2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th 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, MARCH 4, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 27, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Local Government Statutes

Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 7)

Hon. I.

Chong

Speaker's Statement

Use of electronic devices in the

chamber

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

60th anniversary of Vanderhoof

Kinsmen Club

Rustad

Chief Ahan and Chilcotin War

C. Wyse

Baldy Hughes

Mayencourt

Wild salmon adopt-a-fry campaign

Austin

Providence Health Care

Nuraney

Kidney Health Month

Conroy

Oral Questions

Funding for school

playgrounds

C. James

Hon. S.

Bond

Cubberley

J. Kwan

Services at Retirement Concepts

seniors facilities

Sather

Hon. G.

Abbott

Gentner

Haisla First Nation and B.C.

Utilities Commission decision-making process

Austin

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Farnworth

Hon. G.

Campbell

Petitions

C. Trevena

S. Fraser

Motions without Notice

Powers and role of Children and

Youth Committee

Powers and role of Crown

Corporations Committee

Powers and role of Finance and

Government Services Committee

Referral of reports to and powers

of Public Accounts Committee

Hon. M.

de Jong

Second Reading of Bills

Ministerial Accountability Bases

Act, 2007-2008 (Bill 5)

Hon. M.

de Jong

Ralston

Macdonald

Fleming

Simpson

Chudnovsky

Farnworth

Hon. M.

de Jong

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

Mayencourt

Simons

Hon. K.

Falcon

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

D. Chudnovsky

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

C. Wyse

Hon. G. Hogg

[ Page 10187 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2008

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. I. Chong presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Local Government Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. I. Chong: I move the bill be introduced and read a

first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. I. Chong: I am pleased to present the Local Government

Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. Local governments play a key role in the vibrancy

and sustainability of all British Columbians. We have to remember that while

communities of all shapes and sizes face different challenges, they also

encounter similar challenges. All have an interest in improved accountability

and transparency for their residents.

[1335]

This legislation that I'm introducing today provides important

ways to support local governments to achieve this. A key area of local

government interest is local elections, particularly in this, an election year.

The Local Government Statutes Amendment Act will mean increased transparency in

the disclosure of campaign contributions. It will increase the level of public

commitment required to stand for local office, and it will allow local

governments to improve access to voting for residents.

This legislation will also improve internal provincial approvals,

essentially streamlining some government processes to improve efficiencies for

local governments. Finally, this legislation will enable local governments in

the Elk Valley to establish the new Elk Valley property tax sharing agreement.

It's an important agreement for Elkford, Fernie, Sparwood and the regional

district of East Kootenay, negotiated with the coal industry for the benefit of

residents. These local governments will share municipal property tax revenues

generated from coalmining properties in the Elk Valley. The Local Government

Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, is about supporting communities to become more

vibrant places to live and work.

I move that the Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Bill 7, Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Speaker's Statement

USE OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES

IN THE CHAMBER

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I want to take a brief

opportunity to address the use of electronic devices such as laptop computers,

cell phones and BlackBerry units while in the chamber.

As members know, these devices may be used subject to specific

restrictions, as outlined in a memo to you all on February 16, 2006. All members

continue to have the obligation to ensure that these tools are used in a manner

which does not disrupt the orderly conduct of the proceedings.

Electronic devices must be operated silently while in the

legislative chamber. Cell phone conversations are obviously not permitted, but

it is imperative that these devices are on silent mode while in the chamber.

The use of technology in this chamber must never impinge on the

dignity or the decorum of parliamentary proceedings. As Speaker, I reserve my

right to direct any member to discontinue use of electronic devices if I find

that the dignity of the House has been compromised.

As noted earlier in the 2006 memo, electronic devices are

permitted to access textual information during designated proceedings only. They

must not be used during the following proceedings: during the Speech from the

Throne, during royal assent, during budget speech, during prayers, during

question period, during points of order, during points of privilege, during

Speaker's rulings, during votes and divisions, and when the Premier or the

Leader of the Opposition is speaking to the Speech from the Throne or the budget

speech.

At any other designated time, pursuant to instructions by the

Speaker, electronic devices must be programmed to operate silently. Electronic

devices must not be used by a member who is in possession of the floor.

I trust that all members will benefit from this further

clarification on the use of electronic devices. We must ensure that these tools

are used in a manner that maintains decorum in the chamber and public trust and

confidence in the Legislature. I want to remind members that I have an extra set

of eyes, I understand, up above me that is able to check on some of these

things. So just a friendly reminder to members.

Statements

(Standing Order 25 B )

60th ANNIVERSARY OF

VANDERHOOF KINSMEN CLUB

J. Rustad: Few service clubs can boast the type of

accomplishments that the Kinsmen association can. Founded in 1920 by Hal Rogers,

the Kinsmen announced at last year's national convention that they've now raised

over $1 billion for the people of Canada. This doesn't include over $36 million

that they've raised for the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.

[ Page 10188 ]

The Kinsmen have been instrumental in the battle against cystic

fibrosis, but not just through fundraising. They've been advocating for neonatal

cystic fibrosis screening as a way to vastly improve the lives of people with

this genetic disease. This simple test allows for early intervention and greatly

improves outcomes.

Since the Kinsmen's inception, their motto has been to serve the

community's greatest need. To that end, the Vanderhoof Kinsmen recently

celebrated their 60th anniversary. During their time in the community, they've

raised about $2 million. They've supported projects such as medical facilities,

parks, sports fields and a spray pool. The current goal is to help build a

skateboard park for the youth of the community.

[1340]

I was honoured to attend a dinner in Vanderhoof celebrating their

anniversary but also recognizing one of their members. Joe Fraser has been

instrumental over the past decade with the Kinsmen. He joined in 1996 and has

focused on helping the community with bursaries that the Kin give every year to

a student who undertakes volunteer work in the community.

Joe was honoured during the 60th anniversary celebration with a

life membership. This is the highest honour that the Kin can bestow upon a

member, and Joe is only the 11th member in history to receive this award in the

Vanderhoof association.

Please join me in congratulating the efforts of the Kinsmen and in

congratulating and thanking Joe Fraser for his contributions towards serving

Vanderhoof's greatest needs.

CHIEF AHAN AND CHILCOTIN WAR

C. Wyse: On Friday I had the honour to join my colleague

the member for New Westminster and several chiefs of first nation bands in a

moving ceremony at New Westminster. As this House knows from a previous address

I gave in this chamber, the Chilcotin War of 1864 had a long-term effect on

first nations people of the interior plateau.

Six chiefs of the Chilcotin Nation went to war against Alfred

Waddington and his men, who were intent on building a road from Bute Inlet

through the Tsilhqot'in territories to the Cariboo goldfields. The chiefs were

trying to protect their families and territory after 60 percent of their people

had been decimated by a smallpox outbreak.

As a result of the Chilcotin War of 1864, six Tsilhqot'in chiefs

were executed — five of them in Quesnel and the sixth in New Westminster. While

the remains of the five chiefs executed in Quesnel have been found, the sixth

chief's remains were never located.

Friday's ceremony in New Westminster is a first step in closing a

circle that has remained open for 143 years. This moving ceremony in honour of

Ahan, the fallen missing warrior, recognized the chief's efforts to protect his

people and their way of life.

Attending Friday's ceremony were the current six chiefs of the

Tsilhqot'in people; five former chiefs; several elders and youth from the

Tsilhqot'in bands; Lynda Price, chief of the Carrier people and representative

of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs; Wayne Wright, mayor of New Westminster; the

chair and vice-chair of the New Westminster board of education as well as other

representatives of New Westminster school district. The gathering was welcomed

by Sharel Wright, daughter of Chief Rhonda Larrabee of the New Westminster

Indian Band, Qayqayt.

I know that the House joins with me in celebrating this first step

towards resolving a longstanding injustice and closing a circle for the first

nations people of the interior plateau.

BALDY HUGHES

L. Mayencourt: Modelled on Italy's most successful drug

treatment community, San Patrignano, the Baldy Hughes therapeutic community has

become a new and inspiring alternative in response to addictions recovery in

north-central B.C. Since December of 2007 a small group of recovering addicts

has started to arrive with the dream of building a new life for themselves and

others that may join them soon.

The 1950s army base of Baldy Hughes is ideally suited to be the

first long-term holistic treatment community in British Columbia. The site

includes 23 buildings, including several dormitories, a restaurant, a bowling

alley, a curling rink, an ice rink and a number of workshops.

As well, we have had a wonderful response from the people of

Prince George. Several professionals from that city join us weekly to provide

workshops, lead support groups and direct apprenticeships.

Without a doubt, this has been the most challenging experience of

my life. We have had some setbacks. There have been times when it's been very,

very discouraging, but there are also times when it has been incredibly

inspiring to see people in their recovery.

One of the things I want to tell people about in this province is

that there are 17 people up at Baldy Hughes today who are working hard, who are

brave and who are trying their very best to overcome their addictions, and

they're making it.

Among those is a young lady by the name of Stefeni, who is eight

months pregnant. Several months ago she was living on the streets, and it looked

like she would not be able to have her baby as life moved on for her. I know

that now Stefeni and her child will be welcomed at Baldy Hughes. They will be

engaged on the recovery program, and the child, Stefeni and the other people

that are living up at Baldy Hughes will have an opportunity to heal.

[1345]

WILD SALMON ADOPT-A-FRY CAMPAIGN

R. Austin: I would like to take this opportunity to speak

on the importance of wild salmon to our province and to highlight the

significance of this gift that is the heart and soul of so many B.C. first

nations communities.

[ Page 10189 ]

Often when we think of salmon, we think about their economic value

in terms of the commercial fishery as well as the wealth that is generated in

the sport fishery. We've also come to learn how wild salmon nurture our forests

and how without them we would not have the eagles, bears and orcas for people to

come from all over the world to appreciate.

I want, however, to demonstrate the cultural importance of wild

salmon to the first nations peoples, who figured out long ago that their

survival was dependent on this resource. Many legends and songs of first nations

peoples have to do with salmon, which was often their primary source of protein.

I'd like to share one such story that I and the member for North Coast witnessed

when we attended Hobiyee in Gitwinksihlkw.

The volcanic eruption that took place in the Nass Valley about 250

years ago is attributed to the anger of the Creator at the way in which some

children disrespected the life-giving salmon by putting stones and burning

sticks into their backs and watching them swim. The elders warned the children

repeatedly to stop, but they did not. The volcanic eruption happened soon after.

According to the veteran story teller, [A first nations language

was spoken.], the people saw a big fire. It moved down slowly — very slowly. It

was strange and frightful, [A first nations language was spoken.] continued.

Invisible fumes pushed ahead of the advancing wall of fire. Those who smelled

them were smothered, the elders said, and their bodies stiffened like rock.

All of us need to work to preserve wild salmon. They have suffered

stress from logging, industrial activity on rivers, commercial fishing and now

climate change and fish farms, particularly those on migration routes.

With that in mind, I would like to bring to the attention of all

members of the House an organization called Adopt a Fry. For just $20, we can go

on the Web and help them to physically transport salmon fry around fish farms,

thus helping their survival rate and not exposing them to unnecessary levels of

sea lice. The website is www.adopt-a-fry.org.

I challenge all members of the House who care about wild salmon to

assist in their efforts.

PROVIDENCE HEALTH CARE

J. Nuraney: I would like to take this opportunity to

recognize Providence Health Care in Vancouver for being selected as one of the

top-20 best employers for new Canadians.

Providence operates seven acute care rehab and residential care

sites in Vancouver, including St. Paul's Hospital, Mount Saint Joseph Hospital

and Holy Family Hospital. The ranking is compiled by Mediacorp Canada, the same

organization that conducts Canada's top-100 employers ranking.

Providence Health Care is one of the two Canadian health care

organizations in the top 20 and one of the two organizations selected in British

Columbia. Providence was recognized in particular for its programs and

initiatives designed to attract, retain and develop recent immigrant employees.

The government of British Columbia is working to make it easier for

internationally educated workers, including health professionals, to come and

work in British Columbia.

This award is in recognition of employers who have taken steps to

reduce the barriers that new Canadians face in making the transition to a new

country and a new employer. Finalists represent employers from across Canada

that lead their peers in creating workplaces that welcome new Canadians and that

allow them the most opportunities for their skills, education and talents.

Congratulations to the staff and administrators at Providence Health Care on

winning this award.

KIDNEY HEALTH MONTH

K. Conroy: For those of you who know my family, there are a

number of health-related issues I could speak to, and most of those are just

specific to my husband Ed and his amazing ability to keep on testing our medical

system. March is Kidney Month, and this last November Ed started on another new

experience: kidney dialysis.

[1350]

The kidneys are the master chemists of the body, as vital to our

health as the heart or lungs. If left untreated, kidney failure can lead to

death within days. There are an estimated 145,000 British Columbians with

undiagnosed kidney disease. As well, 2,400 people are on dialysis and 6,100 on

predialysis.

Dialysis in this province is coordinated by the B.C. Renal Agency

through regional centres. Ours is located in the Kootenay Boundary Regional

Hospital in Trail. Three days a week those requiring dialysis make their way to

the unit for a procedure that can take four to six hours, depending on

extenuating circumstances. You can add a few hours' travel time, depending on

where you live.

An initial reaction from people might be: "What a long time. That

takes your whole day," or "I would have trouble with that." The reality is,

though, that for those people being dialyzed, it is a fact of life, as routine

to them as going to work is for us. Some of these folks will eventually end up

with being able to dialyze in their own home, with great support from the local

team. The technology that has advanced over the years allows people to even

dialyze at night, ensuring a fairly regular life.

I want to take a minute to acknowledge the incredible team of

people who work in the dialysis units across the province, but specifically

those who do such an amazing job of keeping not only my husband healthy and

happy but 40 other people from around the region, who all come three times a

week. That's 120 treatments in six days.

So to the techs — Joy, Cheryl, Barry, Peter and Jim; the RNs —

Kelly, Rose, Mary, Sharon, Kim, Margie, Melissa, Joanne, Teresa and Donna; and

also to Tina, Maureen, Britt, Katy and Dr. Zhang — thank you from our family and

everyone in our region, who are indeed fortunate to have all of you as part of

our health care team keeping West Kootenay kidneys healthy and functioning.

[ Page 10190 ]

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR SCHOOL PLAYGROUNDS

C. James: First it was booster seats and partisan photo ops

for Liberal MLAs. Now it's school playgrounds — another botched Liberal

distribution scheme.

The B.C. Liberals took a million dollars, knowing that it wasn't

enough to meet the demand, and gave it to the B.C. Confederation of Parent

Advisory Councils to distribute. The problem? Many schools don't belong to the

confederation. They had no opportunity to apply for this needed money. Other

schools simply couldn't afford to come up with the matching funds. Then there

was no needs assessment, just a random handout of $1 million.

My question is to the Minister of Education. Why did she agree to

a random distribution of the million dollars that potentially ignored the

schools, the communities and, most importantly, the children who needed it the

most?

Hon. S. Bond: The only thing that's disappointing about the

question from the Leader of the Opposition is the fact that she would full well

know the value of the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils in British

Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, for the kind of discussion and

dialogue that's taken place from the members opposite over the last couple of

days around BCCPAC, it is embarrassing and irresponsible.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: What's embarrassing is how many ways the minister

has to twist herself up to point fingers somewhere else instead of looking at

the government's problem on funding issues.

BCCPAC itself said that it didn't have the capability to manage

these funds, so it decided to do a lottery system because it didn't know what

else to do. There was another requirement. Schools and their parent advisory

councils had to let government participate in the announcements.

Clearly, that meant Liberal MLAs. That would explain the photo op

that the Minister of Forests had in Langley when he delivered his $20,000 cheque

or the photo op the member for East Kootenay had when he delivered his cheque

for $20,000 — or any of the other Liberal MLAs who are plastered all over the

government caucus website.

[1355]

My question, again, to the Minister of Education: did she not

learn anything from the booster-seat fiasco? Instead of a botched distribution

scheme and Liberal photo ops, why didn't she actually use that time properly and

develop a system that would ensure the money got to the schools and students who

needed it the most?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, there's only one botched thing in

this Legislature, and that's the question the member opposite just asked.

Perhaps we should look in the dictionary for the definition of the word

"random." In fact, let's actually look at where some of the playgrounds have

been selected, and let's just think about where those might take place.

Oh, Cariboo North, Dragon Lake Elementary School. Perhaps in the

Legislature today the member for Cariboo North would like to stand up and say:

"We don't need the money for the Dragon Lake Elementary playground."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: Well, the only defence the Minister of Education

can stand here and give is the definition of "random." Does she actually support

random distribution of a million dollars instead of looking at the schools and

the children who need it the most? I find it extraordinary that a Minister of

Education would say that random is the best way to ensure the money gets out to

schools.

It's amazing, but as I said, they did spend time making sure that

Liberals got their photos taken with those cheques when they handed them out.

They decided to take that million dollars but chose to ignore which kids and

which schools needed it the most.

Again, my question to the Minister of Education: why have she and

her government taken time to make sure the photos are there and the press

releases are there and ignored the children and the schools?

Hon. S. Bond: You know, it's amazing. What was then was

then; what's now is now. What did the Leader of the Opposition say to the B.C.

Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils when she was a trustee? Perhaps on

this side of the House we're going to stand up every single day in this House

and trust parents in British Columbia to make decisions that are in the best

interests of children.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, parents across this province…. When

we visited schools across British Columbia — hundreds of schools — one of the

things they said was that in the past, previous governments didn't provide any

additional funding for playgrounds. We responded. We provided the money to

BCCPAC, and they made the decisions they felt were appropriate.

[ Page 10191 ]

D. Cubberley: Queen Mary Elementary was a west side winner

in the minister's mini-lotto for playgrounds. It decided it should do the right

thing and give its $10,000 to a needy east side school. The parents that the

minister says we should trust at Queen Mary said to themselves: "We're thinking

about this, and we think this money should be better spent by a school with

little or no equipment rather than a school that has good equipment."

[1400]

So my question to the minister: why didn't she think about it? Why

didn't she aim the million dollars at the neediest schools, recognizing they've

got the least ability to fundraise? Why did she freeze those schools out? And

then, why didn't she trust the parents and listen to them when they tried to do

the right thing and give the money to a needy school?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: You know, as the Education critic, the member

may want to ask himself how appropriate it is to stand in the Legislature today

and criticize an organization that represents almost 1,100….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, it's an organization that represents

over 1,100 parent advisory councils, which this government has partnered with on

numerous initiatives. We trust them, we support them, and that will continue.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Cubberley: Well, I was certainly criticizing an

organization, but I think it was the organization sitting on that side of the

House.

There are a lot of public schools in British Columbia that don't

have PACs, and the minister knows that. Many of those schools that don't have

PACs are among the neediest schools in the province. Many of them don't have

adequate playground equipment, or any playground equipment at all.

What I want to know is: why did she endorse a lottery that didn't

apply to all schools? Why didn't she insist that the money go where it's

actually most needed? And why would she refuse to allow parents of the school to

correct her mistaken approach, when she says she trusts parents?

Hon. S. Bond: Perhaps the member opposite would like to

finish the rest of the story. You see, the million dollars isn't the only

investment that this government made in playgrounds. In fact, working with the

Solicitor General, we're going to provide $1 million for three more years, for

an additional $3 million for PACs.

And let's look at one other great partnership….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Members.

Continue.

Hon. S. Bond: Perhaps we should just mention the other

piece of the playground program. In a partnership with the Rick Hansen

Foundation, we have also provided $2.5 million to allow boards of education,

municipalities and a wide group of partners to apply for $2.5 million in

playground funding.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Kwan: The minister says she wants to listen to parents.

Let's listen to these quotes from a parent from Queen Mary's: "It's really

disappointing. We have been getting lots of interest from schools, and they felt

they could put the money to good use. We found out that many people who wanted

the money and who really needed it, didn't get it. There was an agreement that

if we could find a school that really needs it, we would all feel a lot better

if we can donate those dollars."

The parent goes on to say: "I always thought that when the

government was giving out money, it had processes in place to do it in an

accountable way."

So the government allows for a lottery program in place from an

organization that admits that they don't have the wherewithal to do it otherwise

— to assess it on the basis of need. That's accountability from this government.

Will this government trust the parents of Queen Mary's and allow

them to donate the moneys to schools that are much more in need of playground

equipment dollars?

[1405]

Hon. S. Bond: So which is it? You're not prepared to….

Sorry, through the Chair. The member opposite is not prepared to actually

support and provide the kind of responsibility to the B.C. Confederation of

Parent Advisory Councils, who made every single decision on that list

independently. We support that, and we're going to continue to work closely with

BCCPAC.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Let's be clear. The president of BCCPAC said that

her organization opted for a lottery program because it did not have the staff

or the expertise to assess the needs of the applicants. The government, which

touts the ActNow initiative, refuses to fund all schools in need of playground

equipment.

Instead, they choose a lottery program to be put in place. They

did this even though they know that this would eliminate some 30 percent of the

schools from

[ Page 10192 ]

qualifying. Even when a winner of the lottery, Queen Mary School, wanted to

donate that money to another needy school, the government said no.

Is it a wonder, Mr. Speaker? It turns out that the priority for

this government on this initiative is all about photo ops. How's that for

accountability for you?

My question is actually to the Premier. Will he tell his Minister

of Education to be accountable to the taxpayers of British Columbia, and will he

finally commit to fund all schools that are in need of playground equipment, and

do it today?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I know this comes with great risk, but

I want to point out this fact. This is the first government that has actually

stepped up to the plate and provided playground funding. In fact, Mr. Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat, Minister.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, what's ironic is…. Let's talk about the

opportunity for photo ops. I remember the last time that I was at Cambridge

Elementary School, actually opening that particular school. It was a pleasure to

share the ribbon cutting details that we had with the member for Surrey–Panorama

Ridge, happy to attend that particular photo op.

This is about providing….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Bond: Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

Hon. S. Bond: This is about providing, for the first time

in British Columbia, $6.5 million to support parent advisory councils. We're

proud of that record, and we're going to continue to work with BCCPAC.

SERVICES AT RETIREMENT CONCEPTS

SENIORS FACILITIES

M. Sather: Golden Ears seniors centre is operated by

Retirement Concepts in Maple Ridge. An audit was done of the facility by the

Fraser Health Authority. They found them non-compliant in all categories, and

they said that the lack of supervision has led to serious risk to resident

health and safety. Tony Baena from Retirement Concepts blames the government. He

said that the government is not providing the funding that they need to meet the

needs of the residents there.

Now, lack of the staff to care for these residents is serious to

seniors. It means less cleaning. It means less personal care. It means less

dignity for them. When is the minister going to stop standing up for his

friends, when is he going to start standing up for the seniors of this province,

and when is he going to get Retirement Concepts to provide the care to these

seniors that they should be providing?

Hon. G. Abbott: The issues which the member references were

raised with the licensing authority at Fraser Health last July. Immediately

after being in receipt of the complaints, the Fraser Health licensing

authorities stepped in. They ordered remediation. The remediation was undertaken

very promptly.

[1410]

In fact, all of these issues were canvassed, I thought very

thoroughly, in a local newspaper in the area back on October 16, 2007. I know

that the hon. member was not in the batting lineup for the opposition last fall

and perhaps didn't have an opportunity to raise the issue at that time.

What occurred at Golden Ears was that the licensing authorities,

immediately upon hearing of a concern, stepped in and resolved it, as the system

should work.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Sather: We don't know what's going on in this facility

because they don't report anymore. No one knows what is going on there.

I'll tell you that Tina Vos's mother is there at the facility.

She's been there since before Retirement Concepts took over. She said that the

care has gone steadily downhill, and it's not improving. She observed her

mother, who was in soiled clothes, being cleaned but being put back into the

same clothes.

When is this minister going to stop apologizing and covering up

for Retirement Concepts? When is he going to start acting in the best interests

of the seniors of this province? When is he going to act in the best interests

of my constituents at this facility?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I'm rather puzzled that the member

didn't have an opportunity to know about these things, because they were

canvassed very extensively in his local paper on October 16, 2007. If the member

didn't choose to get up at that time and raise this issue on behalf of his

constituents…. I don't know what to say about that. There is a several-months

delay in the member asking these questions.

In terms of apologizing for anyone, we don't apologize for anyone.

Residential care….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: Residential care in this province is a

trust that must be observed. Every complaint, every allegation that we ever

receive…. We always ensure that the licensing officers immediately follow up.

They follow up rigorously. They follow up comprehensively.

If the member has an accusation to make, he should make it,

because this is a very good system. It works very effectively, unlike the

opposition.

[ Page 10193 ]

G. Gentner: The minister talks about a complaint process

whereby Retirement Concepts intercepts those complaints before they reach his

office.

Last fall the opposition exposed the serious decline of seniors

care in this province. The Leader of the Opposition raised in this House the

alarming issues of Beacon Hill Villa, another Retirement Concepts facility.

The minister defended Retirement Concepts. He said that it was

okay. He said that he would have no trouble putting his own parents there. Well,

the administrator overseeing this facility has been extended and admissions

remain closed.

Last night we learned of another story about the Summerland

Seniors Village, another Retirement Concepts. The member for Maple Ridge–Pitt

Meadows has spoken and shared with us concerns relative to Golden Ears village.

We hear endless horror stories — Guildford Seniors Village, Williams Lake

Seniors Village, Nanaimo Seniors Village. On and on they come, and all are from

Retirement Concepts.

When is enough, enough, Mr. Speaker? When is this minister going

to take action? When is this government to protect seniors instead of his

friends?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's comments are utter nonsense.

We demand of every residential care facility in the province of British Columbia

the highest standards in protecting the lives and well-being of the fragile and

often very vulnerable seniors that they protect. We demand that of every

facility in the province.

[1415]

At any time when we get a complaint, when we get an allegation,

when we get a concern from a staff member, from the family or from the patient

themselves, they are followed up on rigorously and demonstrably. This is a

system that works very, very well.

If this member has any suggestions to make about an allegation

that has not been followed up on, I'd love to hear it, because it's not true.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Gentner: We have the records of those so-called highest

standards from the Fraser Health Authority, which indicate that they have the

lowest staffing levels, the lowest standards in western Canada, if not in all of

Canada.

Can the minister explain to us: how many care hours do seniors

receive in long-term facilities from this government? Please tell me: what is

the standard here in B.C.? Your own ministry information tells the real story,

Minister.

Mr. Speaker: I'll just remind members: through the

Chair, please.

Hon. G. Abbott: I am very proud of what Fraser Health

Authority has done in terms of providing residential care and assisted living

for the people that they serve in the Fraser region.

When we took office, it took residents in the Fraser Health region

almost one year to access residential care — almost one year. Today that has

been reduced to between 30 and 60 days because Fraser Health has invested and

the province of British Columbia has invested…. We have a thousand new

residential care and assisted-living spaces in Fraser Health, thanks to that

investment by the government and Fraser Health.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: Over the four years that Fraser Health

facilities have been monitored — that's 64 facilities and thousands of residents

— there have been 23 high-rating reports for Fraser Health. That is

approximately five per year over 64 facilities.

HAISLA FIRST NATION AND

B.C. UTILITIES COMMISSION

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

R. Austin: Yesterday in this chamber, the Minister of

Energy and Mines denied that this government has made any deal with Steve

Wilson, chief of the Haisla Nation, regarding the B.C. Hydro–Alcan energy

purchasing agreement. But in a letter to the Premier, Chief Wilson makes it

clear that he agreed to take a neutral position on the EPA in exchange for

government support of some of his projects.

Chief Wilson says: "I have more than lived up to my promise, and I

expect the province to live up to what it has promised me." My question is for

the minister. Is he asserting that Chief Wilson is not telling the truth?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yesterday I was very clear with the

members opposite. They don't want to listen to it, but I'll tell them again in

case they forgot already. It was just yesterday about this time.

This government has never done anything to subvert any decision

made by the B.C. Utilities Commission on behalf of all the residents in the

province of British Columbia — never has intended to and never will do.

One thing we have done is that we have been working with first

nations across the province of British Columbia, including the Haisla and Chief

Wilson, on a whole bunch of projects to actually help them get economics

happening on their traditional territory, to actually get jobs. What's getting

tiresome is listening to the members opposite, who want to subvert that position

all the time and not have those first nations actually enjoy what the rest of us

do.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: This isn't a matter of Chief Wilson's opinion.

It's right here in black and white. Again, I quote from the letter to the

Premier: "What we need from you is to direct your ministers to work directly

with us to succeed in a short time span."

[1420]

He goes on to say: "I expect the government to live up to what it

has promised me. That includes what B.C.

[ Page 10194 ]

Hydro has promised for the Haisla, to take a neutral position on the EPA at

the BCUC hearings."

The Energy Minister won't answer the question directly, but his

response suggests that he doesn't believe Mr. Wilson.

So I ask the Premier, the man to whom this is addressed: does he

agree with the Energy Minister? Does the Premier think that Chief Wilson is not

telling the truth?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, it's amazing. It's amazing that in

this Legislature we have a member of the opposition now accusing a first nation

leader in his own right, who has done a lot of things in the northwest for the

people in the northwest…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Neufeld: …whether it's the LNG port, whether it's

the energy corridor, whether it's working to try and get training done on

reserve so that those people can actually go to work — all of those things. We

have a member of the opposition saying that that Chief would do something

illegal. That is entirely unacceptable in this House.

M. Farnworth: Well, the opposition just wants to get the

answer to a question of a letter from the Chief to the Premier. The minister

refuses to answer the basic question. The question is really quite simple. Is he

saying that the Chief is not saying the truth in that letter?

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't think that this side of the House

could be any clearer. The government has never attempted to influence the BCUC

process or anyone's ability to participate in it.

The government has done this. The government has said to first

nations across this province that we want to work with them to build economic

strength for the future of their first nations. The government has worked….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: The government has worked with

communities in the northwest, including the Haisla First Nation government, to

try and bring forward a break-bulk terminal in Kitimat. We have worked with the

Haisla First Nation to try and make sure that we can establish an LNG proposal

worth $500 million that that opposition has been opposed to.

The government has said to first nations across this province that

we will work with first nations in the development of IPP projects, which

convert clean power for first nations economic opportunity. The government has

said to first nations that we will work with them on the northern energy

corridor, which could bring billions of dollars of opportunities across the

north of this province.

So to the members opposite, let me reiterate. The government has

never attempted…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: …to influence the BCUC process, but we

will always work with first nations to close the economic gaps, the health gaps

and the education gaps that exist in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, Members.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Petitions

C. Trevena: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present.

I have a petition for more than 1,300 residents of Quadra Island,

which is 82 percent of the electorate, calling for a freeze on ferry fares and a

review of the Coastal Ferry Act.

S. Fraser: I present a petition from people from all over

the province once again demanding that we protect animals and the environment

from dangerous antifreeze.

[1425]

Motions without Notice

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move a series of motions

dealing with the select standing committees, which I have provided to the

Opposition House Leader.

They charge the following committees with their duties: the Select

Standing Committee on Children and Youth, the Select Standing Committee on Crown

Corporations, the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services,

and the Public Accounts Committee. I think my friend has had an opportunity to

peruse the motions and finds them acceptable.

POWERS AND ROLE OF

CHILDREN AND YOUTH COMMITTEE

[That the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth be appointed

to be empowered to foster greater awareness and understanding among legislators

and the public of the BC child welfare system, and in particular to:

1. Be the committee that receives and reviews the annual service plan

from the Representative for Children and Youth (the "Representative") that

includes a statement of goals and identifies specific objectives and performance

measures that will be required to exercise the powers and perform the functions

and duties of the Representative during the fiscal year;

[ Page 10195 ]

2. Be the committee to which the Representative reports, at least

annually;

3. Refer to the Representative for investigation the critical

injury or death of a child; and

4. Receive and consider all reports and plans delivered by the

Representative (if any during the time period of these terms of reference) to

the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon Select Standing

Committees of the House, the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth be

empowered:

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer

to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned,

during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during

any sitting of the House;

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any

adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit

the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a

period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the

Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

POWERS AND ROLE OF

CROWN CORPORATIONS COMMITTEE

[That the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations be appointed

to review the annual reports and service plans of British Columbia Crown

Corporations.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select

Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, the Committee be empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer

to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is

adjourned,

during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during

any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be

convenient; and

(

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee,

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any

adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit

the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a

period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the

Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

POWERS AND ROLE OF FINANCE

AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

[That the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services

be empowered:

la.) To examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to

the pre-budget consultation report prepared by the Minister of Finance in

accordance with

section 2 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act and,

in particular, to:

lb.) Conduct public consultations across British Columbia on proposals

and recommendations regarding the provincial budget and fiscal policy for the

coming fiscal year by any means the committee considers appropriate, including

but not limited to public meetings, telephone and electronic means;

1c.) Prepare a report no later than November 15, 2008 on the results

of those consultations; and

2a.) To consider and make recommendations on the annual reports,

rolling three-year service plans and budgets of the following statutory

officers:

i) Auditor General

ii) Chief Electoral Officer

iii) Conflict of Interest Commissioner

iv) Information and Privacy Commissioner

v) Merit Commissioner

vi) Ombudsman

vii) Police Complaint Commissioner

viii) Representative for Children and Youth;

and,

2b.) To examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to

other matters brought to the Committee's attention by any of the Officers listed

in 2(

a) above.

3. That the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government

Services be the committee referred to in sections 19, 20, 21 and 23 of the

Auditor General Act and that the performance report in

section 22 of the Auditor

General Act be referred to the committee.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select

Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, the committee shall be

empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer

to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is

adjourned,

during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during

any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be

convenient; and

(

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee,

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any

adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit

the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a

period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the

Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

REFERRAL OF REPORTS TO

AND POWERS OF

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

[1. That the reports of the Auditor

General of British Columbia deposited with the Speaker of the Legislative

Assembly during the fourth session of the thirty-eighth parliament be deemed

referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, with the exception

of the report referred to in

section 22 of the Auditor General Act which is

referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services,

and in addition that

[ Page 10196 ]

the following reports of the Auditor General of British Columbia be

referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts:

Audit Reports :

Report No. 3, 2007/08: A Review of the Vancouver

Convention

Centre Expansion Project: Governance and Risk Management

Report No. 5, 2007/08: Preventing Fatalities and

Serious

Injuries in B.C. Forests: Progress Needed

Report No. 6, 2007/08: Literacy: Creating the Conditions for

Reading and Writing Success

Follow-up Reports:

Report No. 8, 2004/2005: Follow-up of 2002/2003 Report 5: Managing

Contaminated Sites on Provincial Lands (November 2004)

Report No. 9, 2004/2005: Follow-up of Two Health Risk

Reports: A Review of Performance Agreements; Information Use in Resource

Allocation (December 2004)

Report No. 12, 2004/2005: Third Follow-up of 2000/2001 Report 4:

Management Consulting Engagements in Government (March 2005)

Report No. 1, 2005/2006: Follow-up of the Recommendations of the

Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts contained in its Fourth Report of

the 3rd Session of the 36th Parliament: Earthquake Preparedness: Performance

Audit (May 2005)

Report No. 2, 2005/2006: Joint Follow-up of 2001/2002 Report 1:

Managing Interface Fire Risks and Firestorm 2003 Provincial Review

(May 2005)

Report No. 7, 2006/2007: Follow-up of 2003/2004 Report 4:

Alternative Payments to Physicians: A Program in Need of Change

(February 2006)

Report No. 4, 2007/2008: Follow-up of 2004/2005 Report 3:

Preventing and Managing Diabetes in British Columbia

(December 2007)

Other:

BC's Auditor General comments on Sea-to-Sky Highway Improvement

Project Report

(December 21, 2005)

2. That the Select Standing Committee on Public

Accounts be

the committee referred to in sections 2, 6, 7, 10, 13 and 14 of the Auditor

General Act .

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select

Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Committee be empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer

to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee:

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is

adjourned,

during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during

any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be

convenient; and

(

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the

Committee,

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any

adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit

the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a

period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the

Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

With leave, I so move them.

Leave granted.

Motions

approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 5,

Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2007-2008.

Second Reading of Bills

MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

BASES ACT, 2007-2008

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 5 be read a second time

now.

Bill 5 provides for an increase in the amount of estimated

operating expenses for the purposes of ministerial accountability under the

Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act by the amounts referred to in

the supplementary estimates for 2007-2008, which was tabled on February 26, and

for statutory expenditures under the Emergency Program Act and the Wildfire Act.

As debated in the House last Tuesday, the $1.045 billion

supplementary estimate provided funding for the climate action dividend, a host

of climate action initiatives, grants to organizations in support of applied

science and technology, funding to support research and treatments for illness

and injuries, preventing and treating childhood cancers, and funding to support

arts and culture in British Columbia.

The Ministry of Forests and Range was required to spend against

their statutory authority for direct forest fire fighting costs. Although the

province experienced an average year with cooler temperatures and wetter

weather, the southeast corner of the province remained unseasonably hot, dry and

susceptible to fire.

There were several notable fires in the '07-08 fiscal year,

including the 1,500 hectare Hamill Creek fire north of Argenta, which caused a

number of evacuation alerts; the almost 600 hectare Arrow Lake–Penstock fire

southwest of Nakusp, which caused the evacuation alerts and power outages to

Nakusp and several other communities; the almost 3,000 hectare Springer Creek

fire north of Slocan, which also caused evacuation orders and alerts; and the

just over 3,500 hectare fire 20 kilometres southeast of Trail, which caused

evacuation orders and alerts.

So it was a difficult fire season, especially in the southeast

corner of the province, with the overall numbers of fires totalling just under

1,600, with almost 60 percent of those caused by lightning.

The additional amount under the Emergency Program Act is to

account for statutory costs incurred for responses to storm events and for the

severe flooding in the province. Because of the storm events and the associated

flooding and mitigation strategies, the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor

General was required to spend over their budget allotment in Vote 39. The

current estimate for statutory overspending for '07-08 is $75.2 million.

These costs included — that is, the $75.2 million — 55 mitigation

work projects to protect communities across the province, 33 mitigation work

projects to protect highways and bridge structures, the distribution of

[ Page 10197 ]

5.3 million sandbags, dike and flood response training, evacuation costs and

the flood response to the Nechako River ice jam.

It's been another challenging season for storms and floods. It's

important for the province, in our view, to mitigate the effect of these

disasters.

[1430]

The Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2007-2008, makes

provision to increase the amount of estimated operating expenses for purposes of

ministerial accountability under the Balanced Budget and Ministerial

Accountability Act for the Ministry of Advanced Education, the Ministry of

Environment, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Forests and Range, the

Ministry of Health; the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General; and the

Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts, as identified in Bill 5. I move second

reading.

B. Ralston: Well, this is the ministerial equivalent of

"The Puppy Dog Ate My Homework Act." What happens here is that the ministerial

accountability act, which was passed in the halcyon days of 2001, provides for a

penalty to individual ministers and to ministers as part of the cabinet in their

collective responsibility if they overspend their budget targets.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

What has happened routinely under this legislation is that for one

reason or another, those targets have been exceeded, and mostly for deliberate

policy choices by the government rather than the purpose for which the act was

crafted ostensibly at the outset in 2001.

Granted, the minister has spent most of his very brief time

introducing this bill on forest fires, and no doubt forest fires are a

legitimately unpredictable expense. This bill touches on a number of other

ministers: the Minister of Advanced Education; the Minister of Environment; the

Minister of Finance; the Minister of Forests, as I've mentioned; the Minister of

Health; the Minister of Public Safety; and the Minister of Tourism, Sport and

the Arts.

What has happened in the budget process this year is that the

Minister of Finance has chosen to take money from the previous budget year and

add it to the estimates for that year, thus requiring and triggering this

legislation.

Section 3 of the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act

prescribes a salary holdback of 20 percent, which will be redeemed to the

minister.

section 4, half of it is to be redeemed to the minister. If in

the main estimates for that fiscal year a surplus was estimated, and there's a

surplus of at least 50 percent of the amount estimated, that's the holdback for

achieving collective responsibilities. Then in

section 5, the other half is for

achieving individual responsibilities.

So what started out as a trumpet call — and in the initial Speech

from the Throne it was referred to back in 2001 as true accountability — has now

become a routine and embarrassing procedure for the government to circumvent the

act, thus requiring this legislation each time.

Without this act, these ministers would suffer, I suppose, the

reduction in pay that's prescribed by the act. The government is willing to

engage the entire mechanism of this Legislature — the drafters, the

introduction, the Clerk's office, all the rest of it — simply to save that small

amount of each minister's salary in order that they not suffer the consequences

of

an act that they set in place back in 2001.

It's probably somewhat ironic that in this Bill 2, which we were

debating earlier this morning, there are amendments proposed to

section 27 of

the Financial Administration Act. Government members, if they're appointed to a

board or commission and if the legislation passes, will be able to be paid in

addition to their salaries for that.

There's never, apparently, a good time for the ministers opposite

or the members opposite to live up to their responsibility under this act and

take the pay cut that's prescribed. There's always an excuse. There's always a

way around it. There's always amnesty for the ministers, and this year is

apparently no exception.

I speak against this bill at second reading. What the government

should probably consider doing is simply revoking or amending the governing

legislation so that we don't have to enter into this charade every single year.

I speak strongly against this bill.

[1435]

N. Macdonald: Bill 5 has, as the member previously said,

been put in place and put before this House because a series of B.C. Liberal

ministers have failed to keep to their budgets.

It's before I came to the House, but it was back in 2001. Many of

the members here were present during that time, voted for this piece of

legislation and made a big deal about it before they became government and when

they became government.

So it's a highly hyped piece of legislation. The B.C. Liberals

made it law that a minister would have a percentage of their salary held back

and that it would be lost if a minister did not keep to their budget.

Of course, what so often happens and what so often follows, after

this heavily hyped piece of legislation, is that like time and time again, the

reality soaks in eventually. The reality with this piece of legislation is that

every single year certainly that I've been here, and I believe going back seven

years, ministers have not kept to their budgets.

Every single year there's a piece of legislation like this that

forgives them. It makes the original promise farcical, and it makes the piece of

legislation that's being amended here a bit of a joke — in fact, more of a joke.

It is a complete joke, and it is a misrepresentation to the public about what's

going on.

I have time to speak, and the focus of my speech is going to be on

the fact that we need to be very careful as an institution with how we

communicate to the public. There is a tremendous amount of cynicism, and I'll

give you a context for that.

In Alberta and where I'm from…. I'm closer to Alberta and more

tuned into Alberta than a lot of

[ Page 10198 ]

places, except for maybe the members for Peace River South, Peace River North

and East Kootenay. What happened in Alberta yesterday was that 41 percent of

people bothered to go out and vote in the election there — 41 percent.

As people who get their power through the democratic process, that

should concern us. We have an obligation to stop people from drifting into

cynicism. This sort of exercise every single year is bound to reinforce that

cynicism. What do you have? You have a solemn promise that ministers are going

to keep to their budgets, but every single year they don't, and every single

year a bill is brought forward that excuses them.

What one minister has ever been held accountable for the fact that

they have not kept to their budget? Not one. There could be some argument if

it's a forest fire season, and certainly what was highlighted were the places

where you could have an argument. You could have a debate. But so many of these

things that have been pulled forward and were put into last year's budget were

items that when we debated them, and the question was asked of ministers to

rationalize why it would not be in the upcoming year, they couldn't give a

decent answer because there was no decent answer.

There was no compelling reason given by at least three of the

ministers for why the money should be put on the books the way it was put. There

was no compelling reason. There was a political reason why you'd do it the way

they did, but there was no logic to where it was placed.

It makes a farce of a piece of legislation that was heavily hyped

when it was first put in. Since it was a piece of legislation that flowed from a

political promise that was made in the election, it only adds to the cynicism

that is bound to be out there — cynicism that rightly would be directed at this

government but in reality is directed towards this institution and politicians

in general.

That's the truth of it. That cynicism, we know, is getting deeper

and deeper as time goes on. I tell you that 41 percent voting in our

neighbouring province is a problem that all of us should be worried about. It's

something that we need to be cognizant of.

[1440]

We have an obligation to make sure that people do not distrust an

institution that has served not only this country but many countries for a long,

long time. We should be leaving this institution strengthening it, not weakening

it.

What I would point to is just a series of promises that were made

that, over time, haven't been kept. People notice it. People are aware of it.

You have solemn promises that are made pre-election not to reduce

the minimum wage. That was a promise made before 2001. It happened. Any

explanation about it being a training wage — there's nobody who doesn't see

through that. It is a solemn promise made before. And what do politicians do?

Well, as soon as it's finished, they switch that. Does it not happen again and

again?

They promised they wouldn't privatize health care services. Is

that not happening in this province? It is. People can see through it. Yet a

solemn promise was made before, and then it's gone. Well, we can think of 50. I

think Rafe Mair did a list of 25. He could update that to 50. We could name them

off the top of our heads.

Promises not to sell B.C. Rail. How did that go? Now, that was a

pretty solemn promise that was made. It could not have been made any clearer.

And yet just like this legislation, at a convenient time, when they have the

power to do so, they just switch it.

A solemn promise that ministers who can't keep their budgets lose

a percentage of their salary. It's a big thing to brag about, but it has not

taken place once. There is not one year where a minister hasn't been unable to

keep to their budget, and it happened again this year. It happened again to not

just one. In fact, when the list was being read, it was…. You're trying to

think: well, which minister was not involved in this? It's a long list of

ministers that are going to be excused from not being able to keep their budgets

in place.

There was a promise not to break contracts. Remember that one? How

did that go? The implications of breaking that promise are not only the cynicism

of the population. It has also fundamentally weakened a system that we depend

upon. It has fundamentally weakened residential care. There's no question on

that. There's no question.

There was a promise to give us a health care system that was

accountable to us. Well, how's that going? Take a minute to talk about that.

Question period is obviously not a great forum for those sorts of debates. Let's

just talk about some of the realities and some of the cynicism that comes when

there is a promise to have a health care system that's accountable.

The central issue in residential care is the number of staff you

have for the number of residents that need to be looked after. What is

incontestable is that some of those numbers cannot be acceptable in any way.

Mount Cartier Court. Not only did it receive a licensing officer

report that was heavily critical. It also put, in fact, a ratio of workers to

residents that was within this government's standards. There was a nurse and two

care aides looking after 46 residential care residents — 46 of them. Now, these

are people that need a tremendous amount of care. That's overnight. What I was

told by many, many people is that that is not enough.

We were told we were going to have a health system that was

accountable. I know that one of the ways you can take it forward is to go to the

minister. I understand that. But you need a system that is going to work better

than that.

What people told me with relation to Mount Cartier, what they told

me with relation to issues at Joseph Creek, was that there was a fundamental

problem with the ratio of care workers that is acceptable to this government and

that when issues are brought forward, there is no accountability.

[1445]

These are our most vulnerable people in residence. They are highly

vulnerable, and their families are

[ Page 10199 ]

incredibly vulnerable too. When they bring an issue forward, they are deeply

concerned that it will affect the level of care.

We were told by this government that just as we would have

ministers who were held accountable, we would have a health system that's

accountable. But it is not the reality. The reality is that those people are

highly reluctant to bring anything forward, and they live in fear of

repercussions. We can stay here and stand up and say that they have no need to

fear repercussions. That's easy for us to say. We will not face them.

The reality is that people fear repercussions. When I was talking

to a resident…. Actually, her husband was a resident in Mount Cartier. She

eventually brought the story forward publicly, but when she first contacted my

office, she would not come to my office to meet because she was afraid somebody

would see her. I had to go to her apartment.

You can stand up and say: "Well, she shouldn't have been in fear."

Reasonably, she shouldn't have been, but that is the reality. There are more

families that have the same concerns as Tina, but they will not speak. They will

tell me, but they will not speak.

The fundamental problem is the ratio of care workers to residents,

and it is a huge problem. In a truly accountable system, if you had one….

We put an idea forward. Get a seniors representative. Have their

issues dealt with in a forum that's different than this, because I can tell you

that this forum is part of what will keep people reluctant to bring issues

forward — real issues that should be talked about, things that the light should

be shone on.

But we have not set up a system. The promise to get a system where

health is accountable has not been set up by this government. It is another

failed promise. A seniors representative would remove the fear. It would give

people a way of bringing issues forward and dealing with issues in a way that is

far more respectful, far more dignified.

That is a promise that was made by this government, just as they

made a promise about holding ministers accountable — that they would somehow be

docked pay. Well, my experience in this House has not been that anybody here

gets docked pay. In fact, it seems to me that the pay system for all of us goes

up and up.

Joseph Creek. Let's talk about Joseph Creek, Minister. Joseph

Creek had a situation brought forward. It was brought forward by people whose

parents had passed away. There are many others that raised the same concerns,

but the only ones that would bring it forward were those that had parents who

are no longer in the facility. They've passed away.

They raised the same concerns, just as I've heard with Fernie,

with many, many facilities. There are not enough people looking after residents

in these facilities.

Let's move on. There's more time for that as the session goes on —

to keep pushing on that issue and to hope that the government will listen to

seniors and raise the standard of care so that we have seniors treated with the

dignity and respect they deserve, and that we put in place systems so that they

can bring their concerns forward and light can be shone on conditions in these

residential care facilities.

Let's talk about another promise that was made. It's a really

interesting one. The B.C. Liberals promised that they wouldn't privatize B.C.

Hydro. Well, how's that going?

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: Not too good. Not too good at all.

You know, the reality…. The starting point for any discussion on

this should be: well, how is public power doing for us? How is that working out

— the lowest rates, second-lowest rates in all of North America? If there was a

system that was lower, it would be — what? — Quebec or some other system that is

publicly owned. You compare that to California. I mentioned Alberta before.

Compare that to Alberta.

[1450]

Why do you tinker with that? Well, why do you promise you're not

going to tinker with it and move right into making substantive changes? Let's

understand that deal. We take a successful system…. The B.C. Liberals promised

they're not going to change it, and as soon as they're in power, they move very

quickly and very thoughtfully to make changes — and very thoughtful about hiding

those changes.

We paid to identify sites that would be good for run-of-the-river

projects. We paid to find those sites. We own the water; we own the land. We own

the land that the roads are going to go on. We own the land that the

transmission lines are going to go over. We own all of that.

Then somehow those are given away for — what? — $5,000 or $10,000.

Did anybody hear when that was offered? I don't think so. You had to be on a

special list to get those grabbed up. That's for sure.

Have a look at who got them. Have a good close look, and I invite

the public to do that. This is the biggest ripoff in the history of this

province. Look at who got the rights to those rivers, and look what they did to

them.

We took a system that was excellent in every way. We've tinkered

with it, and people have made out with huge amounts of money. The only way

people would not be revolted by it is if they didn't understand what was going

on. There is a fog that the government very deliberately put around this whole

issue so that you would really have to dig to get through it.

Just as there's a fog that goes with this piece of legislation.

The idea that there is some ministerial accountability when not one minister has

ever been held accountable for missing their budget and when every single year

there is at least one, two in this case — what is it? — five, six…. It doesn't

really matter. It's become such a joke now that nobody really even bothers to

count. It's just assumed that nothing will come of it.

Let's continue with public power for awhile. So we own all of

these things, and we give it away. All sorts of things are tinkered with B.C.

Hydro that restrict their ability to do their job in the public interest.

Instead, things are set up so that it is done for the

[ Page 10200 ]

interests of a small group of private investors. It's not a small group; it's

a growing group. How many are we giving away here? How many sites? There are

300, 400 or 500. It's a lot — a lot of money to be made. How many water licences

are there? Some 300, 400, 250….

An Hon. Member: It's 80.

N. Macdonald: Eighty are approved — right? So who are they,

and why would we be doing it in private…?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: And why would we be doing it for contracts

that are…?

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

Sit down. Sit down.

Member, through the Chair.

N. Macdonald: There are 15-to-40-year contracts.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Sit down.

Members. Members.

N. Macdonald: Well, the Minister of Environment has a lot

to say. Maybe at some point he would stand up and explain to us why he thinks he

should get the money that's supposed to be held back. He's the one who voted for

the accountability act. He's the one who made the big deal about the

accountability and being held to account for not keeping to his budget. He

hasn't kept to his budget, but he's going to vote to change that. They have the

majority. They can do whatever they want. So maybe if the minister wants to

speak, he can stand up and explain that.

Let's go back to private power. Private power is — and I will say

it again — the biggest giveaway of B.C.'s wealth that will have happened in this

province — the biggest giveaway. We are talking hundreds of millions of dollars.

These contracts are for — what? — 15 to 40 years. The minister

will stand up and talk about security of power. What happens after 15 to 40

years? It goes on the market. It goes to California or whoever is the highest

bidder.

That is not in the public interest. That is in a select private

interest, and that is what is taking place here. So we're talking about all

sorts of things. We're talking about promises that were made, promises that were

not kept.

What I will tell the public is that if there is one issue that you

want to understand, it is this one. The government has put it in a fog. It is in

a fog that you want to cut through.

[1455]

There is material out there. Read Liquid Gold by John

Calvert. Read the report by Dr. Shaffer. Go on the Web and google independent

power projects. That innocuous name should properly be private power projects.

They are….

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: Oh, the minister says: "Let's call them green

power projects."

It is all of that terminology that makes them sound innocuous and

benign. The only thing green about them is the money that's being stuffed in

private developers' projects. That is the green part of it.

You look at the environmental impacts of these projects, which are

substantial. All of it, if it was to be done, should be done publicly so that

there is a public good, so that in the end we own it. All we do is give it away.

So let's come back.

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: It sounds like the Minister of Environment

wants to speak again. As I say, the invitation is that if you want to speak, you

can stand up and tell us why the money that was announced in….

Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Chair.

N. Macdonald: The minister has every right to stand up and

explain why items that were talked about in this year's budget speech somehow

show up in last year's budget, get stuffed in there so it doesn't show up. When

he doesn't keep to his budget, a law that he campaigned on, a law that he voted

for, he casually breaks. It asks….

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: Well, the Minister of Tourism is getting in

here too. The minister asks: didn't I vote for it?

Here I'm talking about Bill 5, which deals with the minister's

salary. I'm also talking about the bill in 2001 that the ministers supported and

fully understand and campaigned on, the idea of ministerial accountability. The

question I have is…. If those ministers want to stand up and explain the

rationale for something being put into last year's budget and the way that it

was, I'd be happy to hear it. It seems to me that's an explanation that is very

carefully avoided.

So I guess with that, I can give a whole list of other projects,

other promises that were made that have turned out to nothing — open cabinet

meetings, not using public money for advertising, the most open and

accountable…. How's all that going?

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: Oh, and the Minister of Revenue from not

quite his seat gives a comment. He tells me to sit down.

[ Page 10201 ]

Let's talk about one other thing. Let's talk about the convention

centre. In terms of promises not kept — and the convention centre expansion

project is certainly something that the members will like me to speak about — I

remember that minister standing up, thumping his chest and talking about $495

million on time, on budget.

Well, how is that going? How did that promise work out? On time,

on budget. Well, not on time. Well, not on budget — $495 million. What are we

at? About a billion. And in terms of a billion, I think a billion is about the

sum that was being thrown onto last year's budget.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

N. Macdonald: I've got an audience here, and I'll continue.

So I guess the invitation I would make to that minister is: you

have an opportunity to speak.

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: I do have to watch my time, don't I?

You do have an opportunity to speak. You can explain how your

compatriots here deserve the right…. Excuse me. The minister can explain how his

compatriots are willing, are able to break a piece of legislation that that

minister voted for. That minister voted for a bill that said that ministers who

break their budget, who can't keep to their budget, and all the flowery words….

I went back and looked at what Mr. Farrell-Collins said. I mean,

wonderful speeches, high rhetoric, all these things that we're going to do, a

new era — a new era this government campaigned on, a new era they talked about

as they introduced the legislation. But there's something very old now about the

idea of making a promise and not being able to keep to it. Like I say, Rafe Mair

has a list of 50. I'm sure we could easily come up with a list of a hundred.

[1500]

I realize that my time is coming to an end. If the ministers are

going to make how many thousands on this, they get their…. It would be

interesting to see the figure. What is it — $20,000?

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: Yeah. The least that they can do to earn

their money is to have to sit here and listen to this from me. So with that, I

thank you very much for the opportunities. It sounds like the Minister of

Revenue would like to get up, and he's welcome to do that.

I, for one, will be speaking against Bill 5. I think we

trivialized the promises that politicians make and that we need to do a better

job at making promises that we intend to keep.

Interjections.

N. Macdonald: Trivializing, trivializing.

With that, Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Order.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Order.

Minister. Order.

R. Fleming: I'm pleased, I think, to be speaking to Bill 5

this afternoon, although it's interesting that this legislation seems to come in

pretty much as predictably as spring changes season every year. When it comes

time to amend the budget and make sure that for the seventh year in a row

running, no cabinet minister, even though they've overspent their particular

ministerial budgets, suffers the indignity and the original accountability in

this legislation of a pay cut of their 20 percent holdback.

We see this kind of bill happen every time, early in the session,

to make amends and to make sure that once again the escape hatch for ministers

to not suffer the indignity of a 20 percent pay cut from overspending their

budgets and their ministries doesn't actually directly hit them in the pocket

book. That accountability is actually subverted yet again.

There's a long list of areas where the budgets have been

overspent. The previous speaker, the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, did a

good job of reminding the Legislature again of the convention centre cost

overruns. I think that's a great example of the mad loopholes in this

legislation that allow ministers to escape any accountability for poor

decision-making or anything happening under their ministry, right before their

own eyes. It actually subverts the very notion in our parliamentary democracy of

the concept of ministerial accountability and responsibility.

Something like that can happen in your ministry. You can have

legislation that proposes to be visionary, that gives the taxpayers of B.C. the

comfort that if a minister is doing a bad job and they overspend in their area,

they're going to get a 20 percent pay cut. Maybe they'll even be fired from

their job, although we haven't seen that happen and although there have been

many deserving cases where it should have happened, including to some

individuals in the House right now. But I'll leave that aside.

In the case of the convention centre…. I can't think of a better

illustration. Here we have the largest cost overrun in B.C. history for any

capital project — period — of any government — an all-time record for cost

overrun, overspending by 400 million bucks. The member previous from Columbia

River mentioned that government had loved to go out and announce every

[ Page 10202 ]

year that $495 million is the total cost of this project. "Count on it. Judge

us. Evaluate us. It won't go over a dollar over."

Then we saw it go to $535 million. Then we saw it go to $590

million. Then we saw it go into the $600 millions. Then there was a long pause,

and we saw it go into the range of $800 million. Now I would suggest we're in

the range of a billion. Who knows? Officially, it's $893 million.

[1505]

You know what? The minister has never, ever been held to account

under this legislation for any of those cost overruns three years in a row. It

proves that the value of this legislation — that there isn't any, that it's

useless legislation. In fact, it doesn't give the taxpayers any comfort that

there's anything personally on the line that actually judges the performance of

a minister. I can't think of a better example than the trade and convention

centre that illustrates that point.

Even the consultants — there's no accountability for them. The

content consultants that got rich on that project and are maybe even still

billing on that project, and the PavCo structure — that built that. They didn't

suffer any penalties either, and neither did the minister.

So it begs to ask the question: where is the accountability? Under

this act, it never winds up back here, and it never winds up in the minister's

office. There is no reckoning. There is no full circle. There is no check and

balance in this legislation. It's fake legislation, designed to address the

public's yearning for accountability. Desperately, they do want to see

government work better. They want to see decisions that are made reconciled

against results in terms of performance on projects and on the annual operations

of a ministry.

This legislation is a mockery of that, because it never happens.

There isn't one example ever, since this legislation was adopted, of a single

cabinet minister ever suffering the indignity of a holdback on their salary for

the performance of their ministry, although every year, as sure as the flowers

come out in the spring, as I said, we see this type of bill come before the

House in the nick of time to save any minister before the date might become so

close that they would suffer a 20 percent pay holdback for overspending in their

ministries.

I want to look at one element of Bill 5 here. My colleague from

across the way, the Minister of Advanced Education, isn't in the House, but he

owns some of this year's bill — $72 million in Bill 5, ostensibly an overspend

in the Ministry of Advanced Education. Additional funds for Science World and

some of the research agencies — Crown agencies, that are involved with research

in the province — are involved in that overspend.

You know, it's interesting for a number of reasons. While the

minister has failed to keep to the budget projections — the spending, the

actuals are now out of line with what was budgeted last year — he gets to

overspend. He gets to bring in a bill here with other ministers and supplement

that budget.

There are 26 public post-secondary institutions in this province,

and I can tell you that nearly every one of them last year at some point…. Their

boards of governors struggled with deficits themselves. They had costs that were

higher than anticipated. They had enrolment projections that were wrong, and

they had to scramble to anticipate the cost.

But, you know what? None of them, not one of those institutions,

got to overspend their budget and go into deficit. They didn't have a magic wand

that bailed them out at year-end. They had to deal with the fiscal realities.

They had to deal with real legislation that constrained their ability to spend,

as against what they were allocated. UBC had a $30 million deficit that they

were struggling with midyear last year, which they managed to wrestle down. They

had to do program cuts.

The minister knows about that because we talked about them in

estimates. And he knows about that because the university has been talking to

them about that. We've seen the same thing in institution after institution.

Community colleges — university colleges around British Columbia — are in

deficit positions. But come year-end, when they're audited, they will have a

balanced budget sheet because they are not allowed under legislation to go into

deficit.

They don't have the ability to come into this place and say:

"Please could we have some more money," and "Can you put it into a bill like

this?" It doesn't happen.

You know what's really interesting? It's that you think the

minister might learn his lesson from Bill 5. He's asking us now for $72 million

more…. You'd think the 2008-09 budget might actually learn something from the

overspending in that fiscal year by building it into the base budget, but you

know what? The budget actually goes down next year, interestingly enough.

[1510]

So are we going to be in this position again next year, where the

magic wand is waved in the Legislature to bail them out yet again? I can't for

the life of me explain how the minister overspends this year, asks for $72

million in this bill and then projects that next year he'll need $37 million

less, in terms of the allocation for the increase in this ministry. This is a

big, complicated $2.2 billion ministry that was overspent this year, and it's

being allocated less in 2008-2009 than it was in 2007-2008.

There are also cuts in this year's budget that, clearly, they

didn't learn from in the previous year as well. I mean, per-student funding is

down 3 percent. So you overspend in this budget year, and next year — brilliant

— you're going to budget on the basis of needing even less. The institutions

will get even less per capita to try and manage the system again in the

following fiscal year.

There are other elements too. The capital budget in the current

budget has mysteriously declined by $300 million, from over $700 million to $450

million in capital spending. I can tell you that administrators around the

province would love to know what that means.

They have to now deal with the implications of that decision,

having only learned about it a couple of weeks ago. It's their projects which

have been budgeted for. Some of them are underway that now face uncertainty. But

they live in the real world. They don't live in the world where the minister

gets to come in by legislation here and create more money for himself when he's

failed to meet his budget targets.

[ Page 10203 ]

You know who else lives in the real world in this ministry? It's

the students that we're educating and training for our labour-market needs, for

our research and development, for the jobs of tomorrow. They study and make an

investment in themselves — the single best investment they can probably make in

their lives. They're going to be disappointed to hear that next year, for the

second year in a row, the student aid system in British Columbia has been cut —

by 7 percent next year.

It's unbelievable, because the government publishes these goals on

the website, saying: "We'd like to expand spaces by 25,000." It acknowledges —

doesn't acknowledge explicitly, but it's well known — that B.C. graduates fewer

credentialed bachelor's degrees than almost any other province and that we have

fewer PhD and master's students per capita than other provinces. Yet this is a

budget next year that doesn't learn from last year, that projects a cut in

spending for student aid programs. It's unbelievable.

B.C. colleges are actually telling the minister…. They're going to

watch what happens here with the $72 million under discussion, because they've

told him that right now they have a $14 million deficit — just in the college

sector. I'm leaving aside the big four universities out of this equation, which

is the majority of the budget for this ministry, and it will escalate to $30

million in two years.

Well, they wanted to see something in this budget that recognized

the job that they're doing, the recruitment and the targets that they have to

meet, the ability that they've absolutely hit their limit. They've all signed

public sector wage accords. They have costs that are rising. They've made cuts

in previous fiscal years. They're projected to have less funding per student

going forward.

They would like to know why they haven't been listened to when the

minister comes to this place repeatedly, year after year, having failed to

manage his own budget and creates money for himself. They haven't had any

answers to that. The budget elsewhere is doing exactly the same thing for other

ministries.

You know what's interesting is that there's a silver lining, I

think, strategically for the government. In their overspending, they've put the

$72 million and ostensibly called it research and development funds, even though

we're talking about Science World and the various councils and agencies that are

supported by government.

That gives them some camouflage and some cover from what they've

been hearing from the Premier's own Progress Board, from the research community,

from university presidents' councils and from interprovincial comparisons that

show that B.C. ranks ninth out of ten in terms of per-capita, university-based

research and development funding.

[1515]

"The best place on earth" is ninth out of ten in R-and-D funding.

There are serious implications for that. That means we're running ninth in an

area that generates the jobs of tomorrow.

This is supposed to be a green budget. You couldn't talk about an

area better suited to diversify your economy, to create clean, high-paying,

sustainable jobs that actually are researching what contribution B.C. can make

to the global challenges — some of them around the environment and climate

change. You couldn't talk about a sector better suited to make a contribution to

that global effort than the university sector and the research and development

that go on there.

We can think of the spinoff companies that have already been

produced and the billions of dollars of economic activity that just come from

that research cluster in the lower mainland — SFU, UBC and other institutions.

What is happening in this bill is that the minister is

camouflaging his failure over the years to even listen to Mr. Plant, who they

hired on a nice contract to take a high-level look at the university sector.

Well, he recommended that B.C.'s position of ninth out of ten in Canada is not a

good position. He recommended that we come third. I don't know why he wanted us

to go for the bronze rather than the gold in terms of our placement.

That recommendation alone has a $200 million cost implication, and

we're not making any steps in this budget to make up that gap, that huge lag,

which most definitely contributes to the sagging productivity numbers of labour

in British Columbia. The failure to invest in university-based R and D is linked

directly to sagging productivity in B.C. We failed to do anything about it.

Actually, I shouldn't say failed. I said there's a $200 million gap that Mr.

Plant identified. To his credit, the minister did manage to find $1.5 million,

or less than 0.5 percent of the recommended lift to university-based R and D, in

the budget next year.

What he's doing in this bill is camouflaging his overspending in

his ministry last year by trying to call Science World and the other Crown

agencies "R-and-D spending." It's not what we're talking about. It's not what's

identified in those reports. It's not directly supporting graduate students and

researchers in our university community in the activities that are outlined in

the B.C. Progress Board's report.

I think this bill makes a mockery of the word "accountability." It

makes a mockery of it because, as I said before, there is no reckoning here.

There is no closed loop. There is no balance to the check of making a minister

accountable for the budget in his or her area if they overspend. It's an escape

clause. It's used every year. It's as predictable as the sun setting or rising

every day. Every year this happens — seven years running.

This legislation talks the talk of accountability. British

Columbians had expectations for it to deliver on that, but the performance every

year is to see every cabinet minister of this government escape any

accountability, any cost in their pocket for overspending in their ministry.

That's not the way the real world works. That's not the way the 26

presidents of our colleges and universities in this ministry work. They have to

make the tough choices and the sacrifices and the decisions.

[ Page 10204 ]

The minister gets to come in this place, vote himself this thing and escape

accountability. For that reason, I will oppose Bill 5.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to get an opportunity to stand up

and speak to the Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2007-2008 — Bill 5. It's

an interesting bill, as we know. The original ministerial accountability act was

brought in by this government around five years or so ago. The purpose of this

was, with a great amount of fanfare, to hold ministers accountable. They would,

in fact, be held accountable for meeting their budgets and for managing their

ministries properly. That was the intention of this.

We now are into looking at what has become the common practice,

which is a bill like Bill 5. It happens every year. Since this legislation was

brought in about five years or so ago, we've had six times that there have been

bailouts — at least six times where ministers have been bailed out by government

legislation.

[1520]

In 2004, apparently, it took three attempts to get it right. They

had to come back with three similar bills in order to bail out ministers who had

either some combination of ministerial ineptness or government arrogance, or

some combination of the two, which succeeded in putting ministers over budget.

In 2005, 11 out of the 20 ministers of the day had to be bailed

out by this bill. This year we have another rogues' gallery of ministers here

who are going to be bailed out by the government again.

We have the Minister of Advanced Education who is going to be

bailed out. We have the Minister of Environment who is going to be bailed out.

We have the Minister of Finance who will be bailed out. The Minister of Forests

and Range will be bailed out. The Minister of Health, the Minister of Public

Safety and Solicitor General and the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts —

all of these ministers have gone over budget, again, through some combination of

their ability to do their job and of the government's disregard for the

budgeting process that I'll talk about a little bit.

We have seven ministers this year, only seven — not 11, only

seven. I guess we're making progress. In 2005 there were 11 ministers that had

to be bailed out. This year we only have to bail out seven.

To be fair, periodically there are instances where there are

circumstances that come up. People here have talked about forest fire fighting

and things like that, where you can't determine what the costs will be ahead of

time. You might legitimately have costs that overrun your budget and create a

circumstance where you're spending in deficit.

Those are legitimate issues, and at that time, a piece of

legislation like this might make sense. But that's not what we're talking about

here. If you look at the budget that we just passed and you look at what was

done in that budget, it becomes very clear that that's not what's occurring.

For example, we have the Minister of Environment. His budget is

over by more than 100 percent because, as we know, the government decided that

instead of putting money into this year's budget where it rightly belongs, where

it will be spent in this year and in subsequent years, they're back-loading the

dollars into the previous year's budget, the '07-08 budget. They're back-loading

into that budget with the dollars because they don't want to count them against

this upcoming year's budget. So as a consequence, you get a situation like the

Minister of Environment, who has this massive increase.

Now, the reality of what we see there, of course, is that you have

a government that's playing fast and loose with the budget process — that's

what's going on here — and taking hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars

and loading them back into a previous year's budget, when in reality they're

being spent in this year's budget. That would require the government to actually

be forthright with people, to be transparent, to tell the truth about these

things — not something the government is very good at.

As I said, most of these items will be spent in the future, yet

they're being accounted against the past. This particular piece of legislation,

the accountability act, is largely to deal with financial accountability, but

there are other forms of accountability, as well, where the government should

show some degree of accountability.

Accountability is not a big deal except in rhetoric with this

government. Actually, when I reflect on it, maybe this bill really shows

inherently where this government is at. You have a piece of legislation, a law,

an act that talks about transparency and accountability with all the glowing

language. The government wraps itself in that legislation when it chooses to,

but then just as quickly, time after time, as sure as we come back here every

year — and I'm sure if the government had its way, we wouldn't come back here

every year — the government brings in a bill that breaks its own legislation,

its own act, its own intent — like Bill 5.

[1525]

You know, there are other issues where accountability would be a

healthy thing for the government too. My friend from Columbia River–Revelstoke

talked about one of those, and I just want to elaborate a little bit because I

thought he was very insightful, and I was motivated by his comments. I think

that it raises another area where accountability might be something to look at.

My friend from Columbia River–Revelstoke talked about private

power. He talked about the privatization of power in British Columbia. What we

know, of course…. The government will say there are 60, 70 licences out there,

but we know that there are over 500 applications floating around out there for

water licences. It's a gold rush. It's a gold rush on private power. Every one

of those rivers….

There's no accountability on that side of the House for this.

There's no looking at cumulative impact, and there's no fair consideration of

other uses. It's just a gold rush to get those applications, get those licences

firmed up, go get those power purchase agreements out of B.C. Hydro — power

purchase agreements you can't beat.

[ Page 10205 ]

When B.C. Hydro says, "We'll pay you $87 a megawatt. You pay $5 or

so of that back towards the licence fee, and you get to keep the rest," here's

the deal: "We'll sign that deal for 25, 30, 40 years, and even if we don't need

the power, we'll pay for it anyways. Even if we don't even take the power, we'll

pay for the power anyways. Doesn't matter."

As these things roll out, we're speculating now there's about $28

billion of value in these. It's probably going to hit around $60 billion. What

this is, is this government giving away $60 billion to their corporate friends

because they need to create another pocket for people to write cheques to the

B.C. Liberal Party. That's all this is about.

When you talk about accountability, this is about a government

that didn't have and doesn't have the courage, doesn't have the jam to stand up

and say: "We want to privatize B.C. Hydro. That's our objective. We don't have

the guts to stand up and say that, so we're going to do it through the back door

by stealth." That's this government's position. So instead, we're giving away

our power. We're giving away our rivers. It's a free ride. Just sign up and you

get a river — $5,000, buy a river.

An Hon. Member: And your Liberal card.

S. Simpson: A Liberal card is important, but $5,000 or

$10,000 will buy you a river every time. The Minister of Energy, time and again,

will tell us this is about energy self-sufficiency. But what the minister won't

talk about is that these power purchase agreements will run for 25, 30, 35 years

as we buy this energy from our resource at a premium. And then those players —

whether it be Ledcor, Plutonic, General Electric or whoever — are free to take

that power and sell it where they want.

We know you've just got to read the minutes from the California

utilities board. You've just got to look at what they're saying in California

around clean energy to know they're investing now in the feasibility studies to

build the transmission lines from the B.C.-U.S. border to take that power to

California.

What that means…. This minister will tell us it's about energy

self-sufficiency. I'd say that if this minister and this Premier get their way,

it's about energy policy and energy pricing for British Columbia being decided

in Sacramento instead of in Victoria, and that's wrong.

But they'll also tell you that it's green. They'll tell you that

this is green power. Of course, what we know is that increasingly — and this is

very interesting — we are seeing environmental group after environmental group

that at first said: "Oh, green power. That's kind of interesting." As they start

to look at these, they're realizing there's nothing green about this except for

the money going into the pockets of the friends of the B.C. Liberal Party.

That's the only green thing about this. That's what's green.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

So if we had real accountability, like this act, maybe the

Minister of Environment or the Minister of Energy would have the fortitude,

would be accountable to go and meet with some of those people who are concerned

about this — like the 500 people who showed up in Pitt Meadows, like the

hundreds of people who will show up in Mission, like the people who would like

to be in Vancouver — who want to talk to government about their giveaway of

B.C.'s resources and their sellout of B.C. Hydro. They want to privatize this

because they're ideological midgets. But that would be if we had accountability

in broader terms. But I digress. I want to get back to the bill.

[1530]

Now, the core issue of this particular bill, Bill 5, is the total

hypocrisy of the government on this issue. It's total hypocrisy, the total lack

of credibility of a law, for this government to stand up and embrace a law that

they know they will break every single year. They'll have to bring in something

like Bill 5 to get themselves off the hook, because they're fiscally

incompetent. They're living off good times elsewhere in the world, and they

couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag on this one. So spend the hundreds

of millions of dollars and take the ride.

This really is a credibility issue in this chamber. As my friend

from Columbia River–Revelstoke also said — he said many, many insightful things

in his presentation, and I was inspired — it is this chamber that is at risk. It

is the integrity of this chamber. People in British Columbia want us to say what

we think and then do what we say.

The reality is this. The government has said: "We have an

accountability act. We will hold our ministers accountable. They will spend

their budget and no more. If they can't do that, there will be a penalty as a

consequence of that."

Not once since this bill has been put in place has anybody been

held accountable, not a single time. So where's the credibility in that law?

There is no credibility in that law. Frankly, it fits the pattern of this

government, which is to say what we want and not mean a word of it.

If this government wanted to be honest with the people of British

Columbia they would, for this time, tell the truth. They would say: "You know

that law that we passed five or six years ago, the ministerial accountability

act? Well, we didn't really mean it. We're going to rescind the law, because we

break it every year. We're never, ever held accountable to it. We've had dozens

and dozens of ministers go over budget, seven more this year, but none of them

are ever held accountable for any of their conduct. So we're going to quit the

charade around this, and we're going to go ahead and just scrap the bill

altogether."

But you know what? We can be assured that's not going to happen.

That's not going to happen because I think it is pretty clear that this

government is pretty confident that they can again pull the wool over British

Columbians' eyes with this one. They believe they can do it with all that good

talk — kind of like their talk on being green.

Well, let's talk about that for a minute. We had a budget, and it

was the fuel tax budget. It was supposed to be the green budget. The reality is

this. We had a

[ Page 10206 ]

budget that dealt with this tax. It had a handful of issues that got PST

exemptions for a short number of years, and nothing else in that budget is

green.

Instead, we've got $200-odd-million to spend on transit and a $14

billion plan. That's over four years, the $200 million. To give you some

contrast: $200 million to spend on transit over four years and $850 million to

spend on roads and bridges this year. That's probably what we're talking about.

What do we know here? We've got a government that's still out

there campaigning for offshore oil and gas. We've got a government that can't

wait to build pipelines to ship that crude coming here out of Alberta, out of

the tar sands, to be shipped off — all of this while they wrap themselves in the

green flag. Yet nothing for municipal infrastructure in there. I didn't see any

of that. Nothing around improved transit. I didn't see any of that.

Instead, we have a government that talks one thing and does

something altogether different. But that's pretty standard practice for this

government. They never do what they say they will do. They just say what they

say and then move on and do what they please. They just do what they please.

An Hon. Member: Sounds familiar.

[1535]

S. Simpson: It does. It sounds very familiar, doesn't it?

If we had ministerial accountability, would the government have done something

like…? Well, here's an example. I mean, if the Minister of Children and Families

had come in here and said: "You know what? I'm going to deal with child poverty.

I've got hundreds of millions of dollars to invest in child poverty, and it's

going to put me over my budget, but I'm going to fix the problem of the fact

that we have the worst child poverty in the country." Off on this side we might

say: "That's a good way to spend a little extra money to deal with child

poverty."

But no, we don't get that. That would be doing something that was

positive, but we're not going to have that. Instead, we have the ministerial

accountability act. We have the Minister of Advanced Education — over their

budget again. We have the Minister of Environment — double budget. We have the

Minister of Finance — again, over the budget. The Minister of Forests and Range,

the Minister of Health, the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, and

the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts — all over budget again.

So I will be voting against this — the hypocrisy of this

particular piece of legislation; the hypocrisy of the government to not be

prepared to stand up and be accountable; the lack of ability of this government

to stand up and be accountable, to pass laws, to make laws and then say, "These

laws apply to others, but they don't apply to us. We can tear them up. We can

break them whenever we choose," like they've done on ministerial accountability.

I would urge the government to, just once here, do the right thing

on this. Stand up and say: "It was all a charade. We didn't really mean the

ministerial accountability act. We're going to tear up Bill 5, and we're just

going to rescind the law and get it out of the way, because we never stand up to

the law. We never account for the law. It doesn't mean anything to us. It isn't

worth the paper it's written on, because we break it year after year, minister

after minister with this government."

It's shameful. Do the right thing.

D. Chudnovsky: I'm pleased to rise today to speak in

opposition to Bill 5 and to signal that I will be voting in opposition to Bill

Interjections.

D. Chudnovsky: The trained seals are barking on cue. That's

good to hear.

Somebody said that this was the most accountable government in

British Columbia history. Somebody said, I remember, that this was the most

accountable government in Canada. Somebody said that this was the most

accountable government in the world. Somebody said that this was the most

accountable government in the history of the world. I think I heard somebody say

that this was the most accountable government in the known universe. I think I

heard somebody say that.

I was trying to remember who said all those things. Who said that

this was the most accountable government in British Columbia?

An Hon. Member: Who was that?

D. Chudnovsky: This government said that this was the most

accountable government in British Columbia. Those are the only people who ever

said it. It was this government that said this government was the most

accountable government in Canada. Those are the only ones who said it. It was

only this government who said that this government is the most accountable

government in the history of the world. Nobody else.

The reason that nobody else ever said any of that stuff is because

it's nonsense. It's pure and complete nonsense. Accountability, transparency,

democracy — those are words that this government doesn't seem to understand.

This bill that's before us right now is a perfect example of that.

What is the bill about? Well, while they were trying to convince

themselves — and I think it's a bit of a stretch even to convince themselves —

that they're the most accountable, the most transparent, the most democratic

government, they invented this bill that said: "Well, if the ministers

overspend, then they're going to pay a penalty."

[1540]

It was brought to us with much fanfare and press releases and

self-congratulation. I think it might have been announced at one of those open

cabinet meetings. Remember those? That was another example of accountability and

transparency. Remember that? Yeah.

So this law was announced with tremendous fanfare and

self-congratulation because only they think

[ Page 10207 ]

that they're accountable. Only that government thinks that they're

accountable, and they keep trying to convince themselves. Breathtaking

hypocrisy.

It reminds me of what the real motive is for this bill that's

before us, Bill 5. This is the "Show me the money" bill, 2008. This is the same

gang who brought us enormous raises that were pushed through the Legislature,

jammed through the Legislature.

The trained seals may want to consider what they're suggesting. I

did everything to the penny that I promised with that raise when the "Show me

the money" bill was brought to this House — to the penny. So those hypocrites

better think twice about what they're suggesting.

Now….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, please take your seat.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, will you please stand up and

withdraw your remark about being hypocritical. When we refer to all members, we

want to use as much respect as possible in the House.

D. Chudnovsky: Hon. Speaker, I wasn't aware that the word

"hypocritical" was unparliamentary. If it is, I certainly will withdraw it, but

I seek your advice, hon. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: You've received my advice. So I'm asking

you to please withdraw the remark and continue speaking.

D. Chudnovsky: "Hypocrite" is unparliamentary, I

understand, hon. Speaker. I believe that this government is being hypocritical.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

D. Chudnovsky: Hon. Speaker, it's the "Show me the money"

bill….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member. You have not withdrawn the

remark.

D. Chudnovsky: I thought I did. But I will do it again,

hon. Speaker. I take your advice very seriously. The word "hypocrite," I

understand, is unparliamentary. I used it. I withdraw it.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Please continue.

D. Chudnovsky: I still think this government is being

hypocritical.

It is the "Show me the money" bill 2008, which follows the "Show

me the money" bill 2007. It's hypocritical. It's greedy. It's wrong. We're

voting against it, and we're doing so proudly.

M. Farnworth: I can't resist the temptation to comment on

this bill, because I think it's important that we expose the government for what

they're trying to do with this piece of legislation — just remind people about

this piece of legislation. It's called….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: Ah. I hear the members going: "You voted for

it." Yes, we voted for it because we expected the government to live by the

legislation. We expected ministers to actually live by the spirit of the

legislation. What was not anticipated is that year after year after year, the

government would bring in a piece of legislation basically to pardon itself.

[1545]

That's the type of thing you expect from George Bush at the end of

his term. He pardons people. This government does it every single year. They do

it every single year with this piece of legislation.

When we voted for it, members voted for it on the understanding

that if ministers went over budget, there would be no excuses. There would be no

conditions. If you went over budget — the Premier's own words — "you will be

docked your pay."

You know, the government campaigned on it. No ifs, ands or buts

about this. If ministers are going over budget, they're taking a hit on their

own paycheque. This is accountability. This is the most accountable government

in Canada — they were going to be. Guess what. Every year now we see this farce

take place, and that's exactly what it is.

You know, it really shouldn't be called the Ministerial

Accountability Bases Act. It really should be the Premier's "Let's keep my

cabinet under control" act, because basically they're sitting around the cabinet

table. They know they've gone over budget, and they know unless they get this

act in place, they're getting a 20 percent pay cut to their ministerial bonus.

They're not getting their performance bonus.

So it wouldn't surprise me one bit if a contentious issue comes

around the cabinet table, and guess what. This piece of legislation is always in

the back pocket. You want it passed? You want your bonus? Then guess what.

Here's what I want to do. And then down comes the bill.

It really is something. This is a government that thrives on

public relations, on public affairs bureaus and spin, and that's what this bill

is — spin, spin, spin. Hit the campaign trail and say: "We're the most

accountable government. Our ministers will be responsible. They'll be fiscally

responsible just like it is in the private sector where if you don't make your

targets, you don't get your budget. If you overspend a ministerial budget,

you're getting a pay cut."

They played that to the hilt. They advertised it. They spoke about

it. They spoke about it on television. They spoke about it on radio. They spoke

about it every chance they could get, but what they didn't say and what they

didn't tell the public was: "Guess what. We got a little out in case it all goes

wrong." Every year

[ Page 10208 ]

we get a piece of legislation that comes down, and it will, in short…. It's a

CYA piece of legislation that makes sure….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I'll tell you what it stands for: count your

assets.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: That's what it stands for, hon. member.

Anyway, through the Chair, hon. Speaker….

Deputy Speaker: Please.

Thank you.

M. Farnworth: Through the Chair, hon. Speaker. I think a

member down there needs to go learn his alphabet.

Anyway, this piece of legislation, even though some of the

expenditures and the cost overruns are with the best of intention, and we

actually support them…. We think you should be dealing with issues of child

poverty. We think you do need to fight fires. We think money should be going

into the health care system.

But what we also expect is that when the government goes out and

says that we are taking the 20 percent pay cut if we don't make our targets —

guess what — you actually live by that. When you make that a central point of

your campaign, when you made that a central point of your raison d'être of

government to govern — that it's a mantra you repeat over and over and over

again, and somehow it's what separates us and makes us different…. The public

gets pretty cynical pretty darn fast when this bill comes in year after year

after year.

So why don't they just be upfront with the public. They'll go,

"You know what? This ain't working quite the way we thought," and do one of two

things — either eliminate or change the act to take into account the fact that

the health budget does rise, that we do need to spend more on ensuring that we

don't hav