a sixfold deficit increase — and they have to, because they have to come in here to prove that — then why don't they go back this afternoon to looking at and repealing the original act that says deficits are illegal?

They're saying the world doesn't work like that. Things come up immediately, urgently. There's a knock-on effect. The economies are interlinked. "Things are beyond our control" is what they're saying on the one hand, and then they're clinging to this notion that B.C. still is a jurisdiction where deficits are against the law.

Well, this law is one that you can drive a truck through. It's not worth the paper that it's written on, and the proof
[ Page 669 ]
of it is that for the second time in six months they've had to come in here and admit exactly that.

If the Minister of Finance wants to cling to the notion that his original law against deficits is worth anything, if he wants to keep that notion alive, then I think he needs to up the ante when he comes in here and plays the get-out-of-jail-free card.

[1510]

I think he needs to demonstrate that if he's going to do that — and he's done it twice now in six months — then he's got to put his money where his mouth is. He has to show his convictions that deficits are really, really bad and that deficits, in fact, are illegal in B.C.

When we have them, why doesn't the Finance Minister — here's a novel idea in terms of accountability, which is in the title of the original act — put his job on the line? Why doesn't he back it up? If deficits are illegal and really, really bad, and ministers are being held accountable when they run them, then why doesn't he put his job on the line?

We could do that. We could amend the legislation. The minister himself could move it.

If the government believes that balanced budgets are so politically sacred…. It's pretty hard for them to maintain that, now that they've tabled a budget that calls for four deficits in a row. But if they still believe, as a political principle, that in every instance a budget must be balanced — and therefore programs, like we talked about in question period and have been talking about for weeks, need to be hacked and slashed in furtherance of that goal — then I think the Minister of Finance has to think long and hard when he comes into this place and asks for an amendment like he is today, which mocks the original intent of the legislation that he defends. He has to consider putting himself on the line.

If he rejects, though, surrendering his privileges and his perks and his extra pay and stays on as minister, then I guess that's just what we have to accept as the real reason why for the second time in six months the escape clause is being used.

There's something else in this bill that deserves some examination on the subject of accountability — that is, changes to sections that allow ministers to reduce the amount of scrutiny that they receive in the Legislature when they bring supplementary estimates in here later in the year, and surely they will do that. Surely, they will do that just as they did in the first week of this session.

It will contain all kinds of things in there that do not conform to the budget that we're going to debate over the estimates process in the coming months. There will be all kinds of extra money for this and that and the other thing.

Now, the original legislation said we should judge the minister's performance against those original amounts that are passed by the Legislature. If I'm reading this correctly, the new amendments in this legislation say we should not judge the minister by the budget that's passed by the House in this sitting or in the usual spring sitting, but we should judge the minister by the results based on supplementary estimates.

In other words, they're taking all the fiscal pressure off the minister, because if there is a problem three-quarters into the fiscal year or whatever, the minister just works through Treasury Board a supplementary estimates package. They whisk it through the House here, and lo and behold, they don't get their pay withheld. They get it back, because under this new change, we will hold the minister accountable — and it's an abuse of the term — only to the budget as exceeded by the supplementary estimates.

That's quite a significant change. It's one that I think the public needs to understand is designed to make it easier for ministers to not have their pay held back. I can think of no other reason, and there's been no other motivation advanced by this government on this bill.

Their whole narrative for hacking and slashing public services, including health and education, which they explicitly promised not to do during the election…. This government's whole rationale is that it's tough times out there. Yet here we are passing a bill which has a clause in here making it not so tough times on ministers.

[1515]

They can share a little less in the pain with ordinary British Columbians and keep a little bit more of their salaries and their pay and their perks, which were withheld in the original legislation. It makes it easier for them to keep all that money.

Now, that's interesting. I haven't heard the Minister of Finance or any other minister get up and speak to this bill at all so far, but I would love to hear why they think one of the most important things in these tough times, where we've had to look for money of all kinds…. They've made it easier to escape a penalty clause when they're running a deficit in their ministry. Maybe we will hear that. It would be an interesting explanation.

Tourism British Columbia. This Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2) could be subtitled "the destruction of an independent, arm's-length Crown entity called Tourism British Columbia act" or whatever. We need to talk about it here this afternoon. It deserves a lot more than that. It deserves government putting to the light of day exactly why. I'd like to hear the Minister of Tourism, for example, should he put a stand-alone bill before the House, motivate on why it needs to be passed.

What is the urgency? What is the purpose? What plans does he have in place to replace what I've already described and what is well known to be an internationally recognized tourism promotion and destination marketing body? Why is the minister doing that? I won't get the privilege or the courtesy of hearing him speak to
[ Page 670 ]
that, because he has obviously colluded with the other minister to bury that action by this government into this bill.

So all we can do at this stage of second reading is ask some of those questions. Why would the Minister of Tourism sabotage the industry by winding down an institution that has been built up and has successfully performed for over a decade now in this legislation? By the way, nobody — and I've talked to a lot of people in the industry since this announcement was made — within tourism and the hospitality sector has any confidence that this minister has the ability to lead the tourism industry, and he's put himself in that position.

He's made himself, in effect, the CEO of tourism for all British Columbia after — what? — three weeks in the job since his cabinet appointment. I've looked at his background. I don't think he has it. I don't think he stacks up to Rod Harris, who was an award-winning tourism leader, who has a corporate memory and experience and award-winning programs and destination marketing successes for British Columbia. He's branded this province. He's worked with tourism leaders to adjust marketing plans, and now we've got the Minister of Tourism taking that job, dismissing the board of directors and the CEO? Unbelievable.

The minister didn't even have his story straight as to why he was doing it when it was announced. Why were you doing it, Minister? He suggested vaguely that there might be some savings in there. When he was asked for a figure — and this is the day of the announcement that Tourism B.C. was going to be blown up — he said, "Well, I think it's going to save $200,000 a year," on a marketing budget and an organization in the tens of millions of dollars.

He gave no example of where the savings would come from. He expressed no confidence that it was actually a real number. He just said, "Perhaps we will save a couple hundred grand," on an organization that administers a budget in the tens of millions. Wow. What a motivation for a so-called restructuring. Pathetic.

Now we have no plan in place. The board has been dismissed. The continuity in the organization is gone. The experience is out the door. All of this has been absorbed back into the ministry. Let's not forget that in adopting the old model, the one that we changed away from 12 years ago…. That was a model that the Liberals rejected then. They're bringing it back now, and they haven't explained why.

Some of my colleagues who have been sitting here in the House for a long time were part of the debates when they were then the opposition, when Tourism B.C. was created.

[1520]

One of them, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head — when Tourism B.C. was created as an independent, arm's-length entity — said: "We're hopeful that this legislation will provide for certainty and stability. I'm looking to see that this legislative agency has the independence" — because that was a paramount principle for her — "that was stressed, and I am assured it has."

The minister supported a new model that was independent, away from political interference, back then when it was introduced by the previous NDP government — and actually, on a rare occasion, voted with the government to create Tourism B.C. and now is supporting a minister who wants to destroy that model and bring it back in-house to the ministry and bring it under centralized, politicized control.

You know, the industry, under the current model — the one that's being dissolved in this legislation — gets to choose its own board. They get to select their own CEO without political interference. Under the new model, everything flows to the minister's desk.

Any tourism industry leader that potentially expresses an opinion that's different from this government's about a strategic direction or whatever, about how to market this province…. It's pretty easy to summarily fire and dismiss them, pretty easy to put fear into them.

And you know what? Economies — and this is a significant economic generator, the tourism sector — don't run well when they're on that model, when the directives come straight out of the minister's office, when the industry isn't free to use its entrepreneurialism and its insights and its experience and its dynamism, and leverage its own private sector dollars to get more and better arrangements. That's what we're giving up by going backwards.

There was another member across the way who was also in opposition back then, the member for Saanich North and the Islands, who said this at the time: "I'll be supporting the act to create Tourism B.C. as an independent stand-alone entity, because I think the intention of the act is sound." He then went on to express: "Government does not have a good reputation for appointing boards that are representative of the community."

That's why he supported the model in the late 1990s that took the power from the minister and gave it to the industry to appoint community representatives. Now he's absolutely silent when what he supported then and has been successful, has a track record of over a decade of success, is being destroyed. Where are those two members who supported that? Why aren't they standing with an organization that does an outstanding job in my community — Tourism Victoria or the Council of Tourism Associations? Where are they now?

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 2 this afternoon.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Juan de Fuca.

J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'm delighted to know that you can recognize me even when I have a cold.
[ Page 671 ]

I am pleased to be standing once again in my place here representing the people of the constituency of Juan de Fuca speaking on Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act. I want to focus my remarks, if I can, hon. Speaker…. I know there should have been a heckle on that one. If the member for Shuswap was on his toes, he would have been on that. I want to focus on three areas in the brief time I have available.

We've heard my colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake talking about Tourism B.C. We've heard my colleague also talking about the balanced-budget legislation that's amended by this act. I also want to touch on the harmonized sales tax, which is not, interestingly, in this document, but it's tangentially important to the discussion of management or mismanagement that seems to be the hallmark of the third term of the member for Vancouver–Point Grey's administration.

I heard yesterday or earlier in the week my colleague from Surrey-Whalley referring to the balanced-budget legislation as a document that might as well have been written on a blackboard. I'm thinking more along the lines of an Etch A Sketch, because then you can just shake it off and start again, and nobody even really knows what you're doing.

We were here — what was it? — seven months ago, called back in advance of the scheduled sitting of the Legislature prior to the tabling of the Budget 2009, part 1, so that we could amend the balanced-budget legislation. I've said in this place, and others have said it, that the member for Vancouver–Point Grey lost sleep over the prospect of a deficit.

[1525]

We had had an emergency session last fall in October, where members like the member for Kamloops and the member from Quilchena and the member from Abbotsford all stood in this place and said: "Not here in British Columbia. We will weather the storm. We are bigger than the world economy. Our policies are so sound, so firm, so grounded in neo-conservatism that we cannot fail."

It was impossible for the world economy to affect British Columbia. That was the level of the hubris on that side of the House. It was absolutely appalling to hear thoughtful, rational people stand up and say irrational things. Not so unusual for the member for Kamloops–North Thompson at the time, but nonetheless he said that only here in B.C. could we traverse the rocky shores and make sure that we arrived at port free of deficit, ready to take on the challenges of the world economy.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Wow. What a difference 12 months makes when you're using an Etch A Sketch to draft legislation.

It's very good to see the Assistant Deputy Speaker in the chair for my remarks. I'm always comforted to know that you're there keeping decorum in this place while I'm on my feet.

So we had an amendment to the balanced-budget legislation in January-February, where the minister current from Vancouver-Quilchena and his seatmate the Premier from Vancouver-Point Grey insisted: "Two years — that's it. It will only be two years, and we came to this difficult decision based on…. Well, we've had a downturn in the economy here despite our sound policies that we put in place over the past number of years, which led to record deficits at the start of the decade, modest surpluses at a time when everyone in the world was reaping surpluses." And now we have, in September 2009, as the member for Victoria–Swan Lake has alluded to, Budget 2009 2.0, the Etch A Sketch version.

We're now going to have deficits for four years, which puts us at — what? — seven deficits in 12 years for the sound managers on that side. Two thumbs up for the Harvard Business School members over there for doing their job. But the tragedy — and this is when I speak for my constituents in Juan de Fuca — of the deception, the tragedy of the hubris, the tragedy of the perception on that side of the House that only they are benevolent enough to govern the people of British Columbia with their sound fiscal policies and their business school management practices is that it was a deception for the people during the election campaign.

We had months and months and months of: "Everything's fine. Don't worry about us. Everything is going to be okay. We're going to amend the balanced-budget legislation. We're going to have deficits for two years, but this year, 2009 — $495 million deficit tops. Guaranteed, no more. Not a penny more — $495 million."

We heard it over and over and over again from the Premier, from the Minister of Finance, from members on that side of the House, day after day, during budget debates, during the election campaign: "That's it. It's going to be great. Don't worry about us, because we have the keys to the kingdom. We have the wisdom of the ages. Only here in British Columbia. That's where it's going to all come together. We have our Etch A Sketch. We've changed the law. Two years maximum."

What have we got today? The election is over. The books have now been exposed to scrutiny, and we have a massive deficit. This year — $2.8 billion. It would have been higher had we not taken the blood money from the federal government with respect to the HST. It is interesting that in a budget implementation act that finds $750 million in revenue from the federal government to impose a harmonized sales tax, there's no mention of the HST. Interesting. The revenue would not have been forthcoming were it not for the secret deal.

An Hon. Member: The signing bonus.
[ Page 672 ]

J. Horgan: Yeah, the signing bonus. That's right. Boy, the Canucks could do better than that. It's a shame we don't have a salary cap for these sorts of things. We might have been able to get some honesty from the government on this question.

We have $750 million of revenue coming as a result of the harmonization of our provincial social services tax and the goods and services tax, but yet there's no mention of it in this document. Hard to believe. Hard to understand. Hard to fathom. It may not be in here because the government doesn't want anyone to know until next July, inconceivably, when the tax takes effect. So we'll have 12 months of: "Well, we had to do it. It's the single most important thing we could do to improve the economy."

[1530]

Although, yesterday, the Minister for the Olympics said the single most important thing we could do for the economy was to have an Olympic party in February. So now we have two single most important things. How do you do that? I think you should only have one single most important thing. Two single most important things are…. Well, they're two.

An Hon. Member: Redundant.

J. Horgan: Redundant. Well, I wouldn't want to say that, because I have respect for the new minister. I think she's going to be just fine once she finds her feet. But yesterday she was on a slippery slope, and I'm sure she was grateful today that we let her be and moved on to other matters.

I said I wanted to mention three things. I know there are other members that want to speak, and I have issues that are going to take me away from this place.

I wanted to talk a little bit about Tourism B.C., because this is another one of those examples of the government saying one thing and doing another. In the 1990s…. I know that the members love to go back to the 1990s. Those were the good old days where they could say anything and do anything and not be held accountable for it.

When Tourism B.C. was created and established by the then Glen Clark government, there were members on that side of the House…. My colleague referenced the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. I always like to take the opportunity to remind the former member for Kamloops–North Thompson that he was effusive in his praise of the government at that time for establishing an arm's-length organization, Tourism B.C., to manage and coordinate the promotion of this fantastic place that we all have the privilege of calling home.

Tourism B.C. was constructed and run by professionals that were world-renowned. Some of the promotional activities by that body allowed us to have confidence as citizens of this province that every corner of B.C. was being recognized.

The challenge we have with the repeal of Tourism B.C., under section 17 of Bill 2, is that the control of Tourism B.C. is now in the hands of the minister responsible. Regrettably, the current denizen of the minister's office is the former member for Kamloops–North Thompson. I don't know if it's Kamloops–South Thompson. Maybe my colleague will help me out on the location of the member. I don't want to keep referring to him as Kamloops–North Thompson, as he's moved south of the river. I know that much.

He at the time said that this was the single most important thing that the government of the day could do to promote tourism in British Columbia. Twelve years later he has the good fortune, by a contest of the tallest person on that side, to sit at the executive council table with his colleagues, and he is now responsible for Tourism B.C. And what's the first thing he does? He repeals the act. He fires the CEO and takes control of all of the programs and dollars that go into that former Crown corporation and government agency and puts it into central government.

"Absolutely the wrong way to go," say all of the experts in the field. Absolutely the wrong way to go for people in my constituency of Juan de Fuca, very much dependent on tourism as we shift from the resource economy into the service economy on southern Vancouver Island.

For the minister to now say that there are efficiencies to be had somewhere in the order of maybe $100,000 or $200,000…. To fire that expertise, as we're welcoming the world to Vancouver for 2010 and the Winter Olympics, is inconceivable to me.

This is the good management on that side. This is the good management on this side of the House. How can you justify saying before an election: "The deficit will be X. There will be no significant tax increases. Go with us; we're the best managers in the universe"?

Well, the Liberals were returned. The Liberals were returned to government, and what did we get? We have the second amendment to the balanced-budget legislation in six months. We have the introduction of the harmonized sales tax which will see $1.9 billion funnelled out of taxpayers' pockets, shifted over to the corporate sector — which I know makes my friend from Abbotsford very happy.

No mention of it during the election campaign. No mention of it during the tabling of Budget 2009, part 1, back in February. Not one mention of it at all.

Talk to tourism operators here on southern Vancouver Island. Go out to Butchart Gardens, say you're a B.C. Liberal and see how that goes over. Go out and tell them you're a B.C. Liberal. They'll be throwing tulip bulbs at you. I'll tell you that much.

[1535]

The tourism sector on southern Vancouver Island has benefited greatly from Tourism B.C. The rocket scientists on that side of the House on a whim to save a hundred
[ Page 673 ]
grand that's now going back into luxury boxes for fat cats at the Olympic Games…. Somehow that's good management. It's atrocious.

Again, I go back to the hubris, because that's the really galling part about this. There's a sense of entitlement for the Liberal, Social Credit, Reform — whatever you guys want to call yourselves, whatever you're going to be this month. This sense that members on that side of the House, whether they be Liberals, Socred, Conservative, whatever they do when they go into the polling place at federal campaigns…. They think they're the only ones fit to govern. It's offensive to me, and it's offensive to people right across British Columbia.

I mentioned the balanced-budget legislation being written on an Etch A Sketch, and I want you to just close your eyes for a minute and contemplate that. You remember the little red plastic device that had the little dials. This was high-tech at the time when I was a young person. What I liked about it is that I could make things up on a whim to suit my own fancy, very much like the Minister of Finance has done since he was returned after the last election.

He said he never met with any officials during the campaign — business as usual. "I'm out knocking on doors in Quilchena. I wasn't talking to anybody. Nope, not talking to anybody. Well, a couple of phone calls where we heard that maybe there was a bit of a shift in revenue. Maybe we're losing a couple hundred million dollars here or there — several hundred million dollars."

Well, I used to work within the Ministry of Finance, and I know that the Treasury Board analysts spend every minute of every day going over trends, going over projections, looking at forecasts, looking at the revenue coming in. What's the dollar at? What's the impact going to be this week? Where are natural gas prices? What's lumber selling for? They do it every day all day long. That's what they do. They love it and do a very good job of it.

Now, I can't imagine the deputy minister to the Minister of Finance not telling him at some point during their casual conversations that revenues had gone into the tank — can't imagine that. It's inconceivable. He knows it; all of British Columbia knows it.

Had the government come clean, had they come clean with the people of British Columbia, we may not be in a position today watching B.C. Liberal poll numbers free-fall faster than the deficit is going up. It's quite extraordinary. There's an inverse relation, it seems to me. As the deficit goes up, Liberal numbers go down.

It's not because British Columbians don't understand and recognize that these are challenging times. That's not the case at all. We're not stupid people, not on this side of the House, not throughout British Columbia. People can sense that there's a change; there's a shift.

What really galls people is that those on that side of the House, led by the member from Point Grey and his colleague from Quilchena, refuses to accept responsibility for a deception that is mammoth in its proportion. We have it manifest today in Bill 2 through the rewrite on an Etch A Sketch of the balanced-budget legislation. It's ridiculous. It's tragic.

I want to talk about two other things. Again, I know the members don't like to go back to the 1990s when facts are being brought forward. They would rather just talk in terms of mythology. But members will know — and I know the member from Quilchena will know — that in the mid-1990s, the federal government led by Jean Chrétien and his Finance Minister, Paul Martin, set about solving the deficit problem at the federal level. How did they do that? Well, they clawed back money from provincial governments right across the piece. There were massive holes in provincial governments from British Columbia to Prince Edward Island.

What happened in British Columbia when the federal government created massive holes in the billions of dollars for social service transfers, for higher education, for health care and so on is that the government of the day, led by Premier Mike Harcourt and then by Premier Glen Clark, filled those vacuums with provincial tax dollars. We protected the people of British Columbia from the draconian cuts that were coming from Ottawa.

That was the right thing to do — unless you're the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, who at the time said the federal government should cut deeper. That was his comment at the time. I'm not one to throw quotes back at the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, because I know that would take me all of the 30 minutes that I have at my disposal.

[1540]

However, the transfer payments were slashed by hundreds of millions and to the point of billions over time, and not one word from that side of the House when Paul Martin decided that he wanted to be Prime Minister. How do you do that when you're the Minister of Finance at the federal level? You start throwing money all over the place.

So federal transfers started to increase to the point that in this budget, Budget 2009, federal transfers are among the highest they have been in 20 years, not counting the blood money for the HST. Federal transfers are at record levels.

You don't hear that from the members on that side of the House. You don't hear them giving credit to Mr. Harper and Mr. Flaherty for restoring the cuts that Mr. Martin and Mr. Chrétien did in the 1990s. You don't hear anything about that.

You don't hear a lot from that side of the House about the establishment of the Oil and Gas Commission and the putting in place of policies and programs that accelerated development of oil and gas developments in the northeast, which are now keeping our hospitals open and our schools funded.
[ Page 674 ]

We've had a drop in resource revenues. We're all aware of that. Certainly, the Minister of Finance was aware of that months and months ago, but now the public is aware of it. We know that we're short on natural gas revenues, but we would have not had the revenues at all were it not for NDP policies in the 1990s.

So those are just two little nuggets I want to leave with the Harvard MBAs on that side of the House, the divine-right-to-rule party. I don't know why you don't just change it to that right now. Let's make it official. "We're not B.C. Liberals; we're not federal Conservatives. We're the divine-right-to-rule group, the divine-right-to-rule party."

Hubris, hon. Speaker. I don't like it, and my constituents don't like it. I'm going to give the floor to my friend from Fraser-Nicola. I want to thank you very much for indulging me. With that, I'll conclude my remarks and take my seat.

B. Routley: You know, it's interesting. You listen to the other side, and there's no accountability whatsoever. Yet they're here today introducing their Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act.

Unbelievable, Madam Speaker, that here we are — the second time in nine months, I believe it is — back amending what was originally trumpeted to be that they were going to bring in the balanced-budget act. They were going to hold firm, they were going to show British Columbians how to do things, and there was a certain arrogance in that they could never preside over a deficit situation.

All of a sudden they found themselves in a situation where they had to do something, and they were forced by the events. Unfortunately, they didn't see the first time they amended their bill.

An Hon. Member: Or the second time.

B. Routley: Or the second time.

Really it should be called…. I've got a suggestion for those people on the other side of the House that are having trouble with renaming these bills. I think it should be renamed the "not quite sure we know what we're doing act." That would be a more accurate description.

The "not quite sure exactly what we're doing act" would be absolutely transparent and clear. This is a second time. Or how about a more transparent name would be the "We're going to be making things up as we go along act," because clearly that is exactly what this government is doing.

The next time they have a crisis in some kind of budget…. Of course, the claim is now: "Oh, this is going to be good. In four years we're going to get back to balanced budgets, and everything is going to be rosy then." And they'll never have a problem again. So they're actually amending this thing instead of trying to be clear and transparent and honest with British Columbians.

This government said, before the election, $495 million. The first time, I would remind you…. It relates directly to the bill because that was the first time…. When they were announcing the amendment to the bill the first time, that was the announcement at that time. Back in February, at the beginning of this year, they were saying that it was going to be $495 million — not a problem, that they would handle it.

[1545]

It was difficult. They were then saying that things were coming upon them. Unforeseen events were coming upon them, and they had to make amendments to $495 million.

The people of British Columbia understand this is jiggery-pokery and bafflegab. That's what it is. My mother used to use that word, and I often wondered whether I'd ever get to use that in my entire lifetime. But here I am — jiggery-pokery and bafflegab. It's another example, under Bill 2, of exactly what we've got.

We had great fanfare telling the people of British Columbia how they were going to be taking action to balance the budget. I would like to know how they intend to be held accountable. They had originally some kind of clause in there that they were going to punish ministers. I understand that's been amended, just tweaked a little bit too. So things are going….

Basically, we've got a merry-go-round philosophy that this government has. They're just prepared to push the people of British Columbia off the ride at any moment when things are not looking good for them. The people of British Columbia can get thrown off the ride, and they're just going to keep riding the merry-go-round.

This is a government that says they will do this at one point, and now it's a new day. They talk a good game, but clearly it's shifting sands. Under this bill, the deficits can run from two years to four. That's what this does. It amends the opportunity to run deficits from two years to four.

This is a waste of the important time here in British Columbia. Here we are spinning our wheels, redoing a bill yet another time in just months.

I see the mean-spiritedness in this. It's another part of the pattern. All of a sudden the tourism operators throughout British Columbia are shocked and surprised by the announcement of this government that Tourism B.C. is going to be cancelled. They fire the CEO, basically throw him out of the door and replace all of the board — kind of a shock-and-awe approach to that as well. It's definitely a pattern.

When you look back at the pattern, you can't help but see over and over again…. It's transparent for all British Columbians. I don't know how everybody could think that this government doesn't say one thing one day and change totally — 180-degree turn on things.

It was B.C. Rail they said they wouldn't sell off, and health care contracts they said they would rip up. Now
[ Page 675 ]
we've got HST. Nobody talked about HST. In fact, prior to the election when they were talking about HST, they said that it wasn't going to happen. Now B.C. consumers are going to be the collateral damage in this government's half-truths and unspoken real agendas.

The real agenda of this government only comes clear after they're elected for another four years. I heard one journalist say: "You know, the Premier of the province could be caught shooting puppies, and he would still hold the chair for four more years."

That's a pretty graphic example, and I love puppies, by the way. I've got this wonderful golden retriever. I dearly love puppies, so that's an alarming kind of statement to hear, that kind of thing, but it's all so true.

The other side kind of thumbs their nose at us. There they are. They've got the position, and we should just go pound sand when it comes to raising these important concerns from British Columbians.

Tourism operators are writing letters, very concerned about what's happening. Here they were sold this bill of goods that it was going to be wonderful. The Olympics were going to come, and B.C. Tourism was going to be taking care of things. Suddenly they pull the rug out from underneath it, and nobody knows what's going on. No consultation, no discussion with tourism operators whatsoever — just unilateral actions.

[1550]

You go back and look at it. They did all this privatization and outsourcing of health care — food, laundry, janitorial, seniors care. They believe in a philosophy of for-profit businesses. That's their whole philosophy. Education cuts — 177 schools they've closed. B.C. Hydro — they've sold off parts of B.C. Hydro. Ferries — huge salary increases, and we've got the million-dollar man now. We've got all kinds of corporate tax cuts.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

B. Routley: I want to go back to the bill here.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

B. Routley: On the bill. This particular section here is of real interest. Right after tourism there are a few sections that get into it. It says that they're going to double the training tax credit for employers, up to $4,000. Isn't that interesting? We've got the Ministry of Forests running around encouraging training to get out of the forest industry, and now we find out why — just the other day, by the way.

That's another example of how this government seems to say one thing one day and then the next, right after election time, a total reversal. Let's have a look at what was said before the election. "What we're finding now is clearly that we're going to have a much longer shelf life, and we think the opportunity to continue to harvest these stands in the central interior part of the province extends well into the 2020s before we'll see any significant downfall."

Interjections.

B. Routley: Yes, and that's exactly right, Minister Bell. Those were your words, March 5, 2009.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member. Member, one moment, please. Please remember. Do not use names.

B. Routley: The Minister of Forests — right.

Deputy Speaker: And I would also ask you to restrict your remarks to the bill. There are many areas to the bill to discuss, and I would hope that you remember that you're discussing Bill 2.

B. Routley: Well, we're talking about the section of the bill in part 1, section 2 — particularly in (1.1), which is repealed. It establishes expenditures out of the B.C. Timber Sales account not being included in the calculation of operating expenses. We're referring specifically to timber, so I think that gives me the latitude to speak out on issues about timber, Madam Speaker.

Anyway, as a result of the mountain pine beetle and decisions that have been made around species-at-risk recovery strategies and land use planning, there's a very real possibility we're going to run out of trees. That's the new statement that we're hearing from this minister.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order.

Member, I would ask you to restrict your remarks to the bill. There are a lot of areas in the bill to be discussed, and I would ask that you restrict your remarks to Bill 2.

Interjection.

B. Routley: They've got a lot to say, and I would like to hear particularly this part about ministerial accountability.

I think I'm talking about ministerial accountability. That's what the name of this act is. It's called the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, and it's unbelievable that there is no accountability for what's going on in this province.

This government has no problem giving huge corporate tax cuts to corporations, and when you look at what's happening to families…. We had triple the MSP. We've now got HST. We've got hydro rates, gas bills, ICBC rates, fees and licences, tuition fees and ferry rates all climbing. We've got cuts to services in health and education, social services, agriculture and ranching, forestry, environment, tourism, children and families.
[ Page 676 ]

All of this is about the balance of so-called…. This is the second time that this government has trotted in, to this Legislature, some kind of bill suggesting that they need to amend, of all things, the ministerial accountability act. Where is the accountability in all of this? Absolutely none — no accountability in the province of British Columbia and certainly no balanced budget.

[1555]

No balanced budget. The first time around they were talking about how they were going to have a balanced budget of $495 million. That was the first amendment to this bill — wasn't it? All of a sudden the applause has stopped from the other side. They don't want to talk about that. They're not looking up. Suddenly they're real busy.

They have no time to be accountable and to talk about what happened at the beginning of this year when this government came in absolutely convinced that they could sell the people of British Columbia and come into this Legislature and declare that they were going to have a $495 million deficit — and no more. They had a plan, and we should all trust them. That was what was in the first amendment.

Here we are with Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2009. I don't know when Nos. 3 and 4 and 5 will be coming, but you can be sure that if there are more shifting sands, they'll be back at it again.

It's really a meaningless document in so many ways, because at the end of the day it really is just the government's attitude. We can say something in February and be absolutely sure and convince the people of British Columbia this is exactly what we're going to do and then months later and, interestingly, right after the election….

I talked about this government finding this economic tsunami. It was absolutely amazing how we have heard speaker after speaker after speaker get up and tell us how it was this terrible event, and they had no idea — no idea at all. They were totally caught off guard and totally surprised by what was going on. And now we are back here amending the bill so that yet again….

Now they're going to stretch it out. The first time around they were going to stretch it out for only two years. Now: "Oh well, we need four years." What's next? What's the point? Again, it's a revolving-door approach to legislation, and it really isn't going to stand the test of time. This is just another attempt to put a little massage on and try to indicate that there's still some reality to what they're talking about. But everybody knows — the people of British Columbia know — that it's just more of the same stuff from this government, that they say one thing one day and something totally different the next — absolutely, totally different.

So, yeah, we've got the amendment in section 1 here. Let's talk about that for a minute. It says that it's going to extend the period in which deficits can be run from two years to four. It amends section 2.1, which was created January 2009, to give an exception to the prohibition against deficits. Can you imagine the prohibition they announced? They were going to have a prohibition, and apparently that just wasn't able to hold water. They saw that it was just like a runaway train coming at them. They had no idea. They were caught totally by surprise.

But here they are now, and the accountability part seems to be missing — totally missing. In fact, other than the heading, I don't think there's another word called "accountability" anywhere in this act. I've looked high and low. We're having trouble finding anything more about what kind of accountability we're going to get. Again, you know, they're changing things on the fly.

Tourism. Let's talk about what they had to say about tourism. In section 18…. Actually, let's go back to section 17 and have a close look at that. I think the tourism operators throughout British Columbia would be interested in knowing that section 17 repeals the Tourism British Columbia Act, effective April 1, 2010.

Interjection.

B. Routley: Well, yeah, I guess after you threw the CEO under the bus, everybody in British Columbia knew that was what was going on.

[1600]

In section 18 it establishes that on the repeal of the Tourism B.C. Act, Tourism B.C. is dissolved and the appointments to the board are all rescinded. All rights and assets of B.C. Tourism are vested in the government. They're vested in the government. Just take them all back. A government that says they're going to have this hands-off approach to tourism and all of a sudden, again, another item.

Something like this, tourism…. Surely the people of British Columbia, the electorate, were grown-up enough to be told the truth about what their plans were. Why not come out to the people of British Columbia and say: "You know what? We've been thinking about it. The Olympics are coming, and we want to get rid of Tourism British Columbia. We're going to take things over. We have got a better vision for the Olympics, and we don't think we need this CEO and the rest of these characters. We're just going to do away with it, and that's the truth about our plan."

But no, no consultation with the people of British Columbia. One day they're there, and it's the reality for British Columbia. They would stand up and, I'm sure, support Tourism B.C. just weeks or months before the announcement that they're done — done like dinner. They're no longer a relevant thing, because somebody had some kind of an epiphany and decided that they had a grand plan to deal with the whole issue of tourism in the province of British Columbia.
[ Page 677 ]

Well, it is a sorry record indeed, when you look at the accountability. Where is the accountability? This government continues to have a record. The highest rate of homelessness — it's tripled since this government took office. Highest child poverty rate in the country in the last six years. The lowest minimum wage in Canada, and the worst record of full-time job losses in the last year — almost 100,000 jobs. The highest tuition fees in the country. We've had hospitals closed, 177 schools closed. Forestry is in shambles, agriculture abandoned.

Apart from this act here, this balanced budget and ministerial act, which seems to be the only thing they want to talk about in the Legislature…. They want to talk about…. We've spent a lot of time, apparently, in this House. I don't know. How many hours did you spend at the beginning of the year appealing your act?

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, Member. Through the Chair.

B. Routley: Well, Madam Speaker, it must be quite the thing. This government doesn't seem to be able to make up their mind. At the beginning of the year, in February, they had a plan. It was going to be certain, and the people of British Columbia were told when they go into election: "You can trust us, because this is the plan. We're revealing that things aren't as bright as they seem."

It is very interesting when you go back and read some of the reports, because the Premier and Finance Minister back in February were saying that they were surprised by the events, and things had overtaken them, and they had to take action. They were going to have a two-year plan, and that was going to work, and that was exactly what the province of British Columbia needed.

But here we are again, just months later. Here we are amending the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act yet again. I guess we've got a government that has a plan to have…. We've now got these massive Liberal deficits.

I got a lecture the other day. I'm still not sure what his constituency is, so I won't go there, but I can see him from here. He gave me a lecture about debt, and I just want to remind, through the Speaker, that when you have P3 debt in the province of British Columbia, when you have commitments to 30 to 40 years of payments…. I don't know. If that was you running your household, and you had signed contracts, and you had committed yourself to millions of dollars for 30 or 40 years, that would be debt. So we can call it something else.

Again, it follows the same pattern. No accountability. No balanced budget. No accountability in this act whatsoever.

[1605]

The people of British Columbia are frustrated. They're right, and they're talking about the tourism situation. I've heard from tourism operators. This Tourism Act has been amended, and they're now complaining about the impact of what is being planned that they had no idea about. Where is the accountability in that?

An Hon. Member: None.

B. Routley: None. There's no accountability. They want to come into this House and frame an accountability act, yet they don't want to be accountable to the people of British Columbia by being transparent and saying, "We intend to bring in an HST," because that's what they intended to do.

They can't pretend that it was some kind of shock and awe and that all of a sudden it became a wonderful idea — right after the election. Right after the election they want us to believe that somebody had this thought. You know, it was just passing by, kind of like a vapour in the wind.

They got this call from the feds, and they said: "You know what? We were thinking about British Columbia, and we've got a cheque here. Come on down." Just like the game show. "Come on down and get the $1.6 billion." Yes, siree. And boy, they were running to the front of the line. They couldn't wait to get there, to get the $1.6 billion…

Deputy Speaker: Member, will you please….

B. Routley: …because that was going to bail things out, and that was going to make them accountable.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, will you please address Bill 2.

B. Routley: Under Bill 2, it talks about accountability, Madam Speaker, and we're still waiting for accountability in the province of British Columbia. I don't think we're going to see accountability. We're going to see more of the same over and over and over again.

The people of British Columbia are fed up. They are fed up to here with what's going on — hundreds of people showing up at parades, frustrated by the deception, the fact that they were told one thing….

That's what this act was about. This is the second time, Madam Speaker. I'll remind you. Let's have a look at the act some more. Let's read from the first line here. Let's have another look at it. This is the second time. This is Bill 2 because we had Bill 1, and now we've got Bill 2.

That's original, you know. That is original. They came up with Bill 2, so at least you're keeping track, you know, so you seem to be able to do your math okay on that. But there's no ability to figure out $495 million. Or is it $2.8 billion? Oh well, give or take a billion or two. Well, I think it matters to the people of British Columbia.

But here we have again this balanced budget and ministerial act, changed for the second time. It even says
[ Page 678 ]
right here that it amends it for the second time this year. My, my.

Yeah, the minister wants to talk about all the good things they're doing. Eliminating Tourism B.C., they say, and they're going to provide basic training credits for employers. There's something for mining in here, too, but I don't see…. It's a pretty thin gruel when it comes….

If you're a regular British Columbian and particularly if you're a forest worker or you're disadvantaged or you're poor, there's nothing in here to help you — no, not at all. Just stuff to help their big bosses that they pay a lot of attention and time to. That's what they have in here — just very thin gruel, indeed, for anybody that has families, anybody that's hurting, if you're a senior out on fixed income.

What's mean-spirited is that the plan now is to shift the burden. After they get through doing Bill 2 here, we're going to have the biggest transfer of tax in the history of British Columbia from the big corporations right on to the consumers — to the little people, to average folks throughout British Columbia — for a haircut or for a bicycle. That's what we've got going on in British Columbia.

It is something else that we've got a second time around, a Bill 2, a Budget Measures Implementation Act that really has….

[1610]

You know, you look through here, and all there is, is stuff that's going to help their friends. There's not a single thing, not a line in here that….

Interjection.

B. Routley: Where's the stuff in here that's going to help? Where is that going to be in here?

I want to conclude by thanking you for the opportunity to speak up for the people of the Cowichan Valley. There are a lot of tourism operators, a lot of restauranteurs that are very concerned tonight in British Columbia.

I know this government thinks they've got more important things to do than yet again present to the people of British Columbia, a second time around, the Budget Measures Implementation Act that’s some kind of a balanced budget and ministerial accountability act. No accountability. I'm sorry, I call it the way I see it. There isn't any accountability with this government, and that's a sad day for all British Columbians.

With that, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I think it's important that we have these kinds of discussions. I care deeply about our community, and I know there's got to be one or two folks over there that are thinking about it too. But I really have to wonder, when I see that the impact at the end of the day seems to be more for big business. That's where all their effort seems to go, into their big business friends, with very little for people on the other end of the pay scale.

Deputy Speaker: I would like to remind members that we've been discussing this for the last 22 sessions. We have a lot of latitude in Bill 2, but I would like to remind members that we are discussing Bill 2. We are not discussing the complete budget. We are discussing the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

D. Barnett: Madam Chair, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Barnett: Here today with us we have Dr. Philip Teal, a leading neurologist in British Columbia in the area of stroke, and Dr. Mark Collison of the Heart and Stroke Foundation. They're here today to have a meeting with the Health Minister on the stroke strategy of British Columbia. Can we welcome them to the House, please.

Debate Continued

H. Lali: I rise today to take my place in the debate and to speak against Bill 2.

I just want to start off by saying that all of us who come here from various parts of British Columbia have constituents. When you look across British Columbia, constituents — well, constituents anywhere in the world where there's elected government — have expectations. They have expectations of their government. They expect their government to be as honest and as open as the people who elect them. What they want from their elected representatives and from their government is for them to be honest and to tell them the truth. They want to know that. That's what the expectations are.

It's not a lot for folks to expect or want to expect. But sometimes you find governments where it's very, very difficult for them to actually be honest and to also be open and tell folks the truth. But as far as constituents are concerned, it's not asking for a lot.

What we have seen in the last number of years, almost nine years now, what British Columbians have seen is not what they had expected from the government. What this government has continued to do for the last decade now, almost a decade, is actually perfect the art of deception and deceit. That's what's happened, and that is now being implemented here, right here in this bill called the Budget Measures Implementation Act, Bill 2.

It's just a fine example of the kind of deception that we have seen practised in this province of ours from that government for almost the last ten years. They say one thing before an election, but when it comes time after an election, it's exactly the opposite.

We wouldn't be here if this government hadn't promised voters in this province of British Columbia when
[ Page 679 ]
they brought down the first version of this budget in February and said they were going to have a $495 million deficit. That's what they said.

[1615]

They also said that they needed to amend the original Balanced Budget Act because they were going to run a deficit for two years. That's what they said. That's what they told us in February. When there were signs all over the world — all across British Columbia, Canada and the world — that there was this recession that was coming and the financial crisis, the Premier, the cabinet, especially the Finance Minister, refused to believe it.

It's sort of like if you've got a beachfront property, and you've got all sorts of neighbours there, and you could see on the horizon. The minister says there is an economic tsunami. That's what the minister said. That's the reason why we're here in this House.

When you see on the horizon that the clouds are turning black, that the winds are coming at a heavy speed, that there are waves coming at you…. You read about it in newspapers. You hear it on television and on the radio station that there's going to be a downturn in the economy. When you're sitting there…. This is this government sitting there on that beach while all of the neighbours are sitting there packing their suitcases, packing their kids, packing their belongings into their cars to get the heck out of the way of this tsunami that is coming.

You know what the Premier and the Finance Minister in this Liberal government were preoccupied with doing? Trying to convince people and themselves that somehow they were going to be immune to this economic tsunami and this big storm that was coming on this horizon — all black and lots of wind and hurricane- gale type of winds. They said it was going to blow over them or sidestep them or go underneath them, but they would be okay.

Time and time again you heard the Premier and the Finance Minister and these members across the way telling British Columbians that they were going to be immune. They were going to be immune from this storm that was developing on the horizon while everybody in the community was packing up and leaving that beach.

Well, that's why we're here today — because that financial crisis that they refused to believe had finally hit. It finally, finally had hit.

You know what happened with this Liberal government — whatever we're talking about, this $495 million deficit they said they were going to bring in, in February — or any discussions that the caucus had, the Liberal caucus before that in 2008, while everything around in the financial world was collapsing?

They had a choice. The choice was either to go out and tell people exactly what was happening in British Columbia…. Tell them the truth. Let them know what was happening — they had that choice — and tell the folks that they were actually incompetent in not being able to actually see what was going on in the world. That was the one choice — to admit and actually be honest with the people of British Columbia and say they are incompetent.

The other choice was to feign ignorance. You know, when they said they didn't know how bad the recession was going to be, they decided on the option of feigning ignorance. That's what happened, and this is where this whole deception comes from. It doesn't surprise me, because what we have seen from the opposite benches for a whole decade is a decade of deception and deceit.

You know what the interesting thing is? When you look across the benches, nobody is getting up to speak. If they're so excited, if those Liberals are very excited about Bill 2, they should stand up and take their place in the debate, get up and speak and try to defend Bill 2. You don't see them defending. None of them are standing up here and defending this bill.

The Premier, when he was actually on this side of the House, had a lot to say. He said: "I hate deficits." He said: "I hate deficits with a passion." He said: "I can't go to sleep at night. I have sleepless nights." That's how badly he did not want deficits, so what is this all about? Is this bill that is brought in before us to make sure that the Premier actually goes to sleep, that he actually goes to bed? Is this what this is about — to provide sleep for the Premier?

Well, this isn't the first time they've done this. They did that immediately after winning the election in 2001. They changed the Balanced Budget Act to suit their preferences, because they knew they were going to run a deficit when they actually inherited the largest surplus in the world. Okay, maybe that's stretching it a little bit. The largest surplus in the history of British Columbia. It just seems like the whole world that's listening to me, hon. Members.

[1620]

So this is the third time. They're now saying that we're not going to have two deficits. We're going to have four deficits in a row, and it's not $495 million. It's going to be a record $3.6 billion, actually. Of course, they're saying it's $2.8 billion, because they got this carrot from the federal government of $700-and-some-odd million to try to say it's only $2.8 billion — which still makes it the second-largest deficit in the history of this province after this group brought in the largest deficit of $3.1 billion in the year 2002. They did that.

You know what they're also doing? They're eliminating Tourism B.C. They say: "We don't need tourism in British Columbia. We don't need Tourism B.C., so why not just get rid of it and fire everybody that's on the board." They're doing that, but the one thing they're not doing is they're not giving back that tax.

They're still going to take the 3 percent that was going into Tourism B.C. They're going to take it, and they're putting it into general revenue. They're doing that.
[ Page 680 ]

Now, all of a sudden, they find themselves saying: "You know, we've got to change all this. We've got to bring it back in now." For the third time in a little over eight years, they're bringing it into this House to actually change the Balanced Budget Act in order to save their own hide so they wouldn't have to give up 50 percent of their ministerial salary that they get. That's what this is all about. It's to protect themselves.

Also, you know, the government…. They wake up one morning, and they realize they have no money. That's what this is all about. The Premier and government decide they have no money. They know they're in big trouble. Why are they in big trouble? Why are we here with Bill 2, to change the Balanced Budget Act? Because they gave everything away on a silver platter. They gave everything away to their buddies.

They started off in 2001-2002 giving massive tax breaks and credits to their buddies in large corporations and to those people who financed their election campaigns. They're giving them away. To this day today, the folks that are making over $150,000 a year and all of those large corporations… The tax breaks that they've given amount to about $2 billion a year. They've given away the revenue.

It's the same thing with the softwood. They gave it away. They listened to the Americans, and they gave it away in the softwood sellout.

Now they're finding that, hey, this whole ballyhooed 3Ps, public-private partnerships, are failing. They know they're failing, because it has loaded massive debt onto the province which we have to make annual payments on — the folks actually listening out there, the taxpayers in British Columbia.

They're finding out that their so-called run of the river…. It's the same thing. While they're privatizing aspects of B.C. Hydro and letting somebody else build the IPPs, guess who has to buy back that power. B.C. Hydro. Who owns B.C. Hydro? The people of B.C. And at what price? Double, triple, quadruple the price of what B.C. Hydro produces it at. That adds to the debt and the annual payment.

On their whole policy of privatization, whether it's privatization of B.C. Ferries, the MSP premiums administration off to Maximus, or whether it's the billings for B.C. Hydro to Accenture…. All of that's failing, and it's costing taxpayers here in British Columbia money. I've already talked about the tax giveaways, the corporate giveaways.

Finally, the Premier has realized that he's given it all away. He has to realize: how's he going to pay for it? He's got some options. You know what he's doing? He's practising both those options, starting with cuts — huge cuts, not just little cuts, huge cuts.

There are cuts to every ministry. That's what this government is doing — cuts to services; cuts to hospitals; elimination of schools; closing schools; firing teachers; firing nurses; not hiring enough professionals in the health care system; firing forestry personnel and in Environment, in Transportation, in every area and every ministry, in ranching. Every ministry has had cuts under this government, and they keep on doing it.

Every ministry. There is not a ministry that has escaped the axe from the axeman, the Finance Minister. Massive cuts everywhere.

But you know, on the other side…. That's why we're here discussing Bill 2, because they don't have the revenues. If they had the revenues, if they hadn't given it away to their buddies who financed their election campaigns, we wouldn't be sitting here right now.

[1625]

People in British Columbia wouldn't be suffering, especially the people who are disadvantaged. The disadvantaged lot in British Columbia are having to pay for it the most.

The other thing is the massive tax increases that this government has brought in. Cuts on the one side; massive tax increases on the other side.

Deputy Speaker: Member, Bill 2, please.

H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Speaker. That's what this is all about — Bill 2. We're here as a result of that.

I know I can't talk about the HST and the blood money that's coming in from the federal government. That's not allowed. But one of the things that they have also done is the 18 percent increase in the MSP premiums. That's after those MSP premiums went up 52 percent in 2002 under this government.

Deputy Speaker: Member, could you talk about Bill 2, please.

H. Lali: So that's not here. But what I am seeing…. This huge deficit they've got is the reason we're here, and even after those increases in those taxes or the 750 fees and licences that have been increased or the carbon tax that's been brought in, it's still not enough for these guys. That's how badly they're mismanaging everything here in this province of British Columbia.

When you look at it, also, on the other side, ICBC rates have gone up more than 50 percent in the last number of years. They used to be the lowest of any publicly run corporation that any provinces had owned. Tuition fees have gone up anywhere from 2 percent to 400 percent, and hydro rates have more than doubled.

But about this bill that's here before us…. These guys keep mismanaging the finances. Well, they don't share all the facts with the people of British Columbia. They certainly didn't do that before the election. I know my neighbouring colleague there, who's now in Kamloops south…. He used to be Kamloops–North Thompson. He went from one constituency to another in order to avoid defeat.
[ Page 681 ]

Anyway, that member, I remember him in this House lighting his hair on fire — whatever little he had. Anyway, he was lighting his hair on fire.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

H. Lali: I apologize to those who are follicly challenged. I take that back. The Minister of Forests is really touchy about the subject of hair. I don't know why. He's got a fine moustache.

Anyway, getting back to the bill. Now, the immediate former member for Kamloops–North Thompson in the 1990s, when there was a modest expansion of gaming, lit his hair on fire and said that the government was having a massive expansion of gambling.

In the last eight years, getting back to Bill 2, this member never said a peep as his government increased gambling by 125 percent in this province. They went even there to get money, and they still can't balance their books. And that's why we're here. We're back here.

I started out by saying right here that the people of British Columbia have expectations. They expect their politicians to be as honest as the people who elect them. They expect their politicians to come and serve them, whether it's here in Victoria or in the constituencies, and to tell them like it is. And not after an election. They want to know before an election what's going on.

When they brought in the first version of this bill, way back in February, they could have brought in the figures and told the people of British Columbia: "It's going to be a lot higher than $495 million." But they didn't do it. They didn't do it, and the people of British Columbia have a right and an expectation to get the facts from this government and have the government actually tell them the truth.

We are here today now looking at a $2.8 billion deficit on the books — when in reality, it's $3.6 billion — because this government has deceived the people of British Columbia all along. It's high time they recognized that, and it's high time they actually stop their deception and deceit and tell the people of the province of British Columbia exactly what is going on.

I have taken my place, and when the vote comes, I will be voting against Bill 2.

[1630]

M. Elmore: Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents from Vancouver-Kensington on Bill 2, the second reading for the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

On behalf of my constituents, I've heard many stories of concern in terms of the record of this government, and Bill 2 continues a culture of deception and deceit which is now codified in this bill. Constituents and B.C. citizens heard one story before the election — that the deficit would be $495 million — and another story after the election. Another falsehood before the election was that education, health care and social services would be protected, yet we learn after the election that it's another reality.

We see that this misleading appears to this government to be more appealing than reality, because this government tailors its comments to what the B.C. citizens want to hear and don't want to hear. This bill expresses the reality that this government shows, through this bill — that truth is mocked for political gain.

The Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act — summed up, I think, as being characterized by a lack of accountability — can also be compared to George Orwell's 1984, where in fact the ministry of truth produces lies. Now, with this Bill 2, we see that the government's Ministry of Finance promotes this budget. We're discussing Bill 2, and we see that misleading and deceit are put forward as common sense, and deceit is practised as politics as usual.

We've seen consistently broken promises — saying one thing before the election and the changing of the story after the election. Now we're here discussing Bill 2, which is also furthering a legacy of government mistrust by carrying out the practice of distortion to new and unimaginable heights, as we've seen, before and after the election, the breaking of promises in terms of exceeding the maximum deficit.

We've seen that these are government-sponsored deceits. It's also an official stream of deception and deceit. We see a deliberate denial of the truth, which we're discussing now with Bill 2, and that this government and this bill view deceitfulness as just another tactic in what we've seen has now become the pathology of government politics.

This budget, through Bill 2 having to go through second reading now, attempts to promote a culture of illusion, but we know that the B.C. public is not deceived. Furthering this legacy of government mistrust, we see this official stream of deception and deceit.

Bill 2 shows that the budget was turned on its head before and after the election. Now we're seeing the second amendment to the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, so we're seeing just a continuation of this kind of deceit and deception.

Additionally, Bill 2 also reflects financial mismanagement and the misplaced principles of this government — what we've seen over the past eight years. We've seen that economic growth alone didn't guarantee that people would benefit from increased prosperity.

In B.C. we've seen that, over the past years, economic growth has been strong, yet poverty remained unchanged, and income inequality increased substantially. The whole point of having a strong economy is to benefit society by improving the standard of living of people.

During the good times not all British Columbians were part of the boom. The poverty rates did not drop.
[ Page 682 ]
We now see that we, for six years, have the highest poverty rates for children. Homelessness more than doubled, and inequality has worsened. This bill continues these misinformed economic policies and the continuing trajectory of this government's priorities.

[1635]

In Bill 2, we don't see any measures or any difference in terms of the direction that this government has taken. We don't see an investment in green infrastructure or investment in social infrastructure. Instead, we see having to deal with the shortfall, and we see cuts to government programs to deal with this shortfall.

We see the deceit and the deception of the total for the budget deficit and also the breaking of promises to protect social programs. The impact of these cuts will hit the most vulnerable in our society. Also, these permanent program cuts will have a long-term negative impact to address this temporary slowdown in the economy.

The cuts to literacy programs, to Books for Babies; the cuts to tourism, the B.C. tourism sector; or the reduced access to public services and supports for the most vulnerable, including seniors, families, children, people with disabilities, also women and children facing violence. These are the people who are seeing the impact of these misguided policies, and we don't see any relief for them in the future.

Through Bill 2, having to amend the accountability act, we're seeing that the impacts to the most vulnerable will pay the price, and we also see that the direction of this government to address these concerns will have a long-term impact to the most vulnerable in B.C.

The need to amend, for a second time, the Budget Measures Implementation Act reveals this and also reveals that the economic policies are misplaced and misguided. They've contributed towards the lack of government revenues to pay off the debt. Also, the choices that the government has made to cut service programs will be of negative impact to the constituents in Vancouver-Kensington, the most vulnerable in B.C. They do not show any long-term commitment or any long-term relief in terms of addressing the cyclical nature of recessions or, indeed, building green infrastructure and social infrastructure that will benefit British Columbians.

I will be voting against this second reading of the Budget Measures Implementation Act. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this.

G. Gentner: Madam Speaker, it was interesting to note how the Minister of Finance went off script — became quite defensive, actually — in his justification of this piece of legislation. He has a right to be defensive because, of course, despite all the rhetoric of the Minister of Finance, this government, the Premier and the Minister of Finance have introduced legislation that greatly weakens legislation that is already in force and is the law of the land here in B.C.

They weaken legislation. Isn't that a surprise? They weaken legislation on accountability. They weaken legislation on balancing budgets. The Minister of Finance has the gall to stand up and say: "It's what we promised. Shouldn't we be patted on the back for doing what we've promised?" In fact, that's not the case.

Throughout the tenure of the Minister of Finance, he has committed, over and over again, to ideology that deficits are anathema. Deficits are a disaster to the economy, no exception. Not one exception has this Minister of Finance ever labelled as a justification for a deficit. Deficits are bad. Balanced budgets are good. That has been the ideological mantra of the Minister of Finance, supported 100 percent by the Premier of this province.

What we have here today is a bill that says that the law of the land, which now requires a reduction in deficits continuously, is out the window. It's out the window, in fact. "We're not even going to tell you what we're going to do."

[1640]

So all of the great rhetoric about the great sacrifice that the ministers on the opposite side are going to make about their salary…. Well, guess what, British Columbia. They're not going to be affected one iota. All the bravado of the ministers opposite, and their paycheques keep coming in.

I'm sure British Columbia will be overwhelmed with the contribution this government is making, and they're doing it in the context of repealing such stronger balanced-budget legislation.

The next thing they try to do is to use the trickle-down theory. They say to voters during the election that tax cuts will stimulate the economy so vigorously that they'll pay for themselves. When asked if those tax cuts would pay in some fiscal year so the programs wouldn't be affected, they don't have an answer.

So there we are. They actually don't even trust their own theory. They can't even trust themselves to deliver on their theory, so they have to give themselves leeway. They have to say: "Oops, you know what? The theory of massive tax cuts for the wealthiest and the corporate backers won't actually restore the revenue. So we have to have a deficit."

"We have to have a deficit, and we are actually going to allow ourselves a deficit, so we have to repeal that terrible previous legislation that required us to balance the books. We have to repeal this legislation, give ourselves a lot more room. Because you know what? Maybe we're not so sure our theory will work — our very risky agenda of massive tax cuts actually delivering back to the taxpayers of British Columbia."

What we have is a schedule that required governments to reduce the deficit each and every year, a mandated, legislated, law-of-the-land schedule requiring reduced deficits and balancing the budget. Mind you, let's keep
[ Page 683 ]
in mind that the previous government actually did balance the books and delivered a surplus.

But that wasn't good enough for this government. They actually had to say: "Yikes, we're really taking a huge risk on behalf of British Columbia, and we don't want to be tied down to legislation that would test the risk or prove how risky we are, or we are going to repeal that legislation and really water it down."

It is interesting to note that the government sits there and pats itself on the back. Maybe one day next year or in a few years they'll take a pay cut, if they don't actually balance the consolidated revenue fund — another difference, an absolute other difference. They only have to balance the consolidated revenue fund. Not even the Crown corporations have to be taken into account within the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

Here is the great government that used to say that you have to look at government broadly, that you have to take into account all the Crown corporations, that you have to use the summary accounts to determine your balanced budget. The legislation has been watered down even further so the ministers opposite don't have to be held accountable at all for the Crown corporations. That goes against every single statement made by the Minister of Finance in this Legislature over the last ten years.

You know what? Maybe they think in their arrogance — and the fact that they have a hidden, extreme agenda — that they can get away with this. In fact, they're keeping everybody so busy in their haste that the media are not able to keep up.

We know that this is an extreme measure moving British Columbians backwards in terms of fiscal responsibility. I expect the reason why the Liberal government doesn't want to hold itself accountable, wants to weaken legislation, is because they secretly know, and are keeping it from the voters, that their risky economic agenda will not work.

I hope it does. I actually hope their risky economic agenda does work, because if it doesn't, all the hard work of British Columbians, through an economic downturn and putting the budget and the fiscal house in order, is at risk. Beyond that, our social programs are at risk as well.

The government plays chicken with the voters, the patients, the people needing child care, the people needing employment standards protection, the people needing environment protection. The government plays chicken with their needs, with their families' needs, the province's greatest strength.

That's why this legislation is here. That's why this legislation is weakening the standards that are already on the books.

I know that there will be much discussion about this legislation as the government uses its massive majority to pass it. I know, as British Columbians pay closer and closer attention to who this government represents and who loses because of this government's economic agenda, that people will turn to the Legislature and say: "Oh my God, what happened there? What happened that we are now put in a situation where we don't have the protection that we did before to keep our fiscal house in order?" That is what British Columbians will do.

I know there will be very little discussion of it in the next couple of months, very little discussion about it at all. But rest assured that the elimination of the need to take responsibility across the summary accounts will come back to haunt British Columbians.

The lack of accountability, in any form whatsoever, of this government for the next seven months will come back to haunt British Columbians. I can pretty much predict that it will be in the form of British Columbians saying: "Oh my God, what have we voted for? Why were we not told that this economic agenda was hidden?"

[1645]

The budget is risky. It gets no scrutiny whatsoever. There's no accountability for this budget they just introduced — zero, nada. I'm very saddened that the people of British Columbia are having to take a step backward today, that their fiscal protection is less today and that the risk under which they are now being governed has increased.

No matter how much this Liberal government wants to rise here today and defend their actions, they've got to come clean to British Columbians that they stepped backwards today. They took a step backward. I'm very, very sad.

I would just remind British Columbians that the budget brought in by this Liberal government a few weeks ago is a risky agenda. It has an economic forecast that exceeds anything anyone else is predicting. It has massive, massive tax cuts for large corporations and the wealthiest that were not contemplated nearly three months ago. There's no recognition by this government that health and education spending requires increased funding as the population demands more, as it increases and as people grow older.

Deputy Speaker: Member, we're not discussing the budget. We're discussing the Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2).

G. Gentner: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

"As our education demands the best and most highly skilled workforce…it requires extra funding." I've plagiarized everything. Those were the words of Joy MacPhail, August 8, 2001. She called it then, when she was addressing this ridiculous budget…. On August 8, 2001, Joy MacPhail talked about the Budget Measures Implementation Act, and she called it a farce then, and it's a farce today.

Back then, of course, it was Bill 4. It was of great importance. The government rammed it through. Today the repealing of this legislation is Bill 2. It's even of greater importance. It just comes after Bill 1, which recognizes the supremacy of democracy.
[ Page 684 ]

You know, they have got to rescind or postpone the need for balanced budgets. Seven out of 12 have been deficits. They went around with this scrap of paper, this ridiculous thing, this bill that we're now once again having to rescind, or at least amend, because it's a farce. I have to suggest to you, hon. Speaker, that when you do the comparison, Manitoba doesn't have to rescind its bills relative to balanced budgets, because they've had ten consecutive balanced budgets.

I'll leave it here, knowing that the House Leader wants….

Interjection.

G. Gentner: I can continue some time? Okay. Thank you for that encouragement.

When we started talking about not balancing the budget and the need to put this through…. We started this way back. The Liberal government, when it came out with this legislation in 2001, had a rider on it that they would run deficits till 2004 — for four consecutive budgets. It just shows you how ludicrous this legislation was. They introduced the legislation to balance the budget, but they were unwilling or unable to come forward with a Budget Measures Implementation Act until 2004.

And here we are. Once again going back on their word, they're now going to have to do it again and again and again. It's simply because this government is unable to run the economy, which they think they can.

We've seen a deficit here of 2009-2010. The Premier told us that it was only going to be $495 million maximum. He told us that on April 23. Lo and behold, with the stroke of a pen, magic just sort of evolves here, and suddenly we're into a $2.8 billion deficit.

The first time this government had to amend the Budget Measures Implementation Act, I remember very well. The Premier basically told everybody that he couldn't sleep at night. He was pacing the west wing. He had insomnia. He had sleep deprivation. How horrible this situation had become. He had lost sleep, and it would never happen again. Here we are eight months later, and they're having to eat crow once again. This act really is very ineffective.

[1650]

It's interesting too — as Joy MacPhail said, interestingly enough — that the Budget Measures Implementation Act doesn't address Crown corporations and all their budgets. It's all right and good when it comes down to dealing with the immediate ministries, but the ministries that are responsible to budgets somehow seem to be exempt from all this closed accounting system and the ability to be transparent.

Interestingly enough, the budget transparency and accountability act itself has become a farce. That was also introduced a day after this bill in 2001 was introduced.

But I have to say that when you look at why we have a deficit and why we have to amend this act, it's because the government doesn't have a handle on its finances. One example…. I mentioned Crown corporations. We can look at Partnerships B.C.

Partnerships B.C. — interesting, that one. Salaries and benefits, 2008-09, $5.9 million in bonuses. It's jumped up to $7.194 million. You know, there are no cuts there. There's no need to tighten your belt with this legislation on Partnerships B.C. Not a chance, hon. Speaker — not a chance.

There's a different rule for some, and there's a different rule for others. When you look at Mr. Blain, the chief executive officer, with all compensation, he's making well in excess of half a million dollars. For heaven's sake, he even has a car allowance worth $9,999.96. On top of it, he has a parking allowance of $2,670.

When you look at this largesse and you look at the select few, they certainly aren't tightening their belts, and they don't have to follow the dictates of this budget that we're hearing today. I'm sure we will try and bring forward over and over again the incredible high salaries of many who, in my estimation, are causing, part and parcel, some of the difficulties of balancing the books.

When you look at the need to deal with this Bill 2, it's in part because Warren Buckley, the president and CEO of the B.C. Pavilion Corporation, $597,000 per annum…. Bob Elton, president and CEO of B.C. Hydro, $549,000. Douglas Hyndman, chair of the B.C. Securities Commission, $549,000 per annum. Larry Blain. Oh, this is the guy who gives the store away. He gets paid to do this.

They're increasing their salaries and bonuses every year. So $509,000, the CEO of Partnerships B.C. — incredible. Everybody else in the province is told to tighten their belts. And we're going to have to rescind the Budget Measures Implementation Act because of it. But we certainly are going to honour big CEO fat-cat contracts.

Of course, we've talked about it before. The CEO of B.C. Rail, $489,810 per annum. It's incredible — absolutely incredible.

Just to wrap, hon. Speaker. I have to tell you, I did spend some time this summer visiting some of the border towns as part of my critic role — Grand Forks, Kingsgate. I had a lot of fun in Midway. I have to tell you, I did the tourist check. It was quite interesting, the vacancy rate on this side of the border, and they're all filled up on the other side. We're at risk here.

We have legislation here today where we're going to cut, cut to the bone, destroy Tourism British Columbia. It was a proud gem that was actually put together by the NDP. It's done some great work. It's been able to sell this province, market it internationally. The Americans…. I went to a conference in Boise, Idaho, and they quickly talked about how they're marketing their western states abroad. But that is being eliminated and destroyed by
[ Page 685 ]
this government in order to fulfil their need of the HST — in other words, the loss of the hotel room tax.

So with that, I will be voting against this bill.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. G. Abbott: Seeing no further speakers, I call the question on the motion.

[1655-1700]

Second reading of Bill 2 approved on the following division:

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2009, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 5, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2009.

Bill 5 — finance statutes
amendment act, 2009

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that Bill 5, the Finance Statutes Amendments Act, 2009, be read a second time.

This bill contains amendments to a number of Ministry of Finance statutes to help protect consumers and to ensure consistency with the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, could you tend to your other duties.

Why don't you just take one second, Minister of Finance.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: There are amendments to a variety of finance statutes. The amendments to the Business Corporations Act, the Cooperative Association Act and the Partnership Act are technical in nature and involve clarification of regulation-making powers enacted in 2008 under the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act, which was Bill 32 of that year.

The amendments correct terminology and provide for a more clear connection between the British Columbia registrar of companies and Alberta corporations, cooperatives and partnerships seeking registration in British Columbia. As well, the amendments correct two typographical errors that were found in Bill 32.

The amendments to the Cooperative Association Act close a gap in the application of the offence provision to cover contraventions of the regulations, thereby ensuring consumer protection for breaches of either the act or the regulations.

[1705]

The amendments to the Financial Institutions Act expand the definition of "insurance business" to include the insurance of risks in British Columbia — for example, insurance placed with a foreign insurer on property situated in the province. Insurers conducting insurance business in British Columbia are now required to have a business authorization.

The broadened definition will require all insurers covering risk located in the province to obtain a business authorization unless an exception is available. Exceptions would be made where the insurance is sold through a
[ Page 686 ]
licensed insurance agent, consistent with requirements in Alberta.

The amendments to the Mortgage Brokers Act will give the registrar of mortgage brokers new enforcement powers to help protect consumers and level the playing field for B.C. and Alberta mortgage brokers. The registrar will be able to take regulatory action against unregistered mortgage brokers and former registrants, to issue cease and desist orders and orders requiring a person to take specific actions and, finally, to enforce orders by filing them with the courts.

Lastly, in terms of TILMA-related amendments, one numbering correction is made to the Credit Union Incorporation Act.

The bill also contains changes to the Securities Act that improve investor protection by establishing a legislative framework for the oversight of auditors of public companies. These amendments will help maintain and improve public confidence in the integrity of financial reporting by public companies and the credibility of their financial statements.

The primary purposes of the Securities Act are to protect investors and to foster efficient capital markets. Timely and accurate disclosure of financial information is central to achieving both these purposes, and the requirement to use an independent and competent auditor is a core aspect of the regulation.

The Canadian Public Accountability Board is the national body established in 2003 to oversee the auditors of Canadian reporting companies. It was created quickly in response to accounting scandals in the United States and the creation of equivalent national bodies in the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries.

The CPAB currently operates in British Columbia and most other provinces without a legislative framework or provincial oversight or control. The CPAB has asked provincial and territorial governments in Canada for certain statutory powers and protection that it requires in order to oversee audit firms effectively.

The amendments establish special provisions respecting the recognition of auditor oversight bodies as regulatory organizations under part 4 of the Securities Act. Part 4 provides for the recognition, powers and regulation of exchanges, self-regulatory bodies and certain other entities. New provisions are being added to part 4 because the existing framework is not completely suited to the CPAB, which plays a more limited role than other regulatory bodies.

For instance, new section 32.1 limits the duty of an auditor oversight body to regulate its members only in relation to work involving the audit and review of financial statements that must be filed under the act. This limit recognizes the role of provincial accounting institutes as the primary regulators of accounting professionals. The CPAB's role is restricted to the oversight of audits of public companies.

The bill also proposes to extend statutory immunities to a recognized auditor oversight body and its staff. The CPAB and its directors, officers and employees are exposed to the threat of legal action when making decisions, because CPAB decisions may affect the livelihood of audit firms, auditors and companies. The potential threat may hinder the ability to attract quality staff and perhaps take appropriate action.

The amendments also provide an oversight framework for CPAB itself. The amendments will permit the British Columbia Securities Commission and securities regulators in most other jurisdictions to coordinate the initial recognition and ongoing oversight of CPAB. This will ensure both effective and efficient oversight of CPAB.

Accountants have had a long, stable history of self-regulation in the province. British Columbians have been well-served by respected and trusted accounting professionals operating under the oversight of three excellent provincial accounting institutes. The proposed new provisions supplement that oversight in respect of the auditing of public companies.

In addition to the CPAB amendments, a few technical amendments to the Securities Act are also proposed, including amendments intended to support the adoption of updated and harmonized registration requirements for securities and mutual fund dealers and other registrants across Canada.

[1710]

In general, the amendments to the Securities Act that are being proposed in the bill contribute to investor protection and confidence in Canada's capital markets. These amendments continue the government's commitment to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of securities regulation in Canada and to protect British Columbia investors.

This bill also makes technical amendments to the Business Number Act, which was enacted to reduce regulation and red tape by enabling businesses to interact with public bodies using a common business identifier called the business number. The amendments will create the authority to collect business information for the purpose of authenticating the identity of a supplier and supplier payment information.

In addition, the amendments will also create the authority to require a business entity to provide its business number to a public agency when it supplies or intends to supply goods or services to a public agency.

B. Ralston: I want to begin by dividing my proposed remarks into two parts. I want to make some comments on those changes in the statute that will facilitate the operation of the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Act, the intergovernmental agreement signed between British Columbia and Alberta, and on the amendments to the Securities Act. I oppose those amendments that
[ Page 687 ]
facilitate the operation of TILMA, but I do support the proposed amendments to the Securities Act.

I want to talk first about the proposed amendments to the Securities Act, because this does close a regulatory gap that was identified by Nick Le Pan, who is the chair of the Canadian Public Accountability Board. This board was set up, as the minister has said, in response to a number of the auditing scandals in recent years, largely concentrated in the United States, whether Enron or WorldCom and a number of names that became notorious in the recent past. There was a Canadian response, somewhat different from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, but certainly a response nonetheless.

This Canadian Public Accountability Board basically was set up to audit the auditors in the sense of regulating and overseeing the work of those accounting firms that audit public companies. Mr. Le Pan, in an article written last year, said that he believed the organization had begun to become effective, which is, I suppose, reassuring.

In a recent review of six big accounting firms, it looked at 130 audit files and found deficiencies in 11 of them. In five cases it believed that the financial statements of the public companies that had been audited would need to be reissued, restated or corrected the following year. In each case the auditors agreed to follow direction from the board.

However, the problem that was identified by Mr. Le Pan and which this legislation proposes to correct is that the board — that's the Canadian Public Accountability Board — became concerned that its auditors might be held personally liable.

He was quoted as saying, and I'm quoting here from this article, which appears in the Globe and Mail, August 18, 2008:

"If we don't have statutory protection, my board is legitimately worried that as we get to higher levels, where consequences are bigger for the audit firms, we will be tied down endlessly in suits, because there isn't statutory protection for the CPAB, for directors and for officers.

"Other regulators" — the examples are given — "such as the Ontario Securities Commission" — and, obviously, the B.C. Securities Commission — "or the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, which is a federal body, have statutory immunity for acts committed in good faith."

He was concerned and expressed the concern that the ability "to ratchet up the consequences," his words were, up to and including public disclosure to a provincial securities commission, was limited by the lack of statutory protection for those conducting the investigation.

I gather that this is a response to what Mr. Le Pan has said, and indeed it does, then, provide that statutory protection. I think it would be generally agreed that the ability to audit the auditors is a good thing.

[1715]

Generally, the calibre and the ethics of accounting firms are high, but of course, there are the occasional lapses. Certainly, in the case of Enron, an entire international accounting firm imploded because of the public opprobrium and lack of confidence that the firm fell into after the accounting scandal of Enron, perhaps the most notorious accounting scandal in the last half-century, became public.

This amendment, insofar as it makes the work of the Canadian Public Accountability Board easier, provides statutory protection to its officers and gives the public accountability board, in Mr. Le Pan's words, the opportunity to ratchet up enforcement where it's necessary — and only when it's necessary, of course — is a good thing.

The other measures that are talked about here to facilitate the operation of TILMA — I want to make a few comments about that. The agreement came into force as an agreement between two provinces at the executive level. It was not required to be passed. The treaty itself, or the agreement itself, was not required to be passed as legislation. There has been enabling legislation passed in the last year to enable some aspects of it. This is a further bill that enables further parts of the operation of TILMA.

It is worth noting at this time that TILMA's reach is much broader than the agreement on internal trade, much broader than NAFTA and broader than some aspects of the World Trade Organization. The constraints imposed by those other trade agreements are much more precisely narrowly defined than those in this particular agreement.

TILMA transforms the constitutional landscape for provincial government action because the constraints are imposed over broad areas of public policy and law that would otherwise be duly enacted and entirely lawful and in accordance with the constitution. The most notable provision is that it adds an additional and overarching constraint that says that unless exempt, no government action may reduce or impair the commercial interests of those residing in a neighbouring province.

In effect, it turns Canadian constitutional values on their head by making commercial considerations paramount over all other competing public interests and priorities. This represents an entrenchment of private property rights that Canadian governments explicitly rejected as a feature of the development of the Canadian constitution and the constitutional negotiations in recent decades.

Those issues remain unresolved, although there has been yet no real testing of those provisions either in the courts or by operation of the agreement. The profound constitutional concern that has been expressed by many about the agreement remains.

With those brief comments, I conclude my remarks at second reading on this bill.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier closes debate.
[ Page 688 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: I thank the opposition critic for his remarks, and with that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 5, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2009, read a second time on division and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call second reading of Bill 6, the Insurance Amendment Act, 2009.

Bill 6 — INSURANCE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that Bill 6, the Insurance Amendment Act, 2009, be read a second time.

This bill contains changes to the Insurance Act that significantly enhance consumer protection while at the same time respond to industry needs by reducing red tape and supporting new ways of doing business. The Insurance Act sets out the requirements for insurance contracts, including life, health and property insurance, and has not undergone a thorough review since the 1960s.

[1720]

These amendments are the result of a comprehensive review that began in November of 2005. Consultation meetings that were chaired by my colleague the MLA for West Vancouver–Capilano were held in June of 2006. I would certainly like to pay tribute to my colleague and the tremendous work he's done. I know it's been appreciated by all of those who have worked with him on this particular consultation process.

All respondents to the initial request for comments were invited to attend, and participants, including consumers and representatives from the insurance industry and the legal community, were involved. More than 60 submissions were received during the review. There was continued follow-up with stakeholders, and we have found strong support for the proposed amendments.

These amendments will protect consumers through an improved dispute resolution process that includes a new requirement for insurers to put in place internal complaint resolution procedures. For complaints not resolved by insurers internally, regulation-making authority is provided to require insurance to offer consumers access to ombudsman-type services and potentially to offer other alternative dispute resolution processes.

Another important change to help protect consumers is an increase to two years from one in the limitation period in which legal claims against insurance companies can be made. There is also a new provision to protect an innocent co-insured who may otherwise be denied insurance coverage because of the wrongdoing of another person.

Consumers will now have a 30-day grace period in which to pay overdue premiums for life and health insurance contracts and to maintain their policy in force. Consumers will also be provided with a ten-day cooling-off period in which they can rescind a life or health insurance contract.

This bill clarifies provisions in the act and provides better coverage for consumers. We have strengthened the language to clarify that fire coverage includes fires resulting from any cause except those that are specifically excluded by regulation. Having the exclusion set out in the regulations instead of the act will increase flexibility and enable a harmonized approach to exclusions across the province. This change will provide consumers with more consistency across insurers.

You will recall that the government introduced Bill 40, the Insurance Amendment Act, 2008, in a previous session, but that bill did not proceed past first reading. The amendments now proposed are virtually the same as those found in Bill 40, with the exception of some minor changes to correct technical errors that have come to light following introductions.

The only substantive difference from Bill 40 is a proposal to reinstate certain mandatory fire coverages that were inadvertently removed in reforming the fire insurance provisions of the statute. This change, which reflects current legislation and industry standards, will ensure that basic property contracts continue to cover loss or damage caused by explosions or lightning as well as property removed from a specific location to prevent further damage.

There are also elements in this bill that respond to industry needs. We are reducing red tape and helping improve efficiency by removing unnecessary requirements and clarifying the legislation.

For example, current confusion around the application of the law to property insurance contracts will be resolved through restructuring of the legislation. There will now be one set of provisions applicable to all property contracts, thereby avoiding the need to classify the insurance contract as a fire contract or a multiperil contract.

The changes also recognize new ways of doing business. The bill facilitates the use of modern distribution channels and allows for the use of electronic communications in insurance contracts.

Finally, this bill repeals the Insurance (Marine) Act. Government lawyers advised that the regulation of marine insurance contracts is exclusively a matter of the federal jurisdiction, which has its own Marine Insurance Act and is beyond the authority of the province.
[ Page 689 ]

These legislative amendments are not proposed in isolation. In drafting and finalizing these amendments, we worked closely with Alberta to develop harmonized legislation. This standardized approach will allow businesses to more effectively work and compete in both jurisdictions. We hope that these harmonized reforms will serve as a model for other provinces as they move to modernize their statutes and improve consumer protection.

[1725]

B. Ralston: I want to speak to the proposed changes to the Insurance Act. Certainly, they have been a long time in coming. I think it's a particular example of government lead-footedness on these particular issues.

It's useful just to look a little bit at the recent history of the litigation that concerns this act which I think, initially, gave rise to the suggestion that there be a reform in the Insurance Act, which was passed in 1925.

A case arose which was reported, decided by the Supreme Court of Canada called KP Pacific Holdings Ltd. v. Guardian Insurance Co. of Canada, heard February 18, 2003, and decided May 1, 2003. That's quite a while ago.

I want to read briefly from the decision because I think it gives a flavour of the profound concern that the highest court in the country expressed about the serious limitations and legal complications caused by what they describe as an archaic act.

The case arose because the person concerned owned a hotel. On June 6, 1997, the hotel was damaged by fire. The appellant — that's the owner of the hotel — made a claim for the loss under its insurance policy. The insurer took the position that the claim had not been brought within the applicable limitation period. It went up through the courts to the B.C. Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and eventually got to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I'm quoting here from the decision.

"The source of all the confusion, and the consequent delay and expense, is the British Columbia Insurance Act, RSBC, 1996, c. 226. It is unclear. The insurer argues that the applicable limitation period is one year from the date of loss, according to statutory condition 14 of part 5, the fire insurance part. The insured, by contrast, argues that this all-risks policy does not fit under part 5 and falls instead under the general provisions of part 2, where the limitation period is one year from filing proof of loss. On the first reading, the appellant's claim is out of time. On the second, it may proceed."

The court then goes on to talk a little bit about the Insurance Act.

"The Insurance Act was passed in 1925. Despite repeated housekeeping amendments, it remains essentially unchanged. It was designed for a world where insurers issued policies geared to specific risks and subjects, such as fire insurance, theft insurance, business loss insurance, and so on. Accordingly, it lays down rules, including limitation periods, based on different and discrete categories of insurance.

"The insurance practices, by contrast, have changed. The dominant policy in today's world is the all-risks or multiperil policy, which covers a panoply of perils. This is good for consumers. It minimizes the number of policies they need to buy and ensures comprehensive coverage at lower cost. But it is bad when legal issues arise. The outmoded category-based act contains rules based on the old classes of insurance. The newer comprehensive policies are difficult if not impossible to fit into the old categories. The result is continued uncertainty about what rules apply. Claims stall. Litigation ensues. Courts struggle with tortuous alternative interpretations. The rules that have emerged have been likened to a judicial lottery."

Professor Rendall is referred to.

"It would be highly salutary" — this is the Supreme Court of Canada speaking — "for the Legislature to revisit these provisions and indicate its intent with respect to all-risks and multiperil policies. In the meantime, the task of resolving disputes arising from this disjunction between insurance law and practice falls to the courts. Brown and Menezes lament: 'Surely there can be little which is less productive or more wasteful than litigation about such technicalities'. I wholeheartedly agree.

"The comprehensive policy at issue in this appeal cannot be shoehorned into the part 5 fire insurance section without contrived reconstruction and anomalous consequences. It simply does not fit. Consequently, it cannot be said that the Legislature intended the fire insurance provisions to govern. It follows that the comprehensive policies are governed by part 2, which is of general application. Accordingly, we conclude that the limitation period of one year from the filing proof of loss applies and that the appellant's claim is not statute-barred."

[1730]

That was back in 2003. The Supreme Court of Canada said that it would be highly salutary for the Legislature to revisit these provisions and indicate its intent. So in what I think would be fair to describe as an absence of haste, the Legislature is now finally considering provisions to remedy what the Supreme Court of Canada identified as the serious deficiencies of the legislation back in 2003, giving rise to unnecessary and wasteful litigation some years ago.

Certainly it's welcome, and I'm sure it will be widely welcomed by the insurance industry. I know over the last few years, as I've gone about doing my job as critic in this area, I've heard from the insurance industry that they are anxious to have this statute passed. It looks as though, given that the legislative calendar is relatively free and that we're here at second reading early in this session, that may very well come to pass in this session.

I'm sure that will be widely welcomed by the insurance industry, although perhaps it might take away some work from some of the law firms that specialize in insurance litigation. But I'm sure that's a minor inconvenience, and they will recoup some work elsewhere.

The other comment I want to make, besides just clarifying some of the provisions, which would be of a general benefit to those who want to make claims and know what the limitation period is, is to talk a little bit about the provisions that are talked about to impose a requirement. Those are the amendments to the Financial Institutions Act in section 105, imposing requirement on insurers to establish a dispute resolution process for dealing with complaints.

This appears to mirror the federal insurance act, which mandates for all federally chartered insurance
[ Page 690 ]
companies a dispute resolution process for dealing with complaints. This is an important matter of consumer protection. I'm sure some members from time to time encounter complaints in their constituency office about the difficulty in dealing with a claim made to an insurance company.

Some participate in a mediation process. Others, particularly some provincially regulated companies, as opposed to federally regulated ones, don't participate in any dispute resolution process at all, and it is difficult.

For the ordinary person, a claim for a catastrophic…. Say, a house fire or something like that. It's typically a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence. Understandably, the weight of knowledge and experience is with the insurance adjuster and with the insurance company. For most people, they are reluctant and typically not financially able to resort to the legal process and the costs that that implies with hiring a lawyer and proceeding with litigation.

For most people, an effective dispute resolution process, where a dispute arises about the resolution of a claim with an insurance company, would be welcome.

Under the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, where it concerns disputes arising with ICBC, there is such a process. Generally, from what I've heard, although there are always people who are not satisfied with a resolution that's offered, it works pretty well. It's easy to access, it's cheap, and it's relatively quick. You get a decision, which is often what most people want — just simply a resolution, a process that's fair, and get on with resolving and paying out the claim, whatever that might be.

Mr. Cran of the Consumers Association has raised publicly in a comment, in one of the newspapers, that he has some doubts about the provision or the way that this provision is drafted.

[1735]

Obviously, the fine detail can be pursued at the committee stage, but certainly, there is an issue that arises here. I gather from reading the section that the legislation does not propose to prescribe the body that would be the dispute resolution process for dealing with complaints, and that would be left to regulation.

Now, what I understand from speaking with representatives of industry is that the body that's proposed is the General Insurance OmbudService, or the GIO, which was established as an independent dispute resolution service that's focused on the successful resolution of consumer complaints.

It's an independent organization established initially by the insurance industry, but it has on its board, I think, a minority of representatives in the insurance industry, and it's represented by members of the public at large. It enjoys a good reputation and indeed, in the federal act, the only body prescribed by regulation, as I understand it, is this body. If you have a complaint against a federally insured insurance company — you're resolving a claim — you then go to the GIO.

Again, it's cheap — at least inexpensive. It endeavours to be timely, and from what I understand anecdotally about reports of its operation, it is indeed timely. What they say in their website is: "Responding promptly to consumer enquiries and complaints. In the case of fax or e-mail messages we strive to get back to the complainant within one business day." We certainly don't have a Freedom of Information Act operating there which would, I guess, be a good thing.

"In most cases our telephones are answered directly. When that is not possible, we will respond to messages within one business day. For all situations we will strive to keep the consumer informed at all times of the status of their concern." That's an enviable goal of responsiveness — one business day no matter how they're contacted — and that's very impressive. If they achieve that 95 percent of the time, I think most people would be very, very impressed by that.

So certainly this body exists. It's in operation. It has a history of resolving disputes.

What they say they do not resolve…. There are some exclusions that they speak of. These are minor: "complaints about the cost of insurance, complaints about the availability of insurance, issues that have been before the courts" — we're familiar with that in this chamber — "situations that deal with settlement procedures required by law or that fall under the regulatory authority of another organization, instances that involve information contained in databases held by others outside the company."

So those are the exclusions, which are minor. They would appear to be an organization that is to be recommended. I suppose, given the concern…. This is probably for consumers of insurance rather than the insurance companies. The insurance companies welcome this in terms of clarity and the updating of a number of very archaic provisions in the old Insurance Act. This would be — and is — an important question for consumers.

I suppose the question that I will pursue at committee stage, for the minister, is what is his intention? The ministry spokesperson — I think it was Mr. Currie — spoke of ombudsman-like services, which is perhaps a bit unclear. Perhaps that's what he means. I'm not sure. Mr. Curry is ordinarily very precise and commendably clear. So as I say, I'm just not sure, and I think that's what's raised the concern of Mr. Cran as well.

I think consumers, when they have those kinds of complaints, would welcome access to this kind of body. Indeed, if it lives up to billing, it would appear to be the very model of responsiveness to complaints.

[1740]

So that's a concern that I want to raise with the minister when we consider this further. It is a bit surprising in the sense that there's this lack of clarity, given that the consultation has been ongoing since 2005.
[ Page 691 ]

The other comment that I would make would be that it would be important, in my view, that provincially regulated insurance companies — and federally regulated ones which use the GIO now — which are not obliged to use a dispute mechanism or a settlement mechanism body such as this one be obliged to do so.

I think there's a clear need for an independent third-party ombudsman for these kinds of complaints and an endeavour to resolve complaints in the insurance industry. So I would submit that that's something that shouldn't be left to regulation, given the length of time in consultation, given the public concern about this issue and given the fact that for most consumers, this would be an issue that they would wish to have access to.

This is something that I hope we can clarify and resolve either through statements of the minister, clarification of the legislation, or if it's necessary, a minor amendment to make clear the purpose that the minister hopes to achieve.

I would expect that the minister would join with me in concern about consumer complaints and how they might be resolved. It would appear that the language is one of agreeing with the need for an independent third-party ombudsperson. It's just not clear whether this piece of legislation is going to do that in the way that I think he expects and I hope, and so I think that's something that we should come to clarity on before this bill passes.

Certainly, I think the public would be satisfied with that and indeed would expect nothing less. The government's actions on this point, I would expect, as opposed to insurance companies and the business community involved in insurance…. The aspect of consumer protection that this kind of mechanism affords will probably be the most scrutinized part of the legislation by the general public and of the most concern and interest to the general public.

As I say, I look forward to pursuing that further with the minister and clarifying that, and I will withhold my intention as to whether or not to support those sections based on what the minister has to say in response to my comments — if not today, certainly during committee stage debate, which I think we may get to sooner rather than later, I expect.

So with that, those are my comments at this stage on the bill.

R. Sultan: I just wanted to respond briefly to the remarks of both the member for Surrey-Whalley and our Minister of Finance concerning the proposed amendments to the Insurance Act.

As the minister has already pointed out, I had the privilege of chairing the consultation sessions in which the government sought the opinions of insurers — the insurance agent and broker industry — and also consumer groups on the status of the act as it now reads and improvements and amendments which would be appropriate.

It was pointed out during the consultations, which were extensive, that portions of the act dated back to the 19th century, which I found a startling archaeological fact. Given the vintage of portions of the act, it's no surprise that it progressively became less and less relevant to today's conditions.

[1745]

Deliberately, the act, consultation and rewrite avoided the complex and sometimes contentious area of automobile insurance, but it focused on the other major areas of insurance.

If I may, as an aside, comment that in Canada we are extremely fortunate to be served by a progressive, efficient and very sound insurance industry in comparison to the United States where we have the spectacle of AIG, for example — this gigantic, ego-driven monstrosity, which became so huge that even the United States government wasn't quite sure what to do with it. But one thing they were certain of: they could not let it fail. "Too big to fail," I think, is the phrase that has been applied to some of these giants that collapsed under the weight of crazy investment practices and poor underwriting.

We have been criticized in the past in Canada for having very stodgy, staid, unimaginative, uncreative, stick-in-the-mud financial institutions. But in the last year Canada has risen to the top of the world rankings in terms of the performance of our insurance sector, including, notably, the insurance companies. As Canadians, we should be proud of this fact because it gives us, in fact, a competitive edge internationally. Who would have believed that ten or 20 years ago?

As the minister has already pointed out, too, as an example of archaic provisions in our existing statutes, we had a marine insurance act which continued in existence long after the courts had ruled that it had been superseded by federal legislation. We sort of left the marine insurers of British Columbia not quite sure whose law to follow, for a period of time. They were only one of many constituents anxious to see the government finally proceed with modernizing amendments.

The process, I must say, impressed me through its, I think, careful balancing of both consumer interests and corporate interests. It would be quite easy to come up with an insurance act which took all the grey areas and skewed them towards the interests of the corporate sponsors or, similarly, would make it so tough to be an insurance business and make any money in B.C. that companies would tend to avoid it.

I think, in fact, that the final act carefully balanced the interests of both consumers and insurers. In that regard, I would give full credit to the civil servants who impressed me with their concern about ensuring that both interests be equally protected.

One aspect of the act perhaps merits just a final comment. The act proceeded at a somewhat leisurely pace,
[ Page 692 ]
in the view of the industry, through the Legislature. We had hoped that it would be passed in the previous session. That was not to be, and I think the general feeling — and I shared this feeling — was: "Well look, it has had all these flaws for decades, and the insurance industry still seems to be around and doing its job. So we shouldn't be terribly concerned about any sense of urgency in amending this act."

I was informed that that is expressing a degree of complacency that we should not feel, for one very good reason. The courts determined in key legal actions that there was a degree of ambiguity in the B.C. law which would, in extremity, allow an insurer to fight or contest the degree of their liability in the event of, for example, an earthquake which resulted in catastrophic loss.

The insurance industry — consistent, I think, with its record of public service in Canada — had never really made an issue of this in the past, even though technically some of their sharp corporate lawyers probably could have made a case that they did not really have to pay under certain circumstances. But pay they generally did, knowing that that was generally the practice across the land.

[1750]

But it was pointed out to me that should there be a truly catastrophic event, a seismic event of shattering magnitude — while the possibility of that seems remote, it's not impossible — the shareholders of these insurance companies or the insurance company management itself would probably seek refuge in the ambiguity and say: "I'm sorry. You're not covered. Tough luck. Too bad the Legislature didn't clarify the law, but you're out of luck as far as we're concerned." You can imagine the legal quagmire which would ensue.

By coincidence, last night I picked up a book — and if I could paraphrase the title — by a couple of catchy geoscientist authors. I don't think this will make the bestsellers. The title reads something like Ghost Mountains and Vanished Oceans, and it's on the fascinating subject of plate tectonics. I'm sure you will all rush out and buy a copy.

Here in British Columbia we live on the rim of the Pacific Ocean, and there is a subduction of the Pacific Plate down there, about 30 kilometres underneath us, underneath the North American Plate. This movement of the North American Plate is inexorable.

It was pointed out that we're moving gradually closer and close to Asia, which I hadn't realized, at a velocity about equal to the speed at which your fingernails grow. This has been going on for a long time. It's not exactly an even, smooth transition, though. The movement is sort of interrupted from time to time by friction, and then it lets go all of a sudden — when we have an earthquake.

We've had, according to the geoscientists in this book, six seismic events here in British Columbia in excess of 8.1 or 8.2 on the Richter scale. For comparison, this is on par with the seismic events that devastated Indonesia and resulted in the loss of thousands of lives and the destruction of much property. They seem to come along every 300 or 400 years. The last one can be precisely dated to about 1701. It's been about 300 years since the last one.

We should not assume that this is an impossibility, and through failure to pass the insurance act…. One of these really, really big ones comes along, and we trigger the employment of hundreds of colleagues of the member for Nanaimo who are eager to get into the fray and say: "I'm sorry. The insurance companies are not liable."

So there is a sense of urgency here. It may be another 300 years before the big one comes along, but it might be five minutes from now. We just don't know. The moral of the story is: let's get on with it and pass this act right now.

L. Krog: I can't help but rise in the chamber after listening to the remarks of the member for West Vancouver–Capilano pointing out how important this legislation is as we face the big one in British Columbia. Perhaps there will be a seismic shift. I'm not entirely sure whether it will be an electoral seismic shift, however, or an earthquake in the traditional sense, but I think the member has made an important contribution to this debate here today, and I wish to recognize it.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier closes debate.

Hon. C. Hansen: I thank the members for their submissions, and I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 6, Insurance Amendment Act, 2009, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage debate on Bill 4, Wills, Estates and Succession Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 4 — WILLS, ESTATES AND
SUCCESSION ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 4; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 5:55 p.m.

On section 1.
[ Page 693 ]

L. Krog: In the definition section it refers to "small estate" without specifying an amount; it refers to "prescribed value." I wonder if the government has any idea what they intend the prescribed value to be for small estates.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member's question related to the value of the "small estate" as opposed to "small estate declaration." Is that correct?

L. Krog: In the definition section, it refers to "small estate" — "means an estate composed wholly of personal property of less than a prescribed value as of the date of death."

I'm just curious to know what the figure is that the government is intending to rely on for that purpose.

Hon. M. de Jong: My recollection is that we're anticipating an amount of $50,000, but I'd like to confirm that. If that is incorrect, I'll get back to the member.

L. Krog: With respect to the definition under "spousal home," it makes reference to parcels of land, etc., and also includes "a manufactured home, as defined in the Manufactured Home Act."

I have looked at that section. It's not entirely clear to me. Would that, in fact, include a fifth wheel? There are a lot of people in British Columbia, reduced in circumstances, living in what are defined as fifth wheels as opposed to manufactured homes in the traditional sense. I'm wondering if that definition will, in fact, include that kind of property?

Hon. M. de Jong: My recollection is that fifth wheels are regarded as personal property and might therefore not fall under the definition of spousal home. But I have the member's point, and I should probably, again, confirm whether there are circumstances in which a fifth wheel would qualify as the spousal home.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

L. Krog: This definition section applies what has become a fairly common definition for spouses in British Columbia, including obviously people — persons, I should say — who are married to one another, and if they have lived also in a "marriage-like relationship, including a marriage-like relationship between persons of the same gender, for at least 2 years."

The act in further sections, which we will get to in due course, contemplates a fairly hefty increase in the amount of the estate of an intestate person that a surviving spouse would in fact receive and, indeed, makes reference, as I recall, to a figure of $150,000 if there are in fact descendants of the deceased and $300,000 if there are no descendants.

That's a fairly substantial sum. I'm wondering: has the Attorney General seriously considered the effect of this, when one considers that an older person without a will in a short-term relationship may, in fact, have the effect in a small estate situation of literally almost disinheriting his or her natural heirs?

The first $150,000 is going to flow to the surviving spouse, who may have spent the total of two years and a day in a relationship with the deceased, whereas the children have been supportive children for 60-plus years.

[1800]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's important…. I think these are all valid or scenario-based questions that one has to consider in going through the various sections and the applications of the act. The scenario that we're dealing with at the moment, as I understand it, involves a situation where there is an intestacy.

That's important because there is an overriding issue or emphasis that needs to be made, and that is that people can determine succession issues by taking advantage of the opportunity to have a will, to have a testament. So as the member and I have this discussion, and God forbid people might actually be watching and listening in…. He and I will be having discussions, particularly as we get to part 3, that relate exclusively to situations where people have chosen not to do a will and then die.

Now, the member's specific example. I think I'll be even more specific than he. As I recall the provisions, in a case of an estate of $50,000 where an individual dies leaving a spouse and no will and makes no other provision in that will for children, yes, that spouse would take that amount of money.

The bill is the product of a lot of work, as the member knows, that has been undertaken by the institute and makes some choices based on some general assumptions around the importance society attaches to the relationship between spouses, and in that regard, provides…. Choose my words correctly. There is an increase or an improvement in the preferential treatment that a spouse enjoys in the case of an intestacy.

I'm not arguing with the member. In the scenario he's described, the spouse, albeit a short-term spouse, would inherit the estate on that intestacy through to that preferential amount.

L. Krog: I'm grateful for the Attorney General's comments. I'm wondering if the government has any intention, notwithstanding these difficult times, to do some kind of advertising campaign, if you will, with respect to the encouragement for persons to, in fact, prepare valid wills in this province, because this is a significant monetary shift from the existing Wills Act.
[ Page 694 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll tell the member right upfront: I haven't turned my mind to a government-sponsored advertising campaign or information campaign of the sort that the member suggests.

I don't disagree at all with him about the significance of some of the changes that are contemplated here and the general proposition that says you are far better off to take charge of your own destiny — if that's the correct phrase — and establish conclusively on your own terms what you would have happen to your estate.

I do know this, and I'm sure the member will canvass this later. We do contemplate an 18-month transition period to provide individuals, counsel and others involved in the preparation of testamentary documents sufficient time to come up to speed on the new act. I am already told that upon introduction of the bill, organizations like the Continuing Legal Education Society are springing into action to ensure that materials are prepared and conferences are planned to assist in explaining the significance of some of the changes.

[1805]

But the general proposition advanced by the member that people need to understand the importance and the benefits and the risks — the benefits that go with having a testamentary document, and the risks that flow from not having one — are all very valid. I'm obliged for the suggestion that it may be worthwhile trying to communicate that in direct terms.

L. Krog: When it refers to "spouse" and it talks about the termination, if you will, of a relationship, it says that two persons cease being spouses of each other for the purposes of this act if, in the case of a marriage, they live separate and apart for at least two years and one of them has formed the intention to live separate and apart, or an event occurs that causes an interest in family assets, as defined under part 5 of the Family Relations Act, to arise — which again applies only to married spouses.

But then it says if "(b) in the case of a marriage-like relationship, one or both persons terminate the relationship."

Now, I'm just wondering what "terminate" means. Does that mean if you have a fight on Saturday night and say this relationship is finished, and you storm out of the house and on Sunday morning are killed driving to your sainted mother's house because you want to tell her how tough things are, and your sainted mother doesn't get to see you…. I mean, is that the termination of a relationship which would disentitle you entirely to an estate?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not sure that I can offer a conclusive definition of when a termination takes effect. I can advise the member that where a dispute arises, the act allows for or contemplates the intervention of a court to make a determination on the basis of evidence that is led. So in the member's example, a situation where a dispute occurs but it is apparent, on the basis of evidence, that the parties had not turned their mind to a permanent ending of the relationship, the court would make a determination on that basis.

I think it's also apparent that there will be circumstances…. Situations may arise where there is some question about whether or not a relationship had conclusively come to an end. Depending on those circumstances, the stakes may be quite large, and the parties will need to appear before an arbiter or even a court to determine conclusively whether termination has occurred.

L. Krog: I think the Attorney General has my point. I'll give him another simple example.

It can be a long-term relationship. It's a relationship that has produced children. The couple has been together for 40 years. A fight — this relationship is done. You walk out, and suddenly you have this situation where, say, the children of the couple are going to inherit — that's the way I read it, this definition — and would inherit everything, because they're the lawful descendants of the intestate. The spouse will then be stuck with having to go to court and argue some constructive trust argument or some difficult legal position.

It just strikes me that if you're going to, on one hand, increase the benefit that goes to a spouse, and you define spouse as someone who has lived in a marriage-like relationship for two years, then surely it behooves legislators…. I'm not proposing an immediate amendment, because I understand how this act represents a great deal of collective effort on behalf of many lawyers. But nevertheless, surely a definition of "terminate," rather than throwing it out to the courts to cause people a great deal of legal expense, should have been thought of.

[1810]

I mean, in the case of spouses, it's two years and you're off the list, if you're married. But in the case of common-law relationships, which are increasingly common in our society…. In the province of Quebec I think it's up to something in the order of 50 percent of couples who would define themselves as married are, in fact, living in common-law relationships.

Surely it would have been better to give a fuller definition or some description on which a court could at least hang its hat, so to speak, when it comes to the concept of terminating a relationship.

Hon. M. de Jong: I do actually have his point. I'm also reminded that during the course of the years of work that went into the preparation of the legislation — and the member may be aware of this — consideration was given to incorporating a definition. The trade-off, of course, was in attempting to codify and anticipate all of the circumstances that may give rise to a termination. The risk was unintended consequences.

So in trying to balance the flexibility against the certainty, the recommendation, and the one, obviously, that
[ Page 695 ]
the government has embraced by virtue of the bill before the House, is to side or err on the side of flexibility.

Will that create some uncertainty in some circumstances? I suppose it will. I suppose, though, that that is curable in ways that a nonsensical but statutorily imposed solution is not curable.

L. Krog: We have a definition for spouses who are lawfully married, of having lived separate and apart for at least two years. So we're okay with doing that. But in the case of a common-law relationship or a marriage-like relationship, why not at least set a month or two months or three months or four months? I mean, at least allow someone who gets involved in that terrible fight and says that the relationship is over to actually reconsider.

It seems to me from the principles of the family being important in society and encouraging people to stay together, surely we should recognize that there won't be some drastic consequences immediately if you separate for a little while, get your heads together, think about it and come back together. Is there any good reason why there shouldn't be some period of time, in the case of a marriage-like relationship, that the spouses have to live separate and apart before the relationship is terminated — let alone the use of the term "terminated."

Hon. M. de Jong: I can advise the member that in turning their minds to the very question that the member highlights — and that is the distinction between lawfully married and common-law spouses — the group working on the legislation was mindful of the different manner in which those two defined groups are dealt with in the Family Relations Act. So that the member will know, common-law spouses don't have the same right under the Family Relations Act to a division of property upon the termination of a relationship as lawfully wed individuals.

So the distinction, and the member is correct to point out the fairly stark distinction, is wedded in the different treatment that continues to exist, à la the Family Relations Act.

[1815]

L. Krog: I appreciate, again, the Attorney General's comments, but even under the Family Relations Act, if you separate, you've still got a limitation period of a year within which to bring a claim for spousal support at least. So we recognize, on one hand, that you're entitled to spousal support, but when it comes to property you're out of luck.

In theory, on an ordinary reading of this section, you're out of luck entirely if you terminate the relationship.

Hon. M. de Jong: I want to make sure of my understanding or that I'm communicating the basis for the argument that is being advanced here correctly. My recollection of the Family Relations Act and how it operates goes as follows, and there is a distinction between one's entitlements on the property division side and the spousal maintenance side.

So while the member is correct that for that year period there is an opportunity to bring the claim, the entitlement as it relates to property division is very different and ends immediately upon separation. That is, of course, similarly reflected here. Can that result in some, dare I say, harsh circumstances? I suppose that's true, and I come back to my point about the advantages that flow from partners defining on their own terms how their estates should be dealt with.

L. Krog: I don't wish to belabour the point, but I think it is a very important point, given that we are addressing the realities of the way people cohabit in our society.

The Family Relations Act recognizes no rights for property division between common-law spouses or people living in marriage-like relationships, notwithstanding how long it may be. Now, that's something the Attorney General should probably be looking at, and I'm sure he is, or someone in his ministry is. But at least the Family Relations Act recognizes that if you live in a marriage-like relationship, you're given a year limitation period within which to make a claim for spousal support. No right to property — I accept and understand that.

But under this statute you would lose entirely any claim on property to which you would otherwise be entitled if for the sake of one tiny argument, potentially, and a few harsh words one night…. You will entirely lose your claim, which — I'm not sure, and perhaps I'm reading it wrong — could be as substantial as $300,000 in a situation where there were no natural descendants — or $150,000 if there are. That's a pretty big leap we're talking about, it seems to me.

I'm wondering if the Attorney General wants to take some time through the course of the night to consider the implications of what is being proposed here when we talk about a simple termination of a relationship, as opposed to allowing for some period of time — even a short limitation. You know, I think it was six months you had to bring a claim as a common-law spouse — at least some period of time in which a common-law partner will be able to, if you will, retain their right to make a claim.

[1820]

Hon. M. de Jong: Apologies for the delay. I'm trying to work through various scenarios, and I'm reminded of the situation we have presently that one could argue is even more unfair.

I'm reminded that in the current circumstance we could have a person who dies six months after a common relationship has ended. The surviving partner in that case is still entitled to a share of the estate today, even if they've actually married someone else. So there are circumstances
[ Page 696 ]
in which people might find that result offensive. I suppose there are circumstances in which some people might find that legitimate.

Finding that balance…. I don't mean to quarrel with the member, who I think takes seriously his task in pointing out the various implications of decisions that are made here. Establishing an act that for the moment is symmetrical with the Family Relations Act, though, is, I think, what has driven the committee of professionals to this conclusion for the moment.

L. Krog: Again, the Attorney General points some interesting possibilities out, but the act goes on to recognize the potential claims of two spouses to the family home. So we've got one part of the legislation saying, in response to the Attorney General's example, that it's okay for a couple of spouses to take a run at the estate and another section saying that if you're the only spouse and you had the fight, you're toast.

Doesn't quite seem to bring a fair balance to this concept of what a spouse's entitlement should be in the circumstances.

Hon. M. de Jong: Though I accept and appreciate the member's desire to point out the various scenarios, I don't agree that it automatically follows that the fight equates termination.

Given what is involved, I am relatively certain that a surviving common-law spouse confronted by an argument, perhaps by children in the scenario we've been describing, that the argument equates a termination of the relationship would, pursuant to the provisions of this legislation, certainly be in a position to call evidence to say: "No, that is not so." That would be an illogical conclusion for any reasonable arbiter to draw based on the history of the relationship.

L. Krog: Noting the hour and the presence of others, I'm going to make a motion that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:24 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Mr. Speaker: Just before you make the motion, I want to remind members: tomorrow, be in the chamber by nine o'clock in the morning.

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CITIZENS' SERVICES

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

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

Hon. B. Stewart: I just wanted to respond to the member opposite's question just prior to us adjourning for lunch.

[1435]

My understanding is that the member was asking about how the ministry was budgeting for carbon neutrality costs. The ministry, like all other provincial public sector organizations, has developed a carbon-neutral action plan to reduce emissions from all its operations. Its plan sets out a range of actions that are focusing on actions related to employee behavioural change. These no-cost actions emphasize employee travel, paper-use reduction and workplace energy consumption.

The ministry is also offsetting any emissions it cannot reduce. Last fiscal the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services invested just under $56,000 to offset emissions from its business travel for the 2008 reporting period.

D. Routley: Thank you to the minister for that. These plans and their progress — I'd like to hear more about where we stand and how far we've come in terms of reaching that goal and, in the case of the resources allocated to that, where they're budgeted from.

Hon. B. Stewart: The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act has legislated that government estimate emissions from its operations, plan and implement reductions, offset remaining emissions and report annually on these activities.
[ Page 697 ]

In accordance with the act, government published its first annual report on June 30, 2009, outlining its emission reduction plans and actions during the 2008 calendar year — its emissions from business travel at just over 34,000 tonnes and the related investment of $860,000 in the offsets. For the calendar year 2010 and beyond, emission reporting will include emissions from buildings, vehicles and paper use, in addition to business travel.

Our support of carbon neutrality is largely concentrated in three areas. The first is emissions measurement; second, emissions reduction; and third, employee engagement.

In measurement, the agency has developed an on-line set of tools to measure emissions from government operations. SMARTTEC collects employee data on business travel emissions. SmartTool reports these emissions along with emissions from buildings, vehicles and paper use.

[1440]

These on-line tools help public sector organizations better understand their emissions, plan reductions and track progress. Both SmartTool and SMARTTEC have been deployed to core government. The SmartTool is now being deployed to the broader public sector.

The agency is delivering a wide range of initiatives to enable ministries to plan and take action to reduce their emissions. These initiatives target government's major emission sources, including buildings, improved operations and maintenance practices, more efficient office equipment, high-performance design of new facilities such as gold LEED and energy retrofits.

Our fleet — fuel-efficient vehicles, better fleet management and improved driving behaviours. Procurement — supporting green procurement, offering a wide range of green office supplies and recycling office waste streams. Our business travel — supporting the travel reduction via video conferencing and desktop collaboration tools, facilitating lower-carbon travel when travel is necessary.

And engagement — recognizing that individual behavioural change is important to both short- and long-term emission reductions. The agency is undertaking cross-government engagement through Where Green Ideas Work, the website employees go to for information about climate change and what government is doing and what actions they can take.

Green teams across government whose collaboration we support through specific initiatives — i.e., workstation tune-ups, Green Streets Commuter Challenge and Travel Reduction Champions, and monthly forums.

Lastly, just in terms of the Ministry of Citizens' Services. In the 2007 calendar year, with 2,195 full-time employees, the average Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services and BCAS employee emitted 0.92 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in their government operations. This is well below the B.C. government average of 2.36 tonnes per average per full-time employee.

D. Routley: Moving on to Shared Services B.C., can the minister describe for this member and for the province the financial arrangements between his ministry and Shared Services B.C.?

Hon. B. Stewart: I would just like to take this opportunity to explain to the members opposite the thousand-dollar vote structure and how it works.

Shared Services, as you realize, is a thousand-dollar vote. A thousand-dollar vote is the term generally used to describe government programs that fully recover their cost. Cost recoveries can be external to government, internal to government or a combination. Recoveries are generated when a ministry program provides services to another ministry, government organization or non-government organization and charges for those services.

Ministry programs set up under the thousand-dollar vote structure are required to operate in a disciplined, businesslike manner and to deliver services in the most cost-effective, efficient manner with a strong customer focus.

D. Routley: In January of this year the government centralized all of its freedom-of-information operations into one unit. I'm going to have to ask several questions about this issue, but first I want to ask about the shift that has occurred since the election.

[1445]

Up until March or April the government was planning to centralize freedom-of-information operations under the chief information officer, but between April and June a decision was made to instead put freedom of information under Shared Services B.C., according to freedom of information we've acquired.

The office of the chief information officer is described on the minister's website as "the government's chief technology strategist promoting and guiding the management of government information." One of the CIO's chief goals — again, according to the minister's website — is "to better serve citizens by collaborating and securely sharing information while maximizing privacy."

Why were freedom-of-information operations moved into the shared services area instead of the office of the chief information officer as originally planned?

Hon. B. Stewart: Thank you to the member opposite for a very good question. As you can imagine, while we're working through the change and trying to streamline operations and find additional savings, part of it comes from understanding how best to structure the differences between policy and operations.

The chief information officer is still responsible for all of the policy decisions in terms of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, while Shared Services B.C. is responsible for the operations and for delivering what
[ Page 698 ]
we've described as being the most consistent and balanced approach in order to get that information that people request in a timely manner.

D. Routley: That being said, then, how does this fit with the Shared Services outsourcing model?

Hon. B. Stewart: Although Shared Services does outsource certain functions that are considered to be in that sphere of where we can gain efficiencies, in this particular case, we've brought the freedom-of-information operations into Shared Services to streamline the operational side of it, and that's all that it is. So it's brought in under Shared Services, and it's still operated internally, with no plans of outsourcing any of those functions.

D. Routley: If that is the case, then how does the money work? How does Shared Services operate on the recoveries or chargeback model if, in fact, it's a governance function rather than something that would be outsourced?

Hon. B. Stewart: I want to just state that the way that it's set up, Shared Services B.C. absorbed all of the people that were in freedom of information throughout all the different ministries throughout government.

[1450]

Those have been brought in along with their budgets. So we are on a full cost recovery, thousand-dollar vote. That's how that's budgeted for.

D. Routley: I understand that this is a $1,000 vote, and I understand what that means.

What I don't understand and what the minister hasn't really described clearly is how that model looks in the case of freedom of information. For most of the issues and functions that are under Shared Services B.C., it's clear how they've charged back and how the recovery model would be structured or is structured and how that looks.

How does the recovery and chargeback model for freedom of information look? What exactly is the structure of that relationship?

Hon. B. Stewart: In the 2008-2009 estimates the budget for freedom of information and records management was allocated in individual ministry budgets. The budget for corporate records management was within the budget in the office of the chief information officer, for a combined total of $19.6 million.

After freedom of information and records management operations were centralized in January 2009, the freedom-of-information budget in the February estimates was $14.015 million, and the records management budget of $5.6 million was included in the office of the chief information officer's budget. The full budget is cost-recovered from ministries.

The freedom-of-information budget, including funding for costs such as record storage that should have been transferred to Shared Services B.C…. The actual amount of the freedom-of-information funding that should have been transferred from the ministries was $11.5 million. Consequently, $2.5 million was transferred back to ministries.

On consolidation, opportunities for $1.5 million in savings were identified. The freedom-of-information operations budget was subsequently reduced from $11.5 million to $10 million. The September budget for information access operations of $15.6 million includes $5.6 million for corporate records management–related costs, including off-site record storage costs. And that amount is in ministry budgets.

D. Routley: At the January 2009 meeting of directors and managers of freedom of information, the Deputy Minister of Citizens' Services responded to concerns about tight timelines and how quickly the reorganization of the FOI operations was happening. She stated that the timelines were dictated by the Treasury Board.

Can the minister confirm that the order to rush through the centralization of freedom of information came from Treasury Board — and, in particular, the Premier?

[1455]

Hon. B. Stewart: It's my understanding from the staff that we have here today that they were not a party to the discussions at that time, nor the freedom-of-information comments that you make that were made by the former minister. But we believe that because the budget timelines were what was being referred to in that memo, it was incumbent on reaching a conclusion on reorganization because of the nature of the deadline for having a budget out in February of 2009.

D. Routley: Actually, the Treasury Board was referenced in an FOI request received by the opposition related to this subject, and in that freedom-of-information request it is described by the deputy minister that the timelines were dictated by the Treasury Board. So that being the case, was the order to rush this centralization received from the Treasury Board? Did the order come from the Premier?

Hon. B. Stewart: Our best understanding of this particular minute that you're referring to under the request you have is that the process of the budget is what was driving the timelines, not either Treasury Board or some other decision made by anybody else in government.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

D. Routley: Well, I'm trying to locate the direct quote, but it was from a Q-and-A sheet distributed from the
[ Page 699 ]
meeting. The question is that the timelines are tight for the budget info, and the response from then Deputy Minister Lori Wanamaker was that those were Treasury Board timelines.

[1500]

Hon. B. Stewart: The information that we have for the member opposite was that there was no rush to centralize this other than the fact that we did have to hit deadlines to do with the budget and estimates and to get the account centralized from the ministries into the new vote structure.

D. Routley: In January 2009 a national audit commissioned by the Canadian Newspaper Association found that B.C. had the second-worst record in Canada for responding to freedom-of-information requests.

An article on the audit appeared in the January 10, 2009, Vancouver Sun. On January 12 Jessica McDonald, Deputy Minister to the Premier, sent out a memo to all deputies, announcing the centralization plan.

Will the minister admit that this was a key reason for what appears to be a rushed decision?

Hon. B. Stewart: No, in regards to the conclusion that you're suggesting — that the Premier's office and the memo was the reason for the centralization of this.

I take you back to a report called the Timeliness of Government's Access to Information Responses, which was issued in the summer of 2008. Of course, the commissioner did have some criticism, and as such, we want to first thank the commissioner for his report, and we agree with his recommendations.

British Columbia is a leader in access to information and protection of privacy, and our legislation is amongst the strongest in Canada. However, the government of British Columbia now responds to nearly 6,000 requests every year, some of which are very large and complex. Since 2001 the government has cut the overall response times for freedom-of-information requests in half — from 71 business days down to 34 in 2008.

Obviously, that still wasn't good enough. We're determined to do it better, and that's why in January we centralized the government's information and privacy operations. The new structure will improve response times, make better use of resources and provide a streamlined one-window service for people making access requests.

I'm pleased that the commissioner reports that he is optimistic, in his most recent report in June 2009, about the benefits of the streamlined centralized process. We will continue to consult with him as we make improvements.

D. Routley: You can't have it both ways. On January 12 Jessica McDonald put out this memo announcing the centralization plan.

[1505]

The report that the minister refers to came out on February 13. The report was called Timeliness of Government's Access to Information Responses, report for the calendar year 2008. In that report Mr. Loukidelis found an "unacceptable pattern of governmentwide failure to respond to access requests in as timely a fashion as it should."

Again, this timeline doesn't match up. Did the ministry know in advance about Mr. Loukidelis's impending report when they made the snap decision to centralize freedom-of-information operations? Or was it, as I have suggested, driven by Jessica McDonald and through the Premier's office?

Hon. B. Stewart: The report from the commissioner that I just quoted, telling you that it came out in the summer of '08…. I was incorrect on that, and I want to correct that for the record. It was in February.

But secondly, as you're aware, the government was well aware of the fact that it was not meeting the mandate under the act. The mandate stipulates that we need to be returning information on freedom-of-information requests within a 30-day window.

The commissioner has issued numerous reports prior to this, suggesting that we need to make improvements. As such, the government was well, in fact, considering streamlining the process. Clearly, its goal of meeting that 30-day window…. Although we were close at 34 days, and we've brought it down from 78 days in 2001, the reality is that we still weren't there. The fact is that we believe this is the issue that was blocking us being able to make these reports available within the required act period of time.

D. Routley: Yes, and this is an admission that the government is failing to meet the requirements of the act and continues to. We still see reports that are titled Failing FOI, and such references are made by people who are examining this record.

There are many people who think that the prospect, in Mr. Loukidelis's report, of ministry-to-ministry comparisons is exactly the reason that there was a centralization, and centralization made that comparison, ministry by ministry, quite impossible.

That's one question. Was that one of the motives for the centralization — in order to avoid the prospect of these ministry-by-ministry comparisons?

[1510]

Also, Mr. Loukidelis reported some very embarrassing figures and facts. He found that the B.C. Liberal government responded to access requests within the permitted times only 71 percent of the time. He described as "disturbing" a finding that the government's on-time compliance rate dropped to just 49 percent for the media, 53 percent for a political party and 57 percent if it was from a political group.

I have an example of this from the Public Eye Online, where a media request and an almost identical request
[ Page 700 ]
from the official opposition were made at the same time. Both of the FOIs were for records related to the departure of top Olympic bureaucrat Annette Antoniak, including her severance pay.

In response, the ministry refused to disclose those records, citing privacy concerns, even though four days earlier they had released nine pages of severance pay records to the media.

Can the minister explain and comfort British Columbians that this is not such a disturbing fact and explain how it could possibly be so different? Personal requests for information from government…. The requirements are met at a very high rate, where interest groups, media and political parties find that half or less than half of the time the requests are honoured in due time.

Hon. B. Stewart: First of all, the idea of characterizing the fact that something is trying to be hidden in terms of the reporting, in terms of the information, by ministries…. I want you to be aware that this is not about that at all. It's about making certain that we streamline the process. Just so you're aware, the commissioner can still report the information by individual ministries independently, as to how they're responding. Secondly, it is still being tracked.

On the other issue, in terms of timeliness. I'm not quite certain where the calculations or statistics…. I don't think that those are numbers that we have. You did state that it was based on the commissioner's own admission that we were responding to requests 71 percent of the time within the required time limit of the act. Since January when the government's information and privacy operations were centralized, we've improved the response time from 71 to 81 percent within the legislated timelines and are still working to get that close to 100 percent.

So I think that, clearly, we're demonstrating that the processes are improved under this. That's what we're trying to do, not necessarily trying to frustrate or withhold information.

More importantly, in the example that you cite about an employee that left the employment of the Olympic Games Secretariat, we're aware of that. But the questions were not identical; there are some differences. One party sought information regarding the particulars of a possible severance package, while the other sought information over why this person left the position. The difference in such terminology has resulted in each request being interpreted differently under the act. That's the important part.

D. Routley: I would dispute that that is the important…. The important thing is that information was redacted from one request and not the other, and it was pertinent to both. The figures quoted came from Mr. Loukidelis.

[1515]

The minister is quoting average times. Average times include personal requests. It's acknowledged that for people who request their own personal information from government or for similar circumstances, the compliance rate is very high. So the average appears higher. It obscures the fact that with requests from media, political organizations and interest groups it's abysmally low — 49 percent for the media, 53 percent for political parties and 57 percent for interest groups.

Can the minister tell me how this new freedom-of-information unit will address this government's record regarding those requests from the media, opposition and interest groups?

Hon. B. Stewart: I just want to reiterate that it's certainly not the intention of government to frustrate groups and be selective in terms of the response times. I want to go back to the fact that the government, since 2001, has cut the overall response time from 71 days down to 34. I think that's a fairly significant reduction in any kind of performance measurements, and I'm assuming that the averages that you speak of included at the same time media requests, special interests and other groups such as that.

I think that it's important to recognize the fact that British Columbia is one of the pioneers in freedom-of-information legislation. We've received three times as many requests per capita as Ontario and four times as many as Alberta.

Last year alone we received almost 6,600 requests in totality. That rate is already approaching another increase again this year. We've still, since January, been able to commit to lowering times and have brought it down a further 10 percent, from 71 percent in the required response time to 81 percent within the required response time. I think our goal of trying to get to 100 percent…. We're getting closer every year, but we're not there yet. We're trying very hard.

D. Routley: I think, for us to be accurate and to reflect this true state of affairs in B.C., we have to be more specific than the averages indicate. Those numbers come from Mr. Loukidelis in a press release, where he says that access to information is a key tool in keeping government accountable.

[1520]

The commissioner stated that one-third of applications to government are overdue, and when they are, they're an average of 37 days overdue. He goes on to say that this disturbing finding is that the rate for the media is only 49 percent, 53 percent for political parties, 57 percent for interest groups. Rather than the averages, which don't accurately describe this circumstance, it shows that the key politically relevant requests for information are being delayed at an absolutely unacceptable level.
[ Page 701 ]

This Premier and this government promised the most accountable and open government in the history of this province, yet this is their abysmal record in fulfilling freedom-of-information requests that have any imperilment for their own political well-being.

Yes, when an individual makes a request to government for information about their own life, there's a very high compliance rate. But that only serves as the stark contrast to the political expediency that's reflected in the delays we see to groups that have politically relevant claims.

I'm not sure if the minister would know this, being a new minister, but according to Mr. Loukidelis's report, the Premier's office stood out. It was the second-worst offender. It was the worst, actually. The second was the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services, the predecessor of this minister's station. The Premier's office had the lowest percentage of requests closed on time. That percentage was 31 percent.

So if you take the requests that do not present any political danger to government — somebody requesting their birth certificate information, somebody requesting personal family information — wow, the government's right on time with that. But when it comes to information that the media wants, that the opposition wants, that interest groups want, there's an abysmal rate of compliance, particularly from the highest office, the Premier's office, and secondly, Labour and Citizens' Services, from which this ministry was born.

Can the minister explain why his ministry and the Premier's office had the worst response time records last year in all of government and how this new system is somehow going to remedy that?

Hon. B. Stewart: In regards to your question, I think that one of the things that you have to appreciate is the differences in terms of the standard type of request. I mean, a birth certificate or these types of personal requests that you've referred to are simple. The complexity ranges from that to the fact that some of the requests in the Premier's office, obviously, transcend multiple ministries and may involve more information than just the Premier's office in having to comply with that request.

I go back to the fact that we've made a commitment in streamlining the process, which has already got a demonstrated improvement of over 10 percent in just this last nine-month period. That's an outstanding improvement.

[1525]

The fact is that the averages…. If you want to talk about averages, let's go back to prior to 2001. The average response time was 103 days, and that included all the birth certificates and everything that was, you know, simple. The reality is that here we are, and our response time in 2008 was 34 days. We have cut it considerably. We are not meeting quite the letter of the law, but we're trying very hard. Just the complexity, the costs…. We're nearing 7,000 requests per year.

The average cost of just an FOI requirement is over $2,000. The reality is that we've frozen the rates, and it's increasingly difficult to provide improved service with the budget constraints that we have. But we've committed to lowering, and we've demonstrated that. So that's the commitment that the government gives to you on honesty and transparency.

D. Routley: There's no such distinction in the act. There's no such distinction which allows the government more time for politically relevant or threatening freedom-of-information requests as opposed to those that are simply personal information. There's no such distinction. There's no such allowance.

The minister's quoting of averages obscures the reality that those politically, largely irrelevant requests are being fulfilled on time, when requests that propose a political imperilment to government are taking an abysmal length of time to complete and fulfil.

So it speaks to a political interference. Now the government is emphasizing this greater efficiency. I'm hearing it from the minister. He's quoting improvements. Part of that was the single-entry intake for freedom-of-information requests. What will be this single point of entry? Who will staff it? Is there more than one person, and what is their job title?

Hon. B. Stewart: Okay. I just want to restate again that we are trying to simplify and streamline our processes. The single point of access that you ask about is contemplated and maybe won't be…. It'll be managed with the same staff, and all requests are treated equally, whether it happens to be issues around birth or other personal matters versus the Premier's matters.

I can tell you that we are making improvements in delivery of the ones that have been the offenders in the past, in terms of turning that around. The processes are working, and I'll be looking forward to next year's report from the commissioner on how we've improved the process.

D. Routley: The minister has indicated that the process will be the same, whether it's media or political party or an individual requesting individual information. So I'll leave that one alone for now, and we'll hope that bears out.

[1530]

I would like to know who this person or these people will report to, this single-entry point, and when the public affairs bureau or the Premier's office will be alerted to an FOI request.

Hon. B. Stewart: I apologize for the delay.
[ Page 702 ]

First off, in answer to the first part of the question, the member opposite was given a briefing about the organization of Shared Services B.C. In that organizational chart the executive director responsible for freedom of information reports up through to the president of Shared Services B.C. — just from the reporting structure. Hopefully, that answers that question.

In regards to the two other points that were made about the issue around freedom of information, there's a requirement that the Premier's office does look at issues that relate to anything to do with cabinet confidences. That's the reason that they are alerted or notified of anything of that nature.

The second part of it. PAB is not involved as part of the approval process but receives information or notification of a release after the sign-off by the individual ministries about a freedom-of-information request to deal with that individual ministry.

[1535]

That's just issues management to make certain that that's been reviewed before, you know, there's an issue that surfaces that may not be entirely consistent or complete — in terms of the information may be taken out of context.

D. Routley: I'll pass this sentence to my neighbour, and he'll pass it all the way around here to the minister, and we'll see how changed it is, particularly if one of those agents along the way has a political agenda. Then the message can be quite different. Certain words can be left out, and certain facts can be altered.

You know, a more cynical person than me — because the minister knows that I maintain an innocent expectation of government's promises and performance — might review the government's performance and abuse of FOI law, and they might even think that this new system provides even more opportunity for political interference since there is a single point of entry.

The minister acknowledges that the information is shared up the chain. Isn't this a concern for the minister? Isn't the minister responsible for freedom of information concerned that this new arrangement, this new single-point entry system, actually presents more possibilities for political interference?

Hon. B. Stewart: No.

D. Routley: As I stated, I maintain that innocent expectation, so I accept the minister's word as given. In that case, I'll pursue a different line along the lines of that which Mr. Loukidelis points to — that, in fact, it's about money, a lack of resources. Mr. Loukidelis states that it's very clear the real reason for the government's ongoing delays in responding to FOI requests was a lack of proper resources.

He says: "In the end, this is about money, plain and simple. Access and privacy staff are dedicated, hard-working professionals, but they can only do so much. More is needed, and that means more money for more staff."

So to the minister: does his new FOI system deliver more money for more staff as directed and recommended by the information officer?

Hon. B. Stewart: I think one of the things that, you know, we're all acutely aware of, given the state of the economy, is that we have to find different ways to utilize the capital we have, both human and resource capital.

As such, the Ministry of Citizens' Services is charged always with trying to find more efficient ways in terms of what it does in terms of the delivery of its services, whether it happens to be on a freedom-of-information request or whether it happens to be something simple out in the field that could easily be streamlined into a different process.

I think that, in answer to the member's question, he's asking about whether we have added further resources and staff to that.

We don't have an unlimited supply of resources in all aspects of government, and that's just a fact. The reality is that what we have done is shown that the business process…. The improvements that we've made by streamlining, making a central point of contact, have factually improved — the fact that we're turning freedom-of-information requests around in a more timely manner. And the fact is that, as much as there still can be criticism levelled at it, we've done an amazingly remarkable job in getting it close to what the target is, and I'm sure that we're going to meet or exceed that target through these improved processes.

[1540]

D. Routley: I'd be an excellent free-throw shooter if I could just move that basket closer or a good field-goal kicker if I could just move the goalposts. Indeed, that's what the government has done. They boast about improved response times by rolling those pesky political requests in with individual requests, and say: "Look at the average. Isn't it increased?" But people aren't as easily fooled as that.

The Privacy Commissioner himself has called the government out on this. For the minister's benefit, I'd like to read a key section from Mr. Loukidelis's report.

"The ongoing failure by…ministries to respond overall to requests in a timely fashion is particularly troubling, because Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act's time limits were materially relaxed in 2003" — before the new minister's time, of course, but two years after the Premier came to power promising the most open and accountable government in Canada; again, I'd throw some pretty good foul shots if I could move the basket closer and a little lower — "by changing
[ Page 703 ]
the response time to 30 business days…from 30 calendar days."

In fact, the government gave itself a full two weeks extra to comply with requests. So the government record, according to the commissioner, is that of a serious and ongoing problem of delay. How will this new model, with fewer people and less resources, achieve this goal?

Hon. B. Stewart: I think that in your question you talk about the commissioner's pointing out the ministry's failure in terms of their adequate commitment and resources to the freedom-of-information request timelines. As a result, we embarked on where we streamlined the processes.

Last year we spent an estimated $19.4 million in supporting the administration of the act, including responding to access requests, ensuring privacy protection, developing and implementing policy support and delivering training.

But I'm further pleased to report that the efficiencies that have resulted since the centralization of the freedom-of-information staff is that we have reorganized with new policies and procedures to ensure that there's consistency across government. These include a new organizational structure, new business processes as well as new tools and technology. These new business processes include managing to timelines associated with each step in the process and taking proactive action when a request is at risk of going overdue.

[1545]

Further improvements will be made to streamline requests, including a new citizen-facing website, an on-line application tool; harmonization of business processes; and a proactive release strategy for frequently asked information.

D. Routley: Well, the commissioner points to more resources and more people being needed. So far it appears that there are fewer.

I'd like to refer to a meeting I had with the minister's deputies. I was told that the government's plan was to process more FOIs with fewer FTEs — full-time-equivalents. Does the minister concur with the government's plan, and how many FTEs were cut in the centralization?

Hon. B. Stewart: Before the formation of the IAO, staff directly employed in responding to freedom-of-information requests from the public, in records management, were distributed across government and part of ministry organizations.

When the IAO was established in January of 2009, it included 172 positions — 100 FOI positions, 67 record management positions and five business management support positions. And 145 FOI and records management positions transferred from ministries to the IAO. Of these positions 100 were FOI and 45 were records management. Of the 100 FOI positions five were vacant at the time of transfer and not filled. After the transfer three more FOI positions were vacated and not filled.

Recently one encumbered FOI position was eliminated. Today 91 staff are directly employed in responding to the freedom-of-information requests, four less than prior to the establishment of the IAO.

The records management component of the IAO is comprised of the 45 records management positions transferred from ministries and 22 positions in the corporate records management branch. Through not filling vacant positions and with a recent workforce adjustment of eight positions, there are now 55 staff employed in records management.

The IAO organization is led by an executive director who is supported by an administrative assistant. The total number of positions in the IAO is 148.

The consolidation of FOI operations has enabled government to improve its response time on FOI requests and manage an increased volume of requests with a slightly lower number of staff than prior to consolidation.

D. Routley: As difficult as it is to process those numbers as they were given to me, it sounds like 172 down to about 90.

Hon. B. Stewart: The number now is 148.

D. Routley: Why are these FTE numbers known and presentable here, when elsewhere in the budget we were told that the FTE numbers will only be released after the budget, in the human resources annual report?

[1550]

Hon. B. Stewart: I previously read for the record the number of FTEs that are employed in Shared Services. These numbers that I gave to you previously, the numbers for the IAO office, are a subset of the 1,552 in the Shared Services B.C. branch.

D. Routley: How much FOI work is being done by contractors?

Hon. B. Stewart: We're just trying to get that information. If you could just give us a minute, perhaps we could report to you after another question.

D. Routley: How much has the reorganization cost?

Hon. B. Stewart: As we went through earlier, the consolidation of freedom-of-information operations into Shared Services B.C. has resulted in no new net cost to government. I do want to talk about the benefits and the savings and efficiencies that we're receiving.
[ Page 704 ]

As was pointed out, with an increasing demand of freedom-of-information requests, we've been able to still further reduce the wait times to this unprecedented level of 81 percent delivery of on-timeliness in terms of the requests. That's a result of streamlining improved business processes, which are, in effect, actually saving the government money, but we haven't identified that exact amount.

D. Routley: I had planned to ask, but I guess it's been confirmed for me already that the reorganization includes record management and archiving. I'll move on to the following questions related to the Document Disposal Act.

This is the ministry responsible for the Document Disposal Act. What are the government's obligations and responsibilities under the Document Disposal Act, and what section of the ministry is responsible for oversight of this responsibility?

[1555]

Hon. B. Stewart: To the member opposite: in regard to the previous request about contracting, in terms of the freedom-of-information work that's being done, I can confirm that there are no contractors working on freedom of information.

On the second note, records management, in which you talk about the Document Disposal Act…. First off, British Columbia has a strong information management framework governing the management and disposition of government information in all media and other formats.

The Document Disposal Act was enacted in 1936 and sets out the approval requirements that a ministry and other executive government bodies must meet to dispose of records.

In 1983 the act was amended to authorize the use of ongoing records schedules. These schedules are timetables specifying how long each type of record must be retained and whether it will ultimately be destroyed or transferred to government archives. Records schedules are reviewed by the Public Accounts Committee established under the act and submitted for approval either by the Public Accounts Committee and the Legislative Assembly or to the executive council.

The office of the chief information officer has also established policies requiring ministries to implement these schedules and appropriate records disposal procedures.

D. Routley: Could the minister explain to the House his government's policy on document disposal and retention and any changes that have occurred to this policy in the last two years?

Hon. B. Stewart: First off, the Document Disposal Act — and the references to it, all the procedures and discussion about what documents are a document — is available on line, and I'd be happy to provide you with the location of where that is on line. But as the member opposite knows, this particular issue relates to a matter that's before the courts, and as such, the government is not willing to comment on terms of issues surrounding the Document Disposal Act.

D. Routley: I didn't hear, in the minister's answer, the area of responsibility. Which area of his ministry is responsible for the Document Disposal Act?

Hon. B. Stewart: The responsibility is with the chief information officer.

D. Routley: Can the member describe the outsourcing agreements his government has with regard to his responsibilities under the Document Disposal Act?

[1600]

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

Hon. B. Stewart: I would just like to take the opportunity to introduce, here behind me, Dave Nikolejsin, who is the chief information officer and who has joined us during this period of your questions.

Further to your question in regards to the Document Disposal Act, no parts of the Document Disposal Act are handled by outside contractors. That act is completely administered within the policy of the chief information officer.

D. Routley: On March 31, 2009, the B.C. Liberal government quietly announced a deal with EDS to privatize government hosting and data services. EDS is a B.C. subsidiary of Hewlett-Packard EDS.

How does the new deal with EDS change how government discharges its responsibilities under the Document Disposal Act?

Hon. B. Stewart: The relationship that you've set out here between EDS and the government of British Columbia doesn't alter the relationship in terms of whether outside contractors are working on the Document Disposal Act.

D. Routley: This is the same company that was the subject of an Auditor General report in 2008 that found that EDS had the opportunity to benefit from windfall profits from an earlier contract to collect government revenue. What steps has the ministry taken with this new EDS contract to make sure that it doesn't present similar problems?

Hon. B. Stewart: Just in regards to the safeguards that we've put in place, I just want you to know that the
[ Page 705 ]
province has set out in this particular contract with EDS that it may audit, investigate and benchmark the services over the term of the agreement to ensure that the services, service levels and pricing provide continuing value. As with all of our procurements, these are put out to a very competitive bid process, and the procurement is very open and transparent.

D. Routley: Are there currently audits underway?

[1605]

Hon. B. Stewart: I just want to clarify your question about the audit. Is it in relation to the EDS contract that has been recently signed — whether there's an actual audit already taking place?

D. Routley: Yes, the question is related to the report that I referred to, in 2008. It recommended that certain protections be put in place. One of them was frequent audits. The minister referred to the opportunity to audit at any time and audit all their functions. I just wanted to ask the minister, as I did: are there any audits currently underway? It's five words, that question, and it seems a yes or no. I hope the minister can answer that.

Hon. B. Stewart: I don't mind answering the question. I just want to make certain that it's the EDS contract that you're asking about, whether this recent contract…. I can assure you that we've just signed the contract in less than the last six months. There's no audit done at this point. Once the project is further down the road, we will, obviously, be doing that to make certain that the value is there continuously through the contract.

D. Routley: Well, the report, An Audit of Joint Solution Procurement and the Revenue Management Project, recommended that the government create a detailed business case for every project, improve how it sets baseline information going into new contracts and strengthen conflict-of-interest measures for ministry staff. I would like to know if any of those things have taken place and if any audits of the performance are underway.

Hon. B. Stewart: In regards to this particular contract with EDS, this was presented before and debated at the Public Accounts Committee, and the question about the recommendations was discussed at length. I want you to be assured that all of the recommendations were implemented.

The Auditor General recently conducted an audit of the ASD procurement process, an audit of joint solution procurement and the revenue management project. In this audit the ASD achieved every single audit criteria used by the Auditor General.

[1610]

The Auditor General of B.C. found that the joint solution procurement process used by ASD deals…. The revenue services B.C.–ASD deal both met the procurement best practices. The Auditor General's audit found that the ministry has received strong guidance and support in undertaking the ASD process.

D. Routley: The EDS deal did raise the alarm at the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association due to the fact that potentially all government information — e-mail, citizens' names, records, cabinet documents — could now be the subject of secret requisition under the U.S. Patriot Act.

What is the minister's response to these concerns expressed by the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association?

Hon. B. Stewart: I stand to be corrected. I quoted that the EDS contract went before Public Accounts, but it was basically the audit of the ASD procurement process that was before Public Accounts.

In regards to the member's question regarding issues to do with the Patriot Act, B.C. is a recognized leader in protecting the privacy of Canadian sensitive personal information from U.S. authorities under the U.S. Patriot Act. B.C. structures its ASD requirements to ensure that the U.S. affiliates of Canadian or B.C. service providers do not have access to personal information controlled by the Canadian or B.C. service provider.

ASD deals require advance notice of potential disclosure of personal information, enabling the province to take action to ensure that this information is not inappropriately disclosed. Severe consequences exist for breaches to non-disclosure agreements by ASD service providers. Their consequences are built into all ASD deals and can include contract cancellation. B.C. was the first jurisdiction to introduce measures to prohibit B.C. or Canadian companies, including those with U.S. connections, from contravening the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

D. Routley: Well, does the minister have no privacy concerns when it's related to these contracts, when clearly those people who observe this sector of our society are quite concerned about the potential sharing of information through secret requisition under the U.S. Patriot Act? What steps have specifically been taken to prevent that from occurring?

Hon. B. Stewart: First off, I want to reiterate that the government of British Columbia takes these issues and concerns very seriously. As such, we introduced Bill 73, which was the bill to help make certain that the protection of this information was held in Canada.

[1615]
[ Page 706 ]

As I've just read, you can tell that the contracts are very strictly written about the fact that the information has to be held on Canadian soil. You may be aware that these providers suffer very severe consequences for any breach of the contracts, including cancellation of the service.

D. Routley: Well, clearly the minister doesn't have many concerns about privacy issues related to secret requisition under the U.S. Patriot Act. Who provides oversight to ensure that the historical record of this government's decisions and actions are being properly preserved?

Hon. B. Stewart: We talk about historical oversight. First of all, we talked about the document destruction act of 1936, and that particular act clearly lays out the requirements of government as to what it has to protect and sets out the standards as to how documents can be — when things are to be kept and when they're not to be kept.

As I mentioned earlier, I'd be happy to provide the location of where you can find that information on the Web, but I want to reiterate the fact that B.C. is a recognized leader in protecting the privacy of Canadians — sensitive personal information — from U.S. authorities under the U.S. Patriot Act.

Provincial privacy experts and lawyers have an active role in writing and reviewing the privacy sections of ASD contracts to ensure that they comply with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. All employees of the private sector partner are required to sign non-disclosure agreements and only have access to information they need to perform their duties.

Each alternative service delivery contract is signed with extensive and strict provisions that complement and exceed the privacy standards set by the province's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Contract provisions include: no data storage on a temporary or a permanent basis outside of Canada; severe contractual consequences, including cancellation of contract, for sharing information with foreign powers; direct confidentiality agreements signed by employees.

D. Routley: How does this apply to electronic records of this government?

Hon. B. Stewart: There's no distinction.

D. Routley: What other methods besides e-mail does government use now to communicate electronically — instant messenger, for example?

[1620]

Hon. B. Stewart: I can assure you that the British Columbia government is a very modern organization, and it uses the full spectrum of electronic communication devices that are available — I'm sure as the member opposite probably does — cell phones, BlackBerrys, an entire suite of tools.

Within the computer e-mail system, we use office communications, instant messenger and the likes of that. So there's nothing outside of what currently is available in the suite of the electronic spectrum of communication tools that we don't use.

D. Routley: That being said, how has government adapted its practices to preserve these records? How has government adapted its policies on document retention and disposal to meet the changing ways of professional and interoffice communication? What steps have been taken to adapt to preserving this record of communication?

Hon. B. Stewart: I think that each individual suite or tool that we use in terms of electronic communication is reviewed at the time. They're governed by the same policies that the government records under the document destruction act are protected under, but in the case of telephone conversations…. We don't record telephone conversations, hallway conversations and things of that nature. So cell phone conversations…. We're generally reviewing each process.

D. Routley: What is the name of the program currently charged with fulfilling government's responsibilities in this area?

Hon. B. Stewart: This policy falls under the office of the chief information officer.

D. Routley: What is the budget for the program area in charge of document disposal and retention?

[1625]

Hon. B. Stewart: The best number that I can give the member is the entire budget for the policy area that covers the document disposal and destruction act as well as other statutes, and $579,000 is what the annual cost of that is.

D. Routley: How does this compare to the previous year's budget, and what cuts has government made to this program area, to discretionary funding or any other funding?

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. B. Stewart: Madam Chair, welcome.

To the member opposite: we're just trying to find that number, because of just the complexity of its embeddedness in the chief information officer's budget, but we'll get that for you in a minute.
[ Page 707 ]

D. Routley: Then I would add this, and it probably would come under the same restriction in time. That would be: how many FTEs did the program area employ in last year's budget as compared to this budget? That's what I hope could be added to the question.

While that's being worked on, I'd like to ask: is Rosemarie Hayes still the director of messaging and collaboration services?

Hon. B. Stewart: Rosemarie Hayes still works for Shared Services B.C. in the same capacity.

D. Routley: We know from the scandal over this government's withholding of welfare statistics during the recent election campaign that this government had a specific plan for how government would operate during the election.

Can the minister tell us what the protocol was for document disposal and retention during the April-May election period, and who provided oversight for the government's Document Disposal Act responsibilities during the election period?

[1630]

Hon. B. Stewart: During that specific period of time, the policy wasn't changed. As such, the responsibility is left with each of the individual responsible members of the public service in their individual departments to make certain they administer the document destruction act. Heads of the public bodies. I apologize.

D. Routley: As the minister knows, the Information and Privacy Commissioner is very concerned about a potential loss or destruction of cabinet e-mails during the election period and has offered to add oversight of the Document Disposal Act to his responsibilities.

Here's what Mr. Loukidelis said. "I am concerned that the public policy objectives of openness, accountability and good management — and, frankly, the historical record — are not being well served at this time."

Mr. Loukidelis said that in the digital age, electronic communication makes up a large part of government's records, and that is why it's imperative that the information be properly preserved and retrievable. He is offering to provide necessary oversight and enforcement of the Document Disposal Act.

Has the minister been in touch with Mr. Loukidelis, taken him up on this offer? If not, why?

Hon. B. Stewart: We're not aware that this particular offer has been made by the Privacy Commissioner. However, we welcome his submission to the special committee which will be convened sometime in the next month, and we look forward to his suggestions as to how a non-government person could administer a government statute and act.

D. Routley: I've spoken to Mr. Loukidelis, and he has spoken to our caucus about his concerns, as I am sure he has spoken to the government about his concerns. His offer was made publicly, in a public statement. What he has offered is not to replace an elected official but to provide the necessary oversight. We have officers of the Legislature — one of them present with us now — who provide oversight of government's responsibilities under these acts.

I would like to know — beyond Mr. Loukidelis's expected submissions to the committee that would review the legislation — whether the minister has considered taking up Mr. Loukidelis on his offer to provide, through his office, oversight of the Document Disposal Act.

[1635]

Hon. B. Stewart: If the commissioner would like to include that in his submission to the special committee, we're happy to look at the committee's recommendations in terms of whatever it is that Mr. Loukidelis is proposing.

D. Routley: In the province, people who observe these interests of government, the interests of protecting our information and the historical record, are nervous and alarmed by the government's performance — their failure to live up to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, their apparent failure to live up to the requirements of the Document Disposal Act, which the minister, through a slip of tongue, has referred to as the document destruction act, which I think kind of colours the nervousness that people have about the way the government views this responsibility.

For the minister's benefit, I have the Hansard exchange with the Premier where — during the Premier's estimates, about ensuring the preservation of electronic records — the Premier assured the House that his government was doing that.

The Leader of the Opposition stated: "Government has a responsibility and is required by statute to protect all documents and records." She asked: "Can the Premier tell this House, please, what his understanding is about the statutory requirement, and how his office is meeting that requirement?"

The Premier answered: "The Premier's office has a full records management system that's in place — both hard copy and electronic. Everyone in the office is trained. We abide fully by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act."

The Premier again stated that freedom of information "applies to anything government-related, regardless of the network…. If it's government related, it's FOIable…. The Leader of the Opposition's question implies that somehow or other, the use of such devices" — and we're talking about BlackBerrys and alternate forms of electronic
[ Page 708 ]
communication — "would not allow something to be FOIable. That is not the case."

Does the minister agree with this statement of the Premier?

[1640]

Hon. B. Stewart: I think that, first of all, Citizens' Services, which we're discussing here today, is responsible for the policy in regards to the Document Disposal Act, and that the administration of the act is…. The heads of the public bodies are the ones that are ultimately responsible for the carrying-out of what the Document Disposal Act states.

D. Routley: In that case, can the minister assure me and the House that no government records that, under the Document Disposal Act, were to be preserved for the historical record were instead destroyed?

Hon. B. Stewart: I reiterate again that we're absolutely responsible for the policy in terms of the document destruction act. As far as the administration and the carrying-out of the issues in terms of the document destruction act, it's the heads of the public bodies that are responsible for that. That's as much as I think I can answer on this particular line of questioning.

D. Routley: The Premier went on to talk about records being backed up on servers. At first, he assured the Leader of the Opposition that BlackBerrys and other portable communication devices were backed up on the server, but then he had to backtrack the next day, and he said: "What I have now been informed is that we have taken steps to upgrade our technology so the server can back up those devices. It is not in place yet, but it will be shortly."

To the minister: has the technology now been upgraded so that the server can back up communications by BlackBerrys and other portable devices?

Hon. B. Stewart: I guess I'm not really quite certain how this particular question relates to our budget estimates, and I'd ask that, you know, maybe we get to seek clarification on that.

D. Routley: Is not Citizens' Services the ministry responsible for administering the Document Disposal Act? And is it not part of the ongoing effort to increase the retention and accountability of government for its information? Isn't a part of that effort an effort to broaden the range of communications devices that are captured under the act, and in order to preserve the historical record that Mr. Loukidelis refers to as being "imperilled by the government's failure to advance policy and to live up to policy"?

[1645]

The Premier has made a commitment that these devices will be backed up on servers and that they will be FOIable. That commitment was clearly made during Premier's estimates last year, and I am asking the minister responsible for that area of government whether or not this technology has now been upgraded so that the servers can back up communications by BlackBerrys and other portable devices. It's clearly a question under the area of responsibility of Citizens' Services.

Hon. B. Stewart: Madam Chair, I guess I'm still…. You know, we're here to discuss estimates, but yes, those steps have been taken.

D. Routley: When was that effective? When were those steps taken? Will these types of communications be part of the mandate of the new legislative committee to review the FOI act?

Hon. B. Stewart: First of all, to the member opposite: we're just getting the confirmation of the date that that technology was first implemented. We'll get that for you in a minute. You know, the committee is being struck under the auspices of a review of the Freedom of Information Act. It's up to the committee to decide if it's going to be reviewing aspects or making recommendations in terms of the other act that you referred to, and it's not within our mandate to direct them to do such.

D. Routley: They are definitely tasked with terms of reference, and clearly, the commitments by government — at least the commitments by the Premier to the most open and accountable government in the history of the universe — need to be applied to everything that the government does when it comes to freedom of information and document retention and disposal.

I would ask: does the minister expect that the review…? Will a review of the government's use of exemptions under the act be a part of this committee's work?

[1650]

Hon. B. Stewart: In answer to the previous question from the member opposite in regards to the implementation of that technology to deal with documents and the Premier's commitment to make certain that there was backup on that, that was implemented in July of 2008. Under the issues of exemptions under the act, again, the special committee that is to be struck next month will be the ones that we will look forward to their recommendations in terms of what it is that they recommend in terms of any changes in that area.

D. Routley: Section 13, policy advice, is an often-quoted section of the act that excuses government from sharing information with the public. The government's abuse of section 13 has been roundly criticized by the
[ Page 709 ]
Freedom of Information and Privacy Association and also by Mr. David Loukidelis. Will the use of section 13 — the overuse of section 13 — be on the table?

The Chair: For clarification, Members, discussing legislation or the need for legislation is not in the purview of Committee of Supply.

Hon. B. Stewart: Madam Chair, I don't know if that means I should not answer that last question or whether I should.

I think that, first off, I'll go back to an earlier question from the member opposite in terms of the budget of the chief information officer. We mentioned that $579,000 is the budget, which was the global budget for policy management and the chief information officers, and can confirm there was no budget or FTE reduction from the '08-09 budget, as you asked previously.

In regards to the review of what terms the special committee will look at, I again say that they will be charged with the responsibility of going to look at the entire act as well as any areas that they feel, with the Privacy Commissioner, need to be looked into and as such will be expected to bring their recommendations back to the Legislature in this House.

D. Routley: Going back to Shared B.C., I'd like to ask about shares held by the minister in Telus Corp. and whether he's concerned about a conflict of interest, given the outsourcing contracts the ministry has with Telus.

Hon. B. Stewart: I'm not quite certain how the issue about declarations that were made during the recent election pertain to the estimates of this House. I think that that's probably a matter better asked of the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner, and it should be reserved for…. Their question should be put to him.

[1655]

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: The Committee of Supply will recess for division in the House.

The committee recessed from 4:56 p.m. to 5:07 p.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

D. Routley: I'd like to ask the minister some questions about the public affairs bureau.

Public accounts released this July showed that the public affairs bureau budget for 2008 was $36.99 million. This current budget has the public affairs bureau pegged at $28.13 million, a decrease of almost $9 million. Where has the ministry cut back to make up almost $9 million worth of savings?

Hon. B. Stewart: Yes, it's been an extremely challenging budget cycle for the Ministry of Finance and all the members of government, but in the public affairs bureau the decrease is $8.47 million over the '08-09 restated budget.

The decrease in salaries and benefits is just under a million dollars, at $988,000; a decrease in operating costs of $8.034 million; and decreases in advertising of $8.413 million and in travel of $98,000, offset by increases in other operating costs of $477,000 and an increase in other expenses of $557,000; and a decrease in grants of some $5,000.

D. Routley: As I said earlier in the day, I think any newsroom in this province, even including Global News or the Vancouver Sun or the Province newspaper, would be jealous of such a budget. In fact, the public affairs bureau is the largest news agency in our province.

[1710]

For many people in B.C., they find it to be a rather ominous and foreboding fact that our government employs the largest news agency, spinning its own information at public expense, that we see in the entire province. I think that even the Vancouver Sun newsroom would be jealous of a $29 million budget. That's a decrease, but it's still a very large budget.

I'd like to go back to an issue I raised at the beginning of the questions. In fact, in this budget the government eliminated the practice of having a separate vote for the public affairs bureau. In the briefing with your deputies that I referred to earlier, I was told that this decision was to allow flexibility for budgeting to allow money to be moved between the main ministry and the public affairs bureau and also the B.C. Public Service Agency.

Isn't it not really known at all what the budget is for public affairs bureau? Does the minister agree with this assessment?

We don't know what the budget for the public affairs bureau is. It's not a separate vote, and at any time the minister can shift moneys to the public affairs bureau from any other core operation of the ministry. The minister referred me to public accounts for the accountability for this, although they won't be published until July next year, well after next year's budget.

Does the minister agree that we don't know what the budget for PAB is?

Hon. B. Stewart: First off, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome Denise Champion, the executive director of operations and human resources for the public affairs bureau.

In regards to the question, I think it's important to recognize the fact that the public affairs bureau, which has been around for a long time, before this government…. The reality is that it has a track record of staying within its budget, and we have no intention of changing
[ Page 710 ]
that. It is accountable. It does have a budget. The suggestion that it won't live within it is incorrect.

I've read out the budget for you. It is a decrease, as I mentioned, in these difficult and challenging financial times. They have taken significant cuts in operating costs. As well, they've had to make some reductions in staff. As we know, we've dropped from 223 down to 197, and that's all about cost containment, which government is working so hard to deliver on.

D. Routley: In fact, what the budget is meant to do is project to British Columbians what their government will do with their public dollars, so there should be some level of accountability in the budget.

The minister has referred to the budget as simply a forecast of how things will go and that the public accounts is really the place where the story will be told. But that story isn't told until well after actions are taken.

This government has been roundly criticized for having expanded the public affairs bureau beyond any imagination of previous governments. The public affairs bureau has become the largest news agency in the province.

People around this province object to the use of public dollars to advertise government for government's benefit — ads like "The best place to live on earth" and all the rest of it that people have complained about.

[1715]

This September budget shows a 2.4 percent decrease over the February budget, and the pre-election budget estimated a 22 percent cut compared to 2008-2009. Now that the public affairs bureau is mixed in with the core ministry, I don't think it really means much. I don't think it means much at all. The story certainly won't be told until next July, well after these measures are taken.

Does the minister agree that it is possible for the 2.4 percent cuts estimated in this September budget to change into an increase over the course of the year with just the stroke of a pen, shifting funds to the public affairs bureau, and that the only way we will find out is when the public accounts come out in July of 2010 — after the Olympics, after the next budget is read and passed?

Hon. B. Stewart: First, I want to talk about this overarching concern with the member opposite in terms of having surplus funds in other areas of the government.

You know, besides the public affairs bureau having to take an over-23-percent reduction in its overall budget, many other parts of Citizens' Services have taken similar-sized reductions — at the office of the chief information officer that we talked about, 43.57 percent; in services to citizens and businesses, 30.3 percent; 32 percent in executive and support services. There is no extra money to start moving around and doing the things that you're suggesting.

The size of the public affairs bureau is almost 40 percent smaller than what it was in the era during your government, and we have reduced that from about 322 employees down to less than 200. I think that that only goes to state that…. You know, you keep talking about a larger newsroom. I don't know whether newsrooms were larger back then than they are today, but the reality is that this is about doing the job of getting the government's message out there.

When we have issues around the public's safety, issues around road closures and the fact that we have to make certain that people are aware of how to get government services when things change, it is a responsibility of every ministry to make certain that they get their message out there in a timely manner. That is the job of the public affairs bureau.

The flexibility that we are talking about is about the sharing within one ministry, the sharing of our resources. This flexibility is intended to ensure that the sharing of common shared resources, such as our finance and planning staff…. I've gone into the fact that we've taken three service plans and built them into one service plan.

[1720]

The idea is about getting things so that we're finding the efficiencies that we need to ensure that we deliver the vital services that British Columbians are looking for, protecting health care, education and other social ministries as well as making certain that we do our best to help contribute to the government's goal of increasing jobs and creating a better economy.

D. Routley: In fact the PSA had a budget increase, so isn't it possible that money could be moved from PSA over to PAB? Is there any restriction on this ability to move money around? For example, is there anything to prevent the minister from shifting funding from, say, multicultural grants to the public affairs bureau advertising budget?

Hon. B. Stewart: The increase in the budget in the Public Service Agency is essentially the transference in of employees that were outside of its purview prior to this consolidation. It isn't an increase at all, other than the fact that the ministries have transferred that line budget item over to them.

D. Routley: Earlier in the estimates the minister was telling us that this government spending on advertising is all very transparent, because everyone will know about it from public accounts. But what the minister may not know is that this claim of transparency really is meaningless and undermined by both the time delay between the budget and public accounts and also how this government accounts for advertising dollars in multiple places.
[ Page 711 ]

Here's an example for the minister. Last February of '08 they said public affairs bureau '08-09 ad spending would be $12.49 million — that's pure advertising — and a mere $12,000 on statutory ads, such as the H1N1 example the minister has used repeatedly in these estimates, for a total of $12.5 million.

This is what people assume will be advertising budget for the government, and that is what the government certainly and clearly leads us to believe. But when the public accounts finally came out in July '09 and after the election, it turned out that they spent $28.3 million across government, including public affairs bureau. The spending on statutory ads was also up but still the much lower amount of $3.2 million, for a total of $31.5 million.

That information was only available from the information and publication expenditures for 2008-2009 spreadsheet that the government prepared for the media. The information was not publicly released. It's only available by seeing this spreadsheet. Only by seeing that spreadsheet can you get a full accounting of advertising dollars, including the ad dollars spent by other ministries.

The actual number of dollars that the B.C. Liberal government spent on advertising in '08-09 was more than double the public affairs bureau advertising budget. They actually spent $15.8 million, or 125 percent over and above the public affairs bureau budget. That's seven times what the government has allotted to its public affairs bureau advertising budget for '09-10. The advertising budget from the February budget is the same as what was estimated in the September 1 budget, $4.077 million.

Can the minister tell us the amount of advertising dollars the government is planning governmentwide this fiscal year and what the role is of public affairs bureau in coordinating advertising of other ministries?

[1725]

Hon. B. Stewart: First off, there are a lot of numbers that the member opposite has put out here, and I just want to try and clarify. Globally, there's money for advertising within the ministries. I will try not to digress in terms of trying to make corrections or understand exactly some of the numbers, so feel free to ask additional questions.

For 2008-2009 the total government advertising budget under STOB 67 for ministries was $17.01 million. Under the public affairs bureau, it was $12.49 million — so a total of $29.502, which is approximately what I have down here that you mentioned.

For clarification, in the '08-09 expenditures we ended up, under the ministry, spending $18.834 million and in the public affairs bureau $9.477 million, which is a total of $28.311 million. That's over $1.2 million under budget.

The budget for this year, for 2009-2010, based on ministries' budgets, is $2.873 million — down from $17.01 million in the '08-09 fiscal year. The public affairs bureau's budget is $4.077 million, down from $12.490 million. Total budget for advertising for 2009-2010 is $6.95 million.

D. Routley: Thank you to the minister, but under STOB 67, it appears that the public affairs bureau is playing a role in managing the advertising of other ministries. In my briefing with the ministry we saw that the public affairs bureau has a very small central unit, that they have appointed members of their area to each ministry, and those members help coordinate the communications of each ministry.

So the actual reporting of advertising dollars managed by the public affairs bureau directly and indirectly is the total advertising budget of government. At least, that's the possibility when you look at the way the government reports this spending. It is, indeed, seven times what the government has allotted to PAB for its advertising budget in '09-10, if you consider that the public affairs bureau is managing the spending on advertising in each ministry.

Hon. B. Stewart: You know, the member opposite has talked about the PAB's involvement in terms of working cross-ministerially, and that's exactly right.

[1730]

They have a huge role in stitching together all of the government programs that each ministry has and a responsibility in helping advise in terms of how to develop materials. They have an in-house creative department, etc. That's all part of the overall budget.

Just to remind you, I don't know the calculation and the numbers, but the budget last year globally for government for advertising was $29.502 million, and the budget this year is $6.95 million. It's not anywhere near seven times anything. I'm not following that line of questioning. Sorry.

D. Routley: Well, was the public affairs bureau ever responsible for managing all the advertising of government — for example, before this past election?

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

Hon. B. Stewart: I think it's important that you understand that the roles are interlinked. The responsibility for the actual spending of advertising that is in the STOB specifically for the individual ministries is controlled by the ministries and not by the public affairs bureau.

They're a service provider that helps the individual ministries develop programs around what their needs are. Take Agriculture. Whether it happens to be a program promoting British Columbia products or shellfish
[ Page 712 ]
— anything like that — it has to come at the request of the individual ministries.

D. Routley: Before the election there was a rash of advertising. During the next extended consultations on the other side I'll dig up some examples. There were examples where all 18 of Black Press's papers would have a full-page ad extolling the virtues of the best place to live, play, work on earth, universe, etc.

These were clearly feel-good ads for government before an election. People were complaining about this level of advertising that the government was engaging in at public expense. Not just the opposition but people across B.C. were offended by that use of public dollars.

In light of the cuts this government is now making British Columbians suffer — like cuts to supports for seniors, like cuts to high school sports programs, like cuts to school facilities grants — how can the minister justify such a bloated pre-election advertising budget, when so many of those public dollars were concentrated in the period leading right up to the election?

[1735]

Hon. B. Stewart: I just want to restate that…. Clearly, the role of the public affairs bureau in doing the job of communicating what government is doing through the different ministries is an important and integral part of their job — communicating issues around public safety as well as things that the government has said as far as its priorities in terms of the healthiest jurisdiction in North America. In terms of getting people….

I don't think that anybody on both sides of the House would disagree. The fact is that getting people engaged in physical activity and these things that we know are important are part of the healthier lifestyles that we're trying to help ensure our citizens are doing, to help ensure that our health care system isn't overburdened by the fact that they're not doing things like exercising. As we all know, it's recommended.

But I would just highlight that some of these campaigns that you referred to, this rash of advertising prior to the interregnum period…. A campaign like BC150 ran for several different reasons. It ran from the period of April 2008 until September '08, during a period when there is very heightened tourism activity.

This is about making British Columbia's citizens feel proud about their province, the fact that they're celebrating 150 years, which is a milestone, an accomplishment. The fact is that when people are here, having people know their history is an important part of making certain that we can celebrate the fact that we're a proud part of Canada and a place where people like to visit.

So I don't accept the fact that the government has funds in this particular budget that are going to be earmarked or used in any way, shape or form, other than for the specific purpose, as we've laid out, for public safety and issues around the statutes. We have to make certain that we ensure in these difficult times that we still advertise.

D. Routley: Earlier the minister told me that the government wasn't the economy, and now he's telling me that the economy depends on the government advertising BC150 — that if we didn't do that, then surely the tourism industry would have fallen on its knees.

In fact, this government, during a crisis in the economy, spent $28 million last year on advertising itself. There are other examples, not just the public safety examples that no one would argue with.

No one would argue that we need to remind students that they need to wash their hands to avoid H1N1. It would be nice if the government cleaned the classrooms the way they used to, to avoid H1N1. Their own public health officer has referred to that as being the number one barrier to infectious outbreaks, but that's another matter, isn't it?

There are other places that the government has spent its money. Let's take a look at just a couple of those.

The climate action dividend. To advertise the climate action dividend — was that a necessity to the people of British Columbia? How necessary was it to their health and safety that the government promote its climate dividend to the tune of $296,465 for creative and production services; advertising purchasing in the order of $2,195,523; Queen's Printer, $103,421?

I'm sure it was essential to the health and safety of British Columbians that the government advertise its climate action dividend while it was under extreme pressure for its carbon tax and trying to offset the political pressure that it received from that.

[1740]

Then, LiveSmart B.C. Well, Wasserman and Partners received $2,919,745; Vizeum Canada for advertising purchasing, $3,929,984; various others, $8,500. That was for LiveSmart B.C. to inform British Columbians on the implications of climate change, on how to access the various programs and services offered by the province, on home renovation grants — I forgot; those were cut, weren't they? — on green auto rebates and on a bunch of things like that.

I mean, it's really essential, I'm sure, to the health and welfare of the government to advertise those programs. But during a downturn in the economy that requires us to cut services to children, to seniors and to increase wait times in the health system, does the minister think that's a responsible use of advertising dollars?

I'm not going to debate that we have to remind kids to wash their hands to avoid H1N1, particularly now that their classrooms aren't as clean as they used to be, but I don't think that's a reasonable use of money in a downturn and before an election by a government that was in trouble in those very areas of policy. What does the minister think?
[ Page 713 ]

Hon. B. Stewart: You know, a year ago just this month we had really a seismic shift in the way that the world thought. The fact is that the economy wasn't doing the same things that it was doing prior to that — you know, Bear Stearns, Lehman Bros. and a weekend of having institutions that basically rocked the entire North American economy. They rocked the world economy.

The reality is that for you to predict that we knew better, that we should have been curtailing advertising, protecting, etc…. The government was working within the same constraints that it always worked under the budget limitations. The reality is, as you'll know from those accounts, that the government still had a budget surplus last year, and we intend to deliver on the budget that we set out this year.

You talk about some of these programs and some of the things that you've taken aim at, etc. LiveSmart, for instance, was an oversubscribed program. We set aside a budget for it, just like what we've done here. We've set aside budgets, and it was oversubscribed. There's not a time limit on it. It's an amount of money, and the money was gone. The reality is that the climate action dividend, which I just touched on….

I mean, when you look out at the global economy and you look at the way that things are today, who would have predicted August of last year what it's doing? Who would have predicted ten years ago or 15 years ago that we would have the pine beetle kill that's virtually wiped out our forests, put thousands of workers in the forest sector out of jobs, etc. The reality is that we have a forest-fire-fighting bill from this particular year that is nearing $400 million, the largest expenditure ever on record for fighting forest fires.

These issues about climate change. The whole program of what our government has been trying to do is to educate people about the fact that there is climate change. We need to take steps to make certain that we ensure that people understand how they can adjust that, and that's the whole part about what we're doing.

[1745]

Considering the current fiscal environment that this government is facing, the province has taken extraordinary measures to reduce advertising spending. This year $6.95 million has been budgeted for advertising. That's a cut of $22.5 million, or 76 percent. I think that we've demonstrated that we're serious about trying to manage within our budget. The reality is that the advertising is focused in on essential and statutory and public safety issues.

D. Routley: Fine. Cut the advertising now. The election is over. You spent millions to advertise LiveSmart B.C., and then you promptly cancelled it after the election. Did the government not know before the election that the program was oversubscribed? If they did, why would they advertise it so heavily during the election, stand on it as a plank in their platform and then immediately cancel it right after the election?

All the money spent on the climate action dividend to offset the political damage done by the carbon tax. The minister says: "Who could have predicted a year ago what would happen to the economy?" Many people predicted it. Many people looked south and saw the decline in housing starts.

Many people looked around this world, and maybe the government ignored that. Clearly they did. Clearly they ignored the fact that our number one customer was tanking, that housing starts were tanking.

Did the government not notice the downfall in the Royal Bank of Scotland? I forgot. The government said we were immune in B.C. "This is the best place to weather that storm, because it's not going to happen here."

They were wrong. They knew they were wrong, and they used our money, the money of British Columbia taxpayers, in a flurry of advertising immediately before an election in a desperate bid to become re-elected — a vain attempt to advertise the benefits of a B.C. Liberal government, using public dollars.

So now, after that election, after so many of the programs that this government advertised and stood on are now cancelled and so many cuts are being made to services for people in this province, they say: "We're going to cut our advertising budget."

Well, that's pretty easy at this point. Just imagine what would have been available to the B.C. school sports program now, as they lose their budget, if the government hadn't spent $2 million advertising ActNow and $2.6 million advertising the climate action dividend.

I'd like to know how much this government spent advertising or attempting to convince British Columbians that the economy was okay when they knew that their deficit was bloating. How much money was spent on advertising the fact that we were just okay?

The Chair: First, I would like to remind both members to address your remarks through the Chair, please.

Hon. B. Stewart: Mr. Chair, through to the member opposite, in answer to the member's question about how much was spent, that information is available through public accounts, and there's no reason to….

A Voice: So what is it?

Hon. B. Stewart: It's available through public accounts, if you'd like to have a look.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please.

D. Routley: Now we're told that there's going to be this huge cut. The throne speech promised a 76 percent decrease in advertising and publications. Again,
[ Page 714 ]
it's pretty easy after the election. That's pretty easy after the deception has been readily advertised and passed through the filters.

A 76 percent decrease in advertising and publications. I'd like to know: is this a governmentwide decrease, or is this specific to the public affairs bureau? How much is the public affairs bureau expected to cut its advertising budget?

Hon. B. Stewart: That question in terms of how much we had previously in the public affairs bureau…. In terms of the budget for last year, it was $12.49 million, and the budget for the 2009-2010 year is $4.077 million.

[1750]

D. Routley: Well, have these cuts been achieved? And if so, were they achieved at the expense of high school sports or the very programs that were being advertised by PAB before the election — maybe the cancellation of continuation of LiveSmart or some other program? I'd like to know where the cuts have been made and how they were achieved.

Hon. B. Stewart: In answer to the member opposite's question of where this money is coming from, there are a number of advertising programs that you've referred to, and most of those programs had a shelf life and an expiry early last year.

The reality is that in this particular budget in February it was very clear that the government was not able to spend the money that it had previously on some of the campaigns in terms that it would have liked to continue. I'm sure that the Minister of Healthy Living and others would like to continue to promote some of the activities that they were encouraging British Columbians to take part in.

But the decrease is $8.413 million, and that was decided at the time that the budget was first tabled in February of 2009.

D. Routley: To backtrack a bit, the minister said that PAB is 40 percent smaller than it was in the previous government. There was no PAB. Bureaucrats were responsible for the promotion and advertising in their ministries, so I don't know where that figure came from. I hesitate to suggest that it was made up, but there was no PAB. That's a creation of this government.

This government has offended the people of B.C. during this election campaign with the amount of public dollars that were used to promote the government. The campaigns that the minister referred to could be summed up as the election campaign.

But let's move on. I'd like to know how much the public affairs bureau is budgeting to spend on H1N1?

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. B. Stewart: That information isn't readily available because we're still working at actually finalizing what the campaign will look like. We're well aware of the risk, and we've been working with our counterparts in the federal government to try to make certain that we maximize the benefit for all citizens in British Columbia.

[1755]

D. Routley: How is the split between pure advertising and statutory ads, such as H1N1 public service announcement ads?

Hon. B. Stewart: The budget for H1N1 advertising is under STOB 67.

D. Routley: How much is the public affairs bureau budgeting to spend on advertising regarding the harmonized sales tax?

The Chair: If I could remind all members, the HST is not in effect yet. We're talking about the budget that expires on March 31. HST does not come into effect until July 1, 2010.

D. Routley: Does that mean that this public affairs bureau will spend no money addressing the harmonized sales tax?

Hon. B. Stewart: I think that probably at this present time there hasn't been anything contemplated in terms of an expenditure of that nature.

However, as I mentioned earlier, there is some advertising money within the individual ministries. If it's deemed that information that's pertinent to the public is required, I'm assuming the Ministry of Finance would initiate that, but that's not within the public affairs bureau's…. Yeah, they're not currently planning on anything.

D. Routley: How much is the public affairs bureau budgeting to spend on ads defending the post-election ballooning deficit?

Hon. B. Stewart: To the members opposite: there aren't any plans at the present time to expend any funds on that particular issue.

D. Routley: How much is the public affairs bureau budgeting to spend on ads related to schools and education, in light of the cancellation of facilities grants and other cuts to education?

[1800]

Hon. B. Stewart: There are no plans at this time to advertise any of that.
[ Page 715 ]

D. Routley: Is this what the minister envisions under the flexibility of having the public affairs bureau under one vote — where money could be shifted towards public affairs bureaus from other ministries as needed? Where there's no limit, essentially, to the public affairs budget under this budget format where it's a single vote?

And when will we find out about what plans were in place or what plans become necessary? The minister says nothing is contemplated now. But if it happens, apparently we won't know until July 2010. Is that the case?

Hon. B. Stewart: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the member opposite's question. The issue around being able to transfer funds…. There is no ability for ministries to transfer nor for the public affairs bureau to request spending by ministries. So between votes, there's no transferring of any funds.

D. Routley: I think that the minister knows that what I referred to earlier was the one vote, so other functions within the Citizens' Services Ministry could be robbed of funds, and those funds could be transferred to the public affairs bureau under this format. Is that how we can accommodate plans that aren't in the works yet but may occur?

I mean, according to the record of the public affairs bureau and this government, when the government is in trouble on an issue, the public affairs bureau answers with advertising. I would expect they'll answer the HST and they'll answer the ballooning deficit and they'll answer cuts to schools and education with more advertising.

Is it that the minister can't tell me, won't tell me, or do I have to wait until July 2010 to find out what the decisions were in order to preserve the government's image through public affairs bureau advertising on these issues?

Hon. B. Stewart: No. I can tell you that we're going to live within the advertising budget that we've laid out under Citizens' Services and what's in the STOBs for advertising for the public affairs bureau.

D. Routley: In those projections there's a $310,000 boost to advertising projected for 2010-2011, and then the budget is projected to decrease again. Is that for the 2010 games?

Hon. B. Stewart: I think the number that the member opposite is referring to is the overall PAB budget, which has a slight forecast for years 2 and 3 to be up over 2009-10 — which is just, I believe, a forecast that has been put together based on cost increases that would normally be expected in the public affairs bureau.

[1805]

D. Routley: Is this the only amount government expects to spend on the 2010 games? Because it seems that the timing is too coincidental. Can the minister also provide the agency of record for all of the ministries' advertising agencies?

Hon. B. Stewart: Just first to answer the question about…. The Olympics and Paralympics are taking place next February and March of 2010. The budget that we're talking about is the one that…. We just finished telling you about the decreases. There's a significant decrease — about 76 percent — in advertising dollars as well as a reduction in overall operating costs for the public affairs bureau. There's no Olympic advertising or anything that's contemplated in that.

In answer to the question about the agencies that are the agencies of record for the public affairs bureau, we have four agencies of record, creative firms: TBWA, Cossette, DDB and Wasserman. We have one…. The media buyers is Genesis-Vizeum. Those are the firms that are currently in place as agencies of record for the public affairs bureau.

D. Routley: Okay. I'd like to read to the minister a memo sent by the head of public service, Jessica McDonald, on March 25 to all government employees.

"From a policy perspective, the public service will move into what can be described as a caretaker mode during the interregnum, the period from when the writs of the election are issued on April 14, 2009, to the election on May 12, 2009."

The McDonald memo continues:

"Overall, it is the role of the professional public servant to provide the stability and continuity of government services during the interregnum period, and serving the public to the best of our ability remains our first priority.

"As individual citizens, we are all entitled to our own personal political views and opinions. But as public service employees, it's more important than ever that at work we operate in the non-partisan and highly professional manner that I know that you bring to your jobs every day."

Does the minister believe that the public affairs bureau fulfilled these requirements throughout the election campaign? Does the minister believe that the decision by public affairs bureau to withhold routine statistics during the election meets the tests set by Jessica McDonald of providing the "stability and continuity of government services"?

Hon. B. Stewart: Yes, I do.

D. Routley: An internal public affairs bureau e-mail obtained by freedom of information reveals that this April, when employees of the Ministry of Social Development were preparing to fulfil their regular monthly duty of posting welfare statistics, they received a very unroutine e-mail from the public affairs bureau instructing them not to update the caseload until after the election.

[1810]

This happened before the election period. The statistics show an almost 47 percent jump in the number
[ Page 716 ]
of people in the province receiving welfare — or would have shown that, except that they were suppressed during the election.

Does the minister not agree that this has all the appearances of public interference by the public affairs bureau?

Hon. B. Stewart: I'll restate what I've mentioned and stated in the media before. During the writ period the public service operates in a caretaker mode. It is the standard protocol that only information that is statutory in nature and that may have an impact on public safety or government business operations is to be released. Public safety would be a health risk or an emergency, such as swine flu. Operations would be related to the ongoing operations of government.

Income assistance statistics are not part of statutory requirement, do not pose a public safety risk and do not impact the regular operations of government during the writ period. This protocol applies to positive news announcements, as well, not just the website but the products like government news releases. As a normal course of business, the public affairs bureau and the ministry work together every day to review and administer all external websites in the government.

D. Routley: These requirements apply during the interregnum period, not before the writ is dropped. These statistics were being prepared in March, and their suppression happened before that period. The Times Colonist editorial board disagrees with the minister completely. I'll read into the record the opposite conclusion drawn by the Times Colonist to this incident.

They say McDonald's order "that services continue as normal and her order that staff be non-partisan required the release of statistics. The decision to withhold the information was therefore a direct contravention of McDonald's order — and an insult to all British Columbians as well."

Let me try this. Does the minister believe that the Premier's "Don't worry; be happy" talk about the economy and especially his specific promise of a deficit of $495 million maximum would not have been thrown into doubt if the people had known that the welfare rolls were exploding with 10,000 new cases — almost doubling?

This points to interference. These were statistics that should have been released in a routine manner, government continuing in a caretaker mode. So does the minister not agree that this represents a political interference?

Hon. B. Stewart: Well, you know, the information that I have doesn't indicate that the dates that he's referring to…. He's talking about March. The memo from Jessica McDonald is from the end of March, but the statistics that we're aware of, which were not released until after the election, were from May. As such, I can't agree with the member.

D. Routley: Can the minister tell us why these damaging welfare statistics were suppressed, while other routine statistics from other agencies were, under his ministry…. B.C. Stats continued to be released in a neutral and non-partisan manner. Why this set of statistics? Why were they suppressed, while other statistics were released in a routine manner?

Having posed that question, I'm instructed by the Chair to note the hour and move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Chair: Would you like to respond today? We can have the response first.

[1815]

Hon. B. Stewart: I would like to respond to that. Let me be very clear that the information that the member opposite is suggesting is information that was released by other agencies, Stats Canada…. It was put up and posted as B.C. Statistics. It was provided by them, and as such, because it was in the public domain, is not under our control and as such is posted automatically. So that's the distinction between the welfare statistics and the ones that B.C. Statistics put up during the interregnum period.

D. Routley: Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:16 p.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