2005 Legislative Session: 6th Session, 37th 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 8, 2005

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 27, Number 29

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

University of Victoria Foundation Act

(Bill Pr401)

J. Bray

Confirmation of Personal Ownership of

DNA Act (Bill M202)

J. Bray

Westco Insurance Company Act, 1966

Repeal Act, 2005 (Bill Pr404)

R. Sultan

Pacific Bible College Amendment Act,

2005 (Bill Pr402)

R. Stewart

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Equality for women

V. Roddick

Rosemary Brown

J. Kwan

Women of Excellence Awards

K. Whittred

Oral Questions

Comments of child advocates on child

protection services

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Bruce

J. Brar

Hon. M. Coell

Government support for mining industry

D. MacKay

Hon. P. Bell

Comments of child advocates on services

for children and families

J. Kwan

Hon. M. Coell

Second Reading of Bills

Supply Act (No. 1), 2005 (Bill 20)

(continued)

J. MacPhail

J. Kwan

J. Brar

R. Sultan

[ Page 12375 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2005

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Les: On behalf of my colleague the Attorney

General, it gives me great pleasure to welcome a class of grades 5 and 6

students here this afternoon from the Homma School in Richmond. They are here

together with their teachers, Mr. Don Allison and Mr. Robert Kwan. I bid the

House make them welcome.

J. MacPhail: It gives me great pleasure to welcome two

friends to the Legislature. They think this is a special week, so they've come

to join us. My two very great friends are Miriam Gropper and David Whiteley.

Would the House please make them welcome.

[1405]

V. Roddick: In the gallery today is Alex Copeland, the

chairman of the board for the Delta Credit Union — or Envision, as it is now

known. He is also president of our Delta Chamber of Commerce. He's accompanied

by his wife, Gerry. Will the House please make them warmly welcome.

L. Mayencourt: It's a pleasure to introduce two good

friends of mine, Mr. Blaine Culling and Mr. Vance Campbell. Both of these guys

were the architects of the rejuvenation of the Granville Street entertainment

zone. They've been great friends and great supporters. Would the House please

make them both welcome.

B. Kerr: I would like to introduce Cathy Basskin to the

House. She's a mother of two. She's a former teacher, a director of Tourism

Cowichan, a director of the South Cowichan Chamber of Commerce, but most

importantly, she's going to be my successor as the next Liberal to represent the

good people of Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

R. Stewart: It's my pleasure to introduce a friend of mine.

Diane Tremblay is the director general of the Société francophone de Victoria

and is related in some way to someone who's sitting at the Clerks' table. As

well, there's Mary MacDougall, former procedural clerk, the House of Commons in

Ottawa, and a friend of theirs from Ottawa, Carolyn St. Denis. Would the House

please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Coell: I have two guests in the Legislature today,

a very longtime friend of mine, Gary Choo, who's a teacher, and with him is one

of his students, Kurtis Wong. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: On behalf of the member for Burquitlam I

would like to introduce today a number of students from the advanced economic

and management training program studying here at SFU's learning strategies

group. They're from Heilongjiang, China. They're also accompanied by Tom Brown.

There are 32 of these individuals, and I believe they are meeting with a number

of MLAs later today. I ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA

FOUNDATION ACT

J. Bray presented a bill intituled University of Victoria

Foundation Act.

J. Bray: I move that a bill intituled University of

Victoria Foundation Act, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be

introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

J. Bray: I move that the bill be referred to the Select

Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and

Private Bills.

Bill Pr401 introduced, read a first time and referred to the

Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing

Orders and Private Bills.

CONFIRMATION OF PERSONAL

OWNERSHIP OF DNA ACT

J. Bray presented a bill intituled Confirmation of Personal

Ownership of DNA Act.

J. Bray: I move that a bill intituled Confirmation of

Personal Ownership of DNA Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the

order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

J. Bray: British Columbia is becoming one of the world's

leading centres of research into the human genome. From the breaking of our

human genetic code to the fast-track development of SARS vaccines, to

breakthrough cancer treatment tailored to one's own genetic makeup, the

fast-changing world of genomics is presenting our society with unlimited

possibilities. It also creates the need for legislatures and the public to look

out into the future and anticipate what safeguards may be needed to ensure a

positive use of this new technology.

I believe it is time that we establish in law a basic tenet that

one's own DNA is in fact their personal property. This is not meant to change

how we use DNA sequences — how the police or the courts currently use DNA to

protect society, solve crimes or

[ Page 12376 ]

search for missing persons — but rather to establish in law a basic platform

that protects individuals and their unique genetic makeup.

I believe we must engage on a national scale in the discussion

about how we ensure this new technology we derive from genomics is continually

managed in an ethical way. I am proud of this government's commitment to life

sciences, and I am also committed to ensuring that we as legislators provide

public confidence in the protection of their unique genetic identity.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M202 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.

WESTCO INSURANCE COMPANY ACT, 1966

REPEAL ACT, 2005

R. Sultan presented a bill intituled Westco Insurance

Company Act, 1966 Repeal Act, 2005.

R. Sultan: I move that a bill intituled Westco Insurance

Company Act, 1966 Repeal Act, 2005, of which notice has been given on the order

paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

[1410]

R. Sultan: I move that the bill be referred to the Select

Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and

Private Bills.

Bill Pr404 introduced, read a first time and referred to the

Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing

Orders and Private Bills.

PACIFIC BIBLE COLLEGE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005

R. Stewart presented a bill intituled Pacific Bible College

Amendment Act, 2005.

R. Stewart: I move that a bill intituled Pacific Bible

College Amendment Act, 2005, of which notice has been given on the order paper,

be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

R. Stewart: Pacific Bible College has served our

communities very well since 1972 when it started in a Vancouver church basement

with 35 students and seven teachers. In 1979 they purchased the Surrey

facilities of Vancouver Bible College. Pacific became known for its campus

environment and programming options for young people, such as Life Launch.

Life Bible College of Canada was founded in 1928 in the heart of

Vancouver, operating out of various church basements and facilities of their own

in Vancouver, Surrey and Burnaby. Life Canada has been developing ministers and

leaders, primarily for Foursquare Churches in Canada.

In 1997 these two colleges, with a common purpose and

complementary strengths, joined forces. Together they provide a strong central

campus in Surrey with extension programs that reach around the world. They are

an interdenominational college affiliated with a denominational network of

ministry opportunities. This bill acknowledges that Pacific Bible College and

Life Bible College will now be serving their students and faith communities

together under a new name: Pacific Life Bible College.

I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee

on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr402 introduced, read a first time and referred to

the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing

Orders and Private Bills.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) EQUALITY FOR WOMEN

V. Roddick: Eve. Helen of Troy. Cleopatra. Queen of Sheba.

Elizabeth I. Evangeline. Queen Elizabeth II. Mrs. Gandhi. Maggie Thatcher. April

Glassby, a school friend from Vancouver who was the American ambassador in Iraq

in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. All are great women who helped shape the world

we live in.

I am honoured to rise and remind everyone that today, March 8, is

International Women's Day. This day was established by the United Nations in

1997. However, women and their influence in society obviously go back to the

very beginning of time. Throughout history, women have contributed enormously to

the evolution of modern life — some more than others.

The issue that interests me in today's world is that we're still

striving towards a level playing field. Queen Elizabeth I actually had the power

to behead her enemies. We women today may have the vote, but we still have

problems getting business loans and mortgages. We often find ourselves

sandwiched between our occupation and our family responsibilities, but we're

making it work — literally.

The female labour force is at an all-time high at just over 60

percent. Of the approximately 2,000 new jobs created in this province since

December 2001, 42 percent went to women. Of those, 89 percent were full-time

jobs. Women run 36 percent of our small businesses around B.C. — the highest

rate in Canada. Although true equality is still not a 100 percent reality,

awareness will certainly help towards attaining this goal in the decades to

come.

[ Page 12377 ]

ROSEMARY BROWN

J. Kwan: Yes, today is International Women's Day.

International Women's Day gives us the opportunity to reflect on the past and

celebrate the gains that women have made towards political, social and economic

equality.

Today I would like to celebrate the life of Rosemary Brown, a

woman who worked diligently as an activist, educator and role model to promote

the rights of both women and minorities in this province and abroad. Amongst her

many achievements, Rosemary ran and won as an NDP candidate in the riding of

Vancouver-Burrard in 1972. She was the first black woman ever elected to a

Canadian legislature and remained in that position for 14 years.

[1415]

She was once quoted as saying: "Women should enter politics to

bring about change." This was advice that she certainly lived by. During her

time in this House, she always made sure that underrepresented voices in our

province got their say. She created a committee to eliminate sexism in textbooks

and educational curricula. She was instrumental in establishing the Berger

commission on the family and introducing legislation which would prohibit

discrimination on the basis of sex and marital status. Her efforts contributed

directly to an increase in the number of women represented on boards,

commissions and directorates.

Sadly, Rosemary Brown passed away at the age of 72 in 2003. Today,

in honour of her remarkable achievements, a park in Kitsilano will be officially

named the Rosemary Brown Park. Also, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor of B.C.

will present the inaugural Rosemary Brown Award for Women. This year's

recipient, Ms. Barbara Binns, is being recognized for her outstanding work in

the area of women's equality.

As important as it is to reflect on the successes of the past, the

purpose of International Women's Day is also to assess the challenges facing

women in contemporary society and to look towards the future. In the past four

years we have seen the plight of women in this province ignored.

Instead of continuing the work of innovators like Rosemary Brown,

this government has chosen to cut the very services and programs that ensure

women's rights are protected. This government has scrapped universal day care,

slashed legal aid by 40 percent, gotten rid of Canada's first and only Ministry

of Women's Equality, eliminated funding for B.C. women's centres, ended the

zero-tolerance policy on domestic violence, abolished the B.C. Human Rights

Commission and has been chastised by the United Nations on the elimination of

discrimination against women.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

J. Kwan: This government's record on women is alarming,

reminding us…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

J. Kwan: …that the hard-won rights and freedoms of the past

could easily be eroded and must not be taken for granted.

WOMEN OF EXCELLENCE AWARDS

K. Whittred: Yesterday my community celebrated

International Women's Day with the first annual Women of Excellence Awards,

sponsored by the North Shore Outlook . The accomplishments of five North

Shore women — women in business, sports, arts, youth and community — were

celebrated.

In the youth category the award went to a young woman who will

graduate grade 12 this June. Liz Hendren has a curriculum vitae that makes you

tired just reading it. What I really want to share with you is an excerpt from

her composition, Why I Volunteer . Liz writes: "I can't imagine what my

life would be like without giving back to my community. Whether it's through

coaching my under-eight field hockey team, teaching a course at the community

centre, organizing a youth event to raise money for the North Shore concurrent

disorders clinic or working in the kitchen at camp, giving back to my community

fills me with a sense of pride and self-confidence."

The other award I want to celebrate is from the sports category.

Olga Kotelko plays second base for the North Shore slow-pitch and competes in

track and field in sprint, jumps and throws. So far, she has amassed an

astonishing 432 medals — 401 gold — and has received numerous world, Canadian

and B.C. records and trophies while competing both locally and internationally.

She is B.C.'s female track-and-field athlete of the year for 2004. She's a

member of the Optimists Club and helps in bike and helmet safety programs. She

teaches shot put. Olga started her sporting career at age 70 and continues to

inspire local athletes at 85.

These are two women, aged 17 and 85, who are inspirational role

models for each and every one of us.

[1420]

Oral Questions

COMMENTS OF CHILD ADVOCATES

ON CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES

J. MacPhail: Nine months ago three prominent British

Columbians with a wealth of experience on child welfare issues — former child,

youth and family advocate Joyce Preston; former B.C. children's commissioner

Cynthia Morton; and former ombudsperson Dulcie McCallum — wrote to the Premier

to express serious concerns about the state of child protection under his

government. The letter is dated June of 2004. In the spirit of cooperation, in

this letter they offered to meet with the Premier to discuss their concerns

personally and confidentially. Can anyone in the government explain why the

Premier never even responded to them?

Hon. C. Hansen: I do not know the specific answer to the

member's question. We can certainly endeavour

[ Page 12378 ]

to find out the status of that correspondence. They're certainly individuals

who have made a great contribution to British Columbia in terms of public policy

over the years.

Mr. Speaker, I can inform the member that we are strengthening

services for children in British Columbia. In Budget 2005 there is an additional

$241 million going into those services over the coming three years, because we

do want to continue to make sure those programs are strengthened.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplementary question.

J. MacPhail: These three women are some of the most

important advocates for children in Canada. They're well aware of this

government's record. When child welfare experts of this calibre say that the

public's trust in the child protection system is at stake, owing to budget cuts

of the last three and a half years and the elimination of independent offices to

protect children, the Premier has a moral responsibility to listen even if he

disagrees.

Again to the government: why would the Premier let the concerns of

these prominent British Columbians sit on his desk for nine months with no

answer? Does the government not even care what they have to say?

Hon. C. Hansen: I know that the Minister of Children and

Family Development takes these interests very seriously. He is passionate about

wanting to protect and enhance services for children in British Columbia. Over

the last number of years we have sought ways we can eliminate duplication of

services that are at the administrative level so that dollars can be freed up to

be directed directly into programs that meet the needs of children and families

at the community level. I know that he will continue to do that.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further

supplementary.

J. MacPhail: Well, Mr. Speaker, that answer is shameful,

given what these three prominent British Columbians have said about this

government's record. In their letter of June 2004, these experts expressed

serious reservations about the lack of public accountability in the child

welfare system. All three point out that the government's child advocate has

"absolutely no independent powers based on complaints received on its own

initiative."

That is what this government did to child protection. I ask the

question again, because I have not heard a straight answer. As their letter

says, the legacy of children like Matthew Vaudreuil deserves an answer, and I

agree with that.

Again to the government: why would this government, particularly

this Premier, choose to ignore this criticism and not bother to respond, even if

it is just to defend the actions of the government? Why the silence?

Hon. C. Hansen: I know that the minister responsible takes

these issues seriously. He has meetings with individuals around the province who

do have expertise that they can contribute. We take that information very

seriously, and programs are developed. As I mentioned earlier, we are going to

be expanding funding for programs for children in this province by $241 million

over the three years of this budget.

[1425]

J. Kwan: I don't know why this government is defending what

they're doing. The former independent watchdogs are saying to this government

that what they're doing is not good enough. I quote from their press release

today: "During the past few years, however, the public awareness and public

accountability have been severely restricted. B.C. has lost a child, youth and

family advocate; the children's commission; and the child and youth team from

the ombudsman's office. We believe the replacement for these offices is

inadequate."

If the Premier read the letter, he would know that the reason why

these advocates were compelled to express their concerns is for two specific

cases: the death of Kayla and the critical injuries of twins in the lower

mainland. As a result of the government's elimination of these independent

watchdogs, there is no longer a transparent process to investigate tragic cases

like these. This is the Premier who promised transparency and open government,

but all the promises the Premier has made have been broken, and the betrayal of

at-risk children…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan: …is the most shameful aspect of it.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the government…. If Patrick Kinsella

wrote on behalf of Alcan, something tells me that they would actually get an

immediate response. Why do independent voices standing up for children get the

brush-off while big corporate donors get the instant attention?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I mentioned earlier, I know that the

Minister of Children and Family Development meets regularly with individuals

around the province who are advocating for that. We have developed programs over

the last number of years to make sure that families are supported and that fewer

children have to go into the care of the government — the kind of supports that

are being put in at the community level to make sure that families can stay

united with the support of those programs.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a

supplementary question.

J. Kwan: The letter was sent to the Premier as far back as

June 16, 2004, and to date, they have received

[ Page 12379 ]

no response. The Premier promised to protect children and to direct new

resources to that task, but he's cut the budget for at-risk kids by millions.

He's eliminated independent watchdogs for children, and now he's just ignoring

them. In frustration, these welfare experts have made their concerns public

today, releasing a statement along with the June 14 letter.

Can the government tell us if the government takes their concerns

seriously, or do the Liberals consider Ms. Preston, Ms. McCallum and Ms. Morton

just one more special interest group that they can ignore — people who are

advocating on behalf of children, the most vulnerable people in our society?

Hon. G. Bruce: This government takes the care and

well-being of children very, very seriously. Because of that…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G. Bruce: …today there are fewer children in the care

of government in the history of this province. Secondly….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G. Bruce: Secondly, as the opposition might like to

know, this government has embarked upon a very aggressive program of making sure

our children are properly cared for. We're making sure that they have dental,

that they have sight testing, that they have….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G. Bruce: They have sight testing before they get into

school, for grade 6. All of these things….

J. MacPhail: Sight testing. Well, that'll make them feel

better.

Hon. G. Bruce: Absolutely.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G. Bruce: All of these things are so that children can

be well looked after, so that they go through the educational system and have a

chance to grow and to flourish. What we've done in these last few years is bring

about a situation so that children are properly looked after…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. G. Bruce: …in British Columbia.

J. Brar: In their statement these experts say that without

accountability in the system, the public cannot know if there hasn't been

another tragic case like the one of Matthew Vaudreuil. How can this government

pretend that this government has kept its promises to children when the former

children's commissioner, the former ombudsman and the former child, youth and

family advocate say that these promises have been broken?

Hon. M. Coell: This government's goal is to reduce the

number of children in care and to preserve a family model for care. There are

approximately 9,000 children in care in B.C. That's down 15 percent since 2001.

[1430]

By providing mediation, alternative dispute resolutions and

supports to families, we've been able to keep families together. We'll continue

to do that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge has a

supplementary question.

J. Brar: Let me quote again from the statement released

today — just today: "We are today calling upon the Premier to address these

concerns now rather than wait for another crisis to break in the media through

public outcry. What he has promised in 2001: real accountability." After nine

long months of ignoring these concerns, will this government agree today to sit

down — just sit down — with Ms. Preston, Ms. Morton and Ms. McCallum at least to

hear what they have to say?

Hon. M. Coell: It was the NDP

government's policy to take children from their homes and ask questions later.

Mr. Speaker…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. M. Coell: …under their government there was a rapid

increase in the number of children in care — a rapid increase in the number of

children in care.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the answer.

Hon. M. Coell: This government's approach has been able to

help families, to keep families together, and we'll continue to provide those

supports to keep families together.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

FOR MINING INDUSTRY

D. MacKay: I have a question for the Minister of State for

Mining.

[ Page 12380 ]

Mining used to be a great economic contributor to the northwest

part of our province. In the nineties the mining industry left our province.

They left because of the administration that was in this government before we

came here. Recently the mining industry has made a resurgence in the northwest

part of our province, and our people up there are looking at the mining industry

for employment opportunities.

The Fraser Institute just released its mining report and said that

B.C. has finally come out of No. 10 in our country, but it also said we had room

for improvement. We have room to improve the mining industry in our province. So

I'd like to ask the minister of state what he's doing to ensure that British

Columbia remains centre stage for the mining industry in our province?

Hon. P. Bell: The member points out quite rightly that this

survey was done some time ago. There have been some significant steps as it

relates to mining. In fact, in the last 60 days we have introduced a new mining

plan for British Columbia. In the last 60 days we have implemented a new $25

million fund for geoscience, and in the last 60 days we have also introduced

something called Mineral Titles Online .

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Let us hear the

answer.

Hon. P. Bell: Let me tell you what this government will not

do. We will not stand by while one out of every two jobs disappeared through the

1990s. We will not stand by when, for every one mine that opened, two closed.

And we won't stand by when exploration dropped from 12 percent of the national

average to just 6 percent. But let me quote something from the report. In fact,

the report said: "A bad reputation lasts a long time. British Columbia has made

real efforts to reform, but companies need to have confidence that a good policy

climate when they start exploration will be in place when the mine enters

production in the future." Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that after May 17, 2005

they will have that confidence in this province.

COMMENTS OF CHILD ADVOCATES

ON SERVICES FOR

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

J. Kwan: These advocates write:

"How will

government report publicly on maintaining, if not enhancing, the health and

safety of children while the budget has reduced its services to children and

families? We have examined the service outcomes of the ministry and are unable

to see transparent measures that address these matters. This is inconsistent

with the commitment that the Premier has made publicly to hold all ministries to

account for quality outcomes."

If the government is so proud of what they're doing, if

the government stands by their record — and they say that everything they have

done to date protects children and their families — then I would like to ask the

minister and this government this question: are they saying that these respected

advocates are wrong, that they don't know what they're talking about? Or should

we trust this government that has cut budgets for children and families and

stopped providing the reassurance and transparency in ensuring that children and

families get the protection they need?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

[1435]

Hon. M. Coell: I think the Minister of Finance mentioned

that there was an increase in the budget for Children and Family Development.

Our government reviewed across government. Following our review, we established

an independent child and youth officer with a clear role to consolidate all the

aspects of the previous commissioner and the youth advocate.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. M. Coell: The child and youth officer is an

independent advocate. The officer is legislatively mandated to comment publicly

on issues affecting children and youth and to identify where we're doing a good

job and where we can do a better job. We'll continue to do that.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Bruce: I call continuation of second reading of

Bill 20 on interim supply.

Second Reading of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2005

(continued)

J. MacPhail: To refresh the memory of those in this

chamber — and they, believe you me, need their memories refreshed — but more

importantly the public, we are debating what is called "interim supply" in the

parliamentary system.

This is Bill 20. What this government has done, unlike any

previous government, is give themselves by this legislation, carte blanche,

one-half of an entire year's budget to spend as they see fit without public

scrutiny.

I went to the legislative library, along with our interns, and

examined the history behind what parliament's role is in these matters of

awarding public expenditure through interim supply. It actually might be

important for everybody. This history lesson was very interesting for me as

well. The idea of interim supply

[ Page 12381 ]

and debating the taking of taxes from citizens started in the year 1295. That

parliament declared: "What touches all should be approved by all." That was the

premise of the foundation of the British parliamentary system.

It went on to say that the assembly, the parliament, has the right

to deny the amounts requested or to reduce a budget if it sees fit, and only

parliament has that right. It was called back then "grievance before supply." In

other words, the elected representatives would stand up and bring forward the

grievances of their citizens, of their constituents, before the government was

supplied with the right to spend. That dates back to the beginning of

parliament. Why was that put in place? Why was that important premise put in

place? Because prior to that time, the unelected king had control of the purse

strings, and the citizens of the day said that was wrong. They wrested control

of the purse strings from the king and set up parliament.

[1440]

The concept of interim supply is a very interesting concept. It in

no way is meant to give carte blanche for a full half-year of spending for a

government to do with it what it would wish. The interim supply does not

constitute approval carte blanche.

Let me just show you exactly what interim supply….

Interjections.

J. MacPhail: You know, Mr. Speaker, some people actually

would know when it is time to retire, and others sit there and make others bear

the brunt of their longstanding, insufferable presence. I would just hope that

some members of the Legislature who don't get that concept would have the

ability at least to keep quiet.

Here's what the concept of interim supply is about. This is from

Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules: "Interim supply provides the government

with the money to meet its obligations during the time before the main estimates

are approved." Well, Mr. Speaker, we actually have weeks and weeks to go before

this fiscal year even ends — before there is even a requirement for interim

supply, let alone for the period of time that still remains in this

thirty-seventh parliament — so it's bizarre that we're doing a bill for interim

supply. It goes against the very foundation of the British parliamentary system.

Let's go on. What else does Beauchesne say? "Interim supply is

normally requested in the first supply period for the three months of the new

fiscal year for all departments of government." We're still in the old fiscal

year. We're in the old fiscal year. It doesn't expire for three weeks, and this

government's not only ramming this legislation through, but it's asking for an

additional six months of spending — unprecedented. No matter how much heckling

these government caucus members want to do, this is unprecedented.

What else does it say here? "In addition, interim supply is

requested for other items in the estimates, depending upon the need in each

case. The main estimates and the bill based thereon are not disposed of until

the last allotted day for the supply period ending June 30." In other words,

what that means is that in any case, supply should never go beyond the three

months of the next fiscal year. Well, that rule's broken. They've broken — how

many? They've broken three rules under what is standard parliamentary practice

in existence for hundreds of years.

Of course, this government likes to set new records. They love to

be the first in everything. They love to attack the poor first. They love to

break contracts the first. They love to throw environmental rules out of place.

They love to attack children and families first. Now they attack the very

foundations of parliament, and they revel in it.

God forbid anybody challenges them on that. They say: "Oh, other

governments were worse." Well, in fact, Mr. Speaker, no other government is

worse than what this government is doing today in the supply bill, Bill 20. They

alone stand as having the worst record in defying and undermining parliament.

Now, what will happen when these 74 Liberal government caucus

members, or 73…. I'm sorry. There are so many of them defecting, and they're

losing the public support, of course. The 73 Liberal MLAs — what will they do?

Who gets to spend the money? Well, nobody other than the secret cabinet gets to

spend the money, for a full six months — billions and billions and billions.

[1445]

Interjection.

J. MacPhail: Yes, secret cabinet. This is also the most

secretive government in the history of British Columbia. Oh, they had those

phony, mock cabinet meetings on air. They're actually an embarrassment. I'd

prefer reality TV. I'd actually prefer watching reality TV where people eat bugs

to watching that open cabinet, because they're not even good actors. Even though

we know they rehearse, we know they spend a lot of money rehearsing those

cabinet meetings, it is painful. It's painful to watch them.

What is the role in cabinet, in relationship to spending and

parliament? Well, here's another quote. This is from a celebrated history book

on British Parliament, so I know that this government wouldn't be interested in

that at all, but here's what they had to say: "While cabinet's purpose was to

find and maintain support, its closer relationship with parliament provided a

direct opportunity for members to question and publicize government policy and

to maintain a constant scrutiny of government."

In other words, cabinet was supposed to report to parliament on

spending matters. They were to subject themselves to the scrutiny of parliament.

But oh no. That's gone. Of course, this government will run, and the only thing,

thank God, that will stop them is the election of May 17.

Here's what they would plan to do. They would plan to take tax

dollars that haven't been scrutinized

[ Page 12382 ]

and spend it on who knows what. But this bill, interim supply, does not in

any way give the government the right to fund programs that apply only to the

main estimates. Now, I don't know whether the Minister of Finance actually knows

that. He is out in the hallway talking about all sorts of parliamentary rules,

which I find the

interpretation of bizarre on his part.

Here's a parliamentary rule: interim supply cannot be spent on

programs that only apply in the main estimates. So will this government try and

take that interim supply and apply it to new programs? That's against the law.

They will not have the authority under this bill to spend any money on new

programs, because that's against the rules of this legislation — hundreds of

years of British parliamentary practice. All interim supply is supposed to do is

to continue those programs already in place.

The government just got skewered in question period, and they

stand up and they say: "Oh, we're giving new money to the Ministry of Children

and Family Development." Well, in fact, they don't have the right to. Without

passing the budget, the main estimates, they have no right to spend any new

moneys on anything.

In fact, if this government goes out and makes one election

commitment based on new spending for a budget that is not legal yet and has not

been passed, they will be breaking the law. They will be breaking the law, and

they don't care. Their arrogance is such that they think they can run and hide

from this parliament, shut 'er down, guillotine the parliament weeks and weeks

ahead of its conclusion, and then they think they can go out and illegally

commit the spending money. Such arrogance has been unheard of. Yet this

government caucus isn't even aware of that. They sit there, and they somehow try

to challenge that this has been done in the past. Well, it hasn't been done in

the past. It has not.

For this government to go out, as they will on Thursday evening,

and start campaigning on the taxpayers' dollar…. They will be making election

commitment after election commitment that by their very nature will be broken

promises as soon as they come out of their mouths. The electorate will judge

them on that basis.

[1450]

Now, special estimates, interim supply, is an established practice

— again, I'm quoting from the history books. Actually, the rules of procedure

for parliament that apply to our everyday lives…. Here's what they say about

special estimates — the parliamentary experts: "It is, therefore, the

established practice during one financial year to seek authority for some

provisional allocations of amounts for the financing of the public service

during the next financial year, pending the parliamentary approval of the

corresponding main estimates." In other words, if parliament continues, is in

session and the debate around the budget's main estimates continues, it is

common practice for governments to seek interim supply until those budget

estimates are completed on the main budget. The budget is then passed and made

legal.

What does this government do? They bring in interim supply on the

next fiscal year a full seven or eight weeks before the current parliament has

expired and weeks before the current fiscal year has expired. It's never been

done before.

There's no reason to do it. The NDP opposition committed to this

government that we would have the main estimates of their pre-election budget

completed by April 18, which is the expiry of the thirty-seventh parliament. We

committed to that.

In fact, the past debates in the House around main estimates would

allow for that. Last year's main estimates comprised 27 days of parliamentary

debate. In 27 days we could have easily completed that. But oh no, this

government doesn't want their budget passed, doesn't want their budget made

legal.

What they want to do is break every possible parliamentary

practice, set unheard-of precedents so that they can now have the most

secretive, behind-closed-doors government operate at their whim. That's what

this supply bill does.

They are so out of step. Here's what our own British Columbia

members' rule book says about interim supply. The parliamentary rules and

procedures book — I don't know whether anybody in the government caucus has read

that book — says:

"When all estimates have not been passed by

the Legislative Assembly before the end of the fiscal year (which is March 31),

an interim supply bill is introduced in the assembly in order for the government

to meet its financial commitments. This bill grants a proportion of the budget

as a temporary measure until the full estimates have been approved. The passage

of an interim supply bill does not preclude the members of the Legislative

Assembly from questioning any part of the estimates or from moving motions to

reduce any specific vote. There may be one or more interim supply acts."

How many rules is this government breaking? Well, about

three or four in that area. They somehow try to call out: "Well, what about

this? What about this previous year?" No, here's what this government's doing.

They're saying…. Actually, they've got several stories. But they're saying: "Oh

no, the public doesn't want this budget legislated. They don't want this budget

debated. They want us to get out on the campaign trail."

Well, no, they don't. They don't trust this government. They don't

believe this government when this government makes promises. They want to hold

their Liberal MLAs to account by having this debate scrutinized and passed.

No, they're running away. I also heard the Minister of Finance say

in the hallway: "Well, this budget isn't a real budget, anyway, because the

public service is going to have to come back after the next election and bring

in a whole new budget." Oh, really? Is this budget not the truth? Can't we trust

this budget? Is this just a pre-election budget?

[1455]

Interjection.

[ Page 12383 ]

J. MacPhail: Well, the Minister of Finance says there'll be

a new budget.

Hon. C. Hansen: I never said that.

J. MacPhail: I welcome the Minister of Finance to stand up

and say what others have recorded of his words in the hallway. I welcome that,

because I'm quoting from what he said in the hallway: that the public service

would have to write a new budget for the new parliament.

The Minister of Finance is saying that this budget isn't a real

budget anyway. Others may have even more harsh words for it — that the budget

may be a stranger to the truth, given the Minister of Finance's comments. But oh

no, the government doesn't want to put that to the test by actually debating it

line by line, and even more so, they want to take billions of taxpayer dollars

without being held to account for any of it.

I would also say that the government will be challenged tomorrow

in Committee of Supply to name every single one of the new programs and to

account for how, in an election, they're going to go out and promise those

programs when they have no approval to spend that money. None. Interim supply is

about continuing current government programs — current programs at the funding

level they were established at in the main estimates of the previous year.

We will be going through, election promise by election promise.

For instance, the seismic upgrading program that they announced yesterday. They

have no authority — none, zero — by this act to make any commitment on that

seismic upgrading — no authority whatsoever. The Minister of Finance had better

try to figure out how he is going to get anyone to believe him during the

election when he is ramming this legislation through.

Now, I just want to point out one other thing I find very

interesting with this government, about how they claim to be the most open and

accountable. Here's what the Budget Transparency and Accountability Amendment

Act, 2001, actually says about interim supply. This is the Liberals' own

legislation, and I quote from

section 6(1). It says: "When estimates are to be

presented."

Section 6(1) says:

"Subject to subsection (2), the

minister must present the main estimates for a fiscal year to the Legislative

Assembly with the budget for that fiscal year, on the third Tuesday in February

in the immediately preceding fiscal year."

Okay, we've got that. Sub (2) says:

"If…(

b) there has been a general election in a fiscal year before passage by the

Legislative Assembly of the final Supply Act for that fiscal year, the main

estimates referred to in subsection (1) must be presented to the Legislative

Assembly no later than 90 days after the post-election appointment of the

Executive Council."

So, what does that mean? Let's just work through what that

means. That's legalese in legislation, but this is legislation that this

government takes great pride in. It fixes a budget date — the third Tuesday in

February — but then it goes on to say, if there is an election, when they have

to actually bring in a supply act. When do they actually have to call the main

estimates, and when do those main estimates have to be passed?

They have to be passed no later than 90 days after the appointment

of the executive council following an election. The return of the writ is June

8. That means that the main estimates have to be fully passed by September 8. I

look forward to the Minister of Finance standing up and challenging his own

legislation. I look forward to him saying how I'm wrong on that. I can hardly

wait. He is going to say that is a wrong

interpretation. I just love it.

[1500]

Far be it from me to deny another opportunity for the Minister of

Finance to thumb his nose at the citizens, to thumb his nose at British

parliamentary practice and British parliamentary law and then his own law about

why that's wrong.

Let him stand up and make a mockery of their Budget Transparency

and Accountability Act. I can hardly wait because, of course, we are going to

enter into an election campaign period starting on Friday, not by choice of the

opposition — the opposition wants to stand here and do its job — but because

this government wants to start an election on April 8, and anything the Finance

minister stands up…. They can be words used against him during the election. I

can hardly wait to hear it. Let's see about the openness and accountability.

The other thing the government was going to do was…. They took

great pride in saying that they were going to have select standing committees —

legislative committees travelling the province holding hearings. They weren't

going to make a mockery of legislative standing committees. They were going to

make sure that they listened to the electorate.

[J. Weisbeck in the chair.]

Here's the record of the select standing committees. Aboriginal

Affairs: 2002, 17 meetings; 2003, zero meetings; 2004, one meeting. Education:

2001, 18 meetings; 2002, one meeting; 2003, one meeting; 2004, six meetings.

Here's the other record for the Health Committee….

Interjections.

J. MacPhail: I actually love it when this government

caucus, especially if they're part of the executive council, accuses anyone of

hypocrisy other than themselves. Today we saw a perfect example of hypocrisy,

and I'm not referring to this bill. This bill is the second-greatest example of

hypocrisy today. The first was when this government stood up and shunned the

words of three expert child and family advocates — shunned the words of them.

That was hypocrisy.

There you have legislative committees that don't do anything

anymore because of this government, I guess, being afraid to actually let their

members loose and

[ Page 12384 ]

demonstrate their skills — and I use that word advisedly.

Why should the public be concerned about this government's record?

Why should they actually be fearful of this parliament not debating the main

estimates of a budget? Why should they be fearful of a government that is now

passing through, with their huge and overwhelmingly arrogant majority, six

months of expenditure where no one has to hold them to account? Well, Mr.

Speaker, because there's nothing in interim supply that allocates where the

funding will go — absolutely nothing.

This government can take that six months of expenditure and expend

it any way they want. What if Williams Lake needs health care dollars? This

government could just choose to ignore it. If they think the town of Williams

Lake ain't going to support them in the election, they can allocate money

elsewhere, away from Williams Lake, because there's nothing in the interim

supply that allocates the funding — nothing.

There are no regional health authority budgets being approved.

It's just a big, honking $15 billion of money turned over to this government,

and they can spend it any way they want. What if there are children at risk?

What if some crisis happens in the Ministry of Children and Family Development?

There is no obligation on this government to spend that money — none whatsoever.

They can spend it on their slush fund. That's the flip side. They

can spend every single nickel in a way that tries to buy the love of British

Columbians, but they don't actually have to spend it in a way that makes sense

for British Columbians.

[1505]

Here's what the Liberal government has done to British Columbians

in the past. Here's what the Liberal record about costing taxpayers more is. Let

me read some of the examples of how this Liberal government has taken money out

of taxpayers' pockets.

They increased medical services premiums by 50 percent. It's the

second-biggest source of revenue now under this government. It's become the

second-biggest source of revenue — medical services premiums — because this

government has increased them by 50 percent. They've doubled college and

university tuition fees. They privatized B.C. Rail for a pittance. They're

losing tens of millions of dollars of profit from B.C. Rail. They raised

gasoline taxes by 3.5 cents a litre. This government raised gas taxes. They

increased property taxes.

They increased the sales tax to 7.5 percent for three years. They

put a dozen stones in our shoe, and then they took one out and wanted praise for

it when they reduced it back to 7 percent. And they still didn't win the

by-election in Surrey–Panorama Ridge.

They increased Pharmacare fees for seniors. They cut the minimum

wage to $6 an hour for new workers. They raised electricity rates after

electricity rates were frozen for six years. They raised ICBC rates, and now

ICBC makes a huge honking profit. They raised ICBC rates after ICBC rates had

been frozen for six years. They increased child care costs for thousands of B.C.

families. They increased physiotherapy costs. British Columbians who have

diabetes now have to pay for their podiatry — an absolutely necessary medical

treatment for people with diabetes, and this government is making them pay for

it out of their own pocket.

They increased eye care fees. They increased drivers' licences,

hunting and fishing fees. They put in costly new fees at parks to the extent

where the utilization of parks is falling under this government, because nobody

can afford it. They have parking meters everywhere in order for people to use

the parks.

Tuition fees have skyrocketed so much under this government that

college and university enrolment in some areas of the province is actually

falling. In fact, I predict this. I will rue the day if my prediction comes

true, but I predict this: that this government's as yet unfulfilled promise of

25,000 new post-secondary seats won't be necessary, because so few people can

afford the tuition now that enrolment is going down, and that there will

actually be excess capacity. How shameful is that? Enrolment is actually going

down across the college and university system. It is actually going down.

Interjection.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the swan song debates

of certain Liberal MLAs to this, but we don't make up these numbers. These came

from the colleges themselves, about enrolment going down across the system. Why?

The experts who came to present to us in the Finance Committee said it's because

people couldn't afford the tuition hikes — the doubling of it.

[1510]

This government had taken away first-year grants so students

couldn't afford that, and therefore enrolment is down. It will be shameful if

this is the first government that doesn't have to deliver on a promise to expand

access because they've harmed the system so much elsewhere that people can't

attend. But I predict that will happen.

Let's see what they spent the money on. They spent about $25

million on a failed reorganization of the Ministry of Children and Family

Development — $25 million wasted. The system is in crisis, and this government

acknowledges no responsibility whatsoever — none. Well, that's money they've

wasted, isn't it. They've spent almost $20 million on some pet project, a

technology portal project of the Premier's, that's been over budget and over

budget and over budget.

They wasted $6 million on a failed privatization scheme of the

Coquihalla Highway. Yet the Royal Inland Hospital, which is at the end of the

Coquihalla highway, is stacked up with patients, and it's in crisis. The health

care workers there say it's the worst it's ever been. But the corporations are

paying less in taxes — absolutely less in taxes. Good. That's great, but I don't

think any corporation ever expected their windfall from this government to be at

the expense of the most vulnerable.

[ Page 12385 ]

Here's what's happened while the great corporations got their big

tax break. Here's what's happened to the rest of British Columbia. Emergency

rooms closed. Entire hospitals shut down. They cut more than $50 million from

child care. Wait-lists have gone up — by their own statistics — by 31 percent

under this government. B.C. Ferries shipbuilding jobs have been shipped to

Germany. Special needs education was cut under this government. There are 2,500

fewer teachers in British Columbia. This government has laid off 300 nurses.

They've cut training and apprenticeship programs so that our skills shortage is

ever increasing. They've increased school class sizes…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. I caution you on using

unparliamentary language.

Carry on.

J. MacPhail: …in every single grade. They've created dirty

hospitals by privatizing laundry, food and hospital cleaning services. They've

cut home care for seniors, and they've even split up some couples. They

eliminated services for women in crisis.

Interjection.

J. MacPhail: It is terrible. It's the record of the Liberal

government. You are absolutely correct. Mr. Speaker, it is disgusting that this

government has broken up senior couples. It is the truth that they have done it.

It's very interesting that today is International Women's Day, and

this government is cutting services for women in crisis. But they immediately

say, just pre-election: "Oh, trust us. We're going to fund services to women

again." But they won't let their budget be scrutinized to see what that means.

They cut tens of millions of dollars out of legal aid, which directly affects

women the most. They throw a pittance back at legal aid, and they want to be

praised for it while families are still hurting.

[1515]

They cut support for families in need. They closed over 3,900

long-term care beds. They like to taunt the NDP by saying: "In your ten years

you only built 1,400." That's right. We increased the number of long-term care

beds, the total supply, by 1,400 beds. That means we replaced every single

obsolete bed with a new bed, and we added 1,400 new long-term care beds.

They have the gall to somehow claim that their record is better,

when they shut down 3,900 long-term care beds without replacing them first. Then

they've added a total net 100 beds — oh, I'm sorry; maybe it's 170 beds — when

there are tens of thousands of seniors desperate for long-term care beds. Now

hundreds of them are relegated to an acute care bed, which is not the best

health care for them, while a person who actually needs an acute care bed is

denied that health care treatment. Shame on this.

They closed 113 schools, ripping the heart out of many smaller

communities in this province. Children on buses for more than an hour each way,

five-year-olds having to ride a bus….

They doubled gambling. They've got thousands and thousands of new

slot machines. In fact, every bingo hall is now a casino. I love it when the

Solicitor General tries to stand up and say they've reduced the number of

casinos — not. In fact, every bingo hall is now a casino, with slot machines,

the most addictive kind of gambling known. Video lottery terminals — that's what

they've put in every bingo hall. They've put in that….

Interjection.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. Was the Minister of Finance somehow

objecting to me actually using notes? Is there some objection to…?

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Order.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is

objecting to the truth. It is quite unbelievable that they use millions of

dollars of taxpayer money and then object to the NDP using its own

hard-fought-for money to talk to British Columbians. Somehow the Minister of

Finance objects to that. Here I stand in the Legislature debating this matter,

and the Minister of Finance objects to it. What hypocrisy. What absolute

hypocrisy that we stand debating it in this Legislature and that he objects.

Maybe he should take the tens of millions of dollars that he used

to mislead the public about his own government's record in the most dishonest

way and give it back to the taxpayers. Because that's what they use, taxpayer

money, to try to convince the people of British Columbia that their

mean-spirited, nasty, untrustworthy record wasn't the truth.

Of course I will make the government's record known. We will do

everything as New Democrats to make the government's record known. We will stand

here and read it into the record, and we will make sure that every British

Columbian knows. I can understand why the government objects. I can understand,

because they will do anything to avoid the truth — anything.

There it is, Mr. Speaker. This government wasn't going to expand

gambling, and there's what they've done. In fact, you take away the expansion of

gambling revenues and their surplus disappears for '05-06. It disappears. That's

even after the biggest federal transfer payment ever in the history of British

Columbia.

[1520]

Oh, but they blame that on the NDP. What was there — one moment

where the federal government gave us an equalization payment of less than $20

million in our ten years? This government has had billions

[ Page 12386 ]

of dollars in equalization payments. And they blame other people? I can

hardly wait, during…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Order.

J. MacPhail: …the Committee of Supply debate on interim

supply, to walk the new Minister of Finance through his trying to blame others

for their own record in this area. There's notice of what we'll be examining

during interim supply committee: their own record in terms of balancing the

books. Federal transfer payments, gambling and a tripling of revenue from

property transfer tax, and they want to claim that they're the great economic

managers and that somehow they deserve credit? No. They deserve responsibility

for breaking election promises, plying the most vulnerable, taking money out of

their pockets and then claiming that they're the great success.

Interjection.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance wants me

to go on reading this list, and I will.

They cut environmental enforcement and protection of our air,

water and forests to such an extent that the Minister of Forests had to delay

the implementation of their great, results-based forest practices for a full

year. For a full year this government had to delay their great, grand scheme

because of the chaos on our land base and because of the cuts to the forest

service and the environmental ministry. Well, they don't even mention the word

"environment" in their….

J. Kwan: Gone.

J. MacPhail: Gone.

A full year. Was the light even shone on that? Well, there will be

a change on May 17, but if it were up to this government, they would have the

forest sector in chaos until the year 2007. Now, there's a silver lining to

that, because it turns out that their changes don't work anyway. They attack the

cattle ranchers. They put cattle ranchers at risk. There's a blessing in their

own great touting.

Let's be clear. The reason they couldn't implement their new

forest practices is because there's nobody to do it. They've decimated the

Forest Service. Who says that? Not the NDP. The professional foresters say that

— the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters. Oh, let's attack them as being

naysayers. Let's say how awful the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters

is.

Why is it that those great ads the government spent tens of

millions of tax dollars on didn't say: "Oh, sorry. We've created chaos in the

forest sector, so stay tuned. We're going to delay implementation for another

year." Gee, I didn't see that in an ad. Maybe people would feel better about the

government using their hard-earned tax dollars if the government actually told

the truth in those ads.

This government has increased raw log exports exponentially — jobs

shipped offshore by this government as routine. Just routine. "Oh, here's a raw

log export permit. Let's pass it. Let's celebrate it." They probably have a

glass of cheer around the cabinet table or….

[1525]

You know what, Mr. Speaker? I bet they don't even discuss their

orders-in-council around raw log exports at the cabinet table. I bet you it's

such a routine matter now and so frequent that they don't even pay attention to

it anymore. Yes, that's the record of this government. It's shameful.

No wonder they don't want to have their budget examined. It's no

wonder they want to get out of here as quickly as possible. It's no wonder so

many of them are desperate to try to beg their constituents to give them a

second chance. It's no wonder that the vast majority of them….

Well, the majority of them have hit the campaign trail already,

because they need to do a lot of work with their own constituents to overcome

that record I just described. You won't hear any one of the Liberal government

caucus members talking about their real record — not one of them. I find it very

interesting that this government refuses to take any responsibility for their

agenda. They stand up and bat aside anybody who challenges them. We saw that

today. It's shameful.

I also want to say that I'm sure there won't be a single Liberal

MLA get up and speak to this bill. In fact, I can pretty much guarantee it. If

they do, I laud them. I welcome that debate.

We will make our points — all three of us in the New Democrat

opposition — and then we will let this government get on with their shameful

agenda. One of those Liberal caucus members dare not say that we didn't do our

job. We have done our job each and every day in here. We have tried to hold this

government to account, and they get ever more secretive. They run and hide ever

more frequently, but we will stay here. We will do our job, and we will be the

only ones to hold this government to account, because the Liberal caucus members

surely won't.

B. Lekstrom: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

B. Lekstrom: Joining us in the gallery of the Legislature

today are the Junior Canadian Rangers. We have 31 Junior Rangers with us. We

have seven adult rangers, five members of the Canadian Forces. They come from

all over British Columbia as well as, I believe, Churchill, Manitoba. They are

down training at Albert Head in firearms training, navigation, rappelling,

general training and first aid. Would the House please join me in welcoming them

to the Legislature.

[ Page 12387 ]

Debate Continued

J. Kwan: I rise to debate Bill 20 in second reading, the

Supply Act (No. 1), 2005.

As my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings had outlined, the reality

is that this government wants to run from accountability in this Legislature.

They do not want a light to be shone on their budget that they introduced and

that they claim they're very proud of. They claim they have restored the cuts

and programs that they have made in the last four years and that British

Columbians had to suffer through in the last four years. They claim everything

is much better now and that the promises they make in this budget and will

campaign on…. Somehow we should just trust them that somehow they'll make good

on what they say they will do.

[1530]

Well, we know. We know the track record of this Liberal government

and this Premier over the last four years. They made all sorts of promises in

2001. The most notable promise was that they would not actually cut programs for

British Columbians in order to facilitate tax cuts for big corporations.

Lo and behold, shortly after the election — in fact, day one after

the election — what does the government do? They cut programs. They cut programs

to the magnitude of which British Columbians have not seen before. Even with the

Social Credit government, in their restraint days, they have not seen such cuts.

That's what this government did after the election.

I just want to highlight a couple of areas at this time. In

question period today the opposition raised the issues that three respected

children and family advocates had written in a letter to the Premier as far back

as June 2004, asking to meet and to discuss their concerns about what the

government has done in the area of protecting children and families, the lack of

accountability and the impacts of the government's action.

You know what happened, Mr. Speaker? The Premier's office, the

Premier…. In fact, nobody in government responded to that letter. That was a

letter written back in June of 2004. After question period I heard the

Government House Leader, the Minister of Finance, just outside the hallways

speaking to the media. He said: "Oh, but the letter was hand-delivered to the

Premier's office. So it never went into the proper process of processing

letters." So they never got the letter.

Well, isn't that interesting? You would think, first of all, that

when someone delivers a letter — hand-delivered to you — that it is actually

delivered and received. That's what couriers do. That's what the mail service

does. They make sure that a piece of mail that someone wants reassurance is

delivered is actually hand-delivered to you. The advocates made sure of that,

and the government goes: "Oops, we never got it, so don't blame us."

You know what?

L. Mayencourt: Maybe they didn't send it.

J. Kwan: That doesn't even count or wash. You know why?

The MLA for Vancouver-Burrard claims they never even sent it.

L. Mayencourt: No, I said maybe they didn't send it.

J. Kwan: How outrageous. You know what? I think the

advocates knew exactly where this government was going with that, because you

know what they did afterwards? They actually followed up with three phone calls,

and there was no response from this government to their phone calls.

You can claim that somehow the letter never arrived. Well, what

about those telephone calls? Did nobody answer the phone? Was that the problem?

Maybe that's what the government's going to claim. Maybe the Vancouver-Burrard

MLA is going to claim that as well. Well, that's been their motto to date:

"Don't blame me. Don't hold us to account. We did everything perfectly. We're

just wonderful. We might lie about all sorts of things."

Deputy Speaker: Member, I want to caution you about the use

of unparliamentary language.

J. Kwan: "We might pretend that we're going to do all sorts

of things."

In reality it is completely just a pretence, and people know that.

British Columbians know that.

Let me just put this letter on record now, because these are the

questions that ought to be put to the minister in a line-by-line,

ministry-by-ministry debate with respect to the spending.

The government wants the authority, under Bill 20, to spend over

$13 billion in operating and $10 billion in capital without any scrutiny.

There's accountability for you. But I have questions, and so, too, does the

public.

[1535]

Let me put this letter on record. It's addressed to the Premier,

and it's dated June 16, 2004.

"We are writing to you as a group of concerned citizens

who believe that our past experiences involved with the protection of children

may offer some useful perspectives for your government. We include the former

child and family advocate, the previous ombudsman and the two prior children's

commissioners. It is with your government's commitment to openness and

transparency in decision-making in mind that we write to you personally.

"At this juncture during the first term

of your government, we're unclear as to what meaningful avenues

are available to children and their representatives when there are issues

affecting the health and safety of that child or a group of children and

youth. Our principal question is: where do these children and their

representatives go when they have concerns about the quality of care or access

to services being afforded or denied? Further, how is the public informed

about the resolution of

[ Page 12388 ]

the most difficult of these cases as well as the

overall performance of the child protection system?

"It has become known that the preferred

course of the Premier's office is to rely on internal quality

assurance mechanisms in the Ministry of Children and Family Development. This

is certainly in keeping with an ideal way for the administration of government

to proceed: for a ministry to take responsibility for its own processes with a

view to quality outcomes for children and their families. That being agreed to

as a starting point, it is, however, not the end of the discussion as to what

model needs to be in place to protect the most vulnerable in our society.

"These questions have become a concern to

us and many others, due in part to two recent cases: the twins

in the lower mainland who were known to the ministry and were critically

injured; and the young girl Kayla, whose unfortunate death was preceded by

inquiries to the ministry. We do not intend to speak about the details of

these particular cases, as it would be — as the minister recently pointed out

in the House — untimely, and we are no longer in positions to know the details

of what exactly transpired.

"What is of paramount importance is that

despite the public attention given to these cases, we have no

answer to the question: how will these matters be independently and adequately

investigated and reported? While the police may be involved, short of that,

who will review the performance by the ministry officials and report the

results in a manner that will bolster the public's confidence that the system

examines and addresses such concerns fully and transparently?

"While there were offices dedicated to

children in recent years, the scenario would have involved clear

delineations between those various offices: the Children's Commission to

inquire into the cause of the death or critical injury; the child advocate to

provide support and assistance to enable children and youth to speak and be

heard; and the ombudsman to ensure that fair procedures were in place with the

government agency, the subject of complaint or concern, and to oversee the

practices of the Children's Commission, an agency attached to the Attorney

General.

"Under your government, the commission

and the advocate offices were removed and replaced, ostensibly

with the child and youth officer. The ombudsman's office no longer has a team

dedicated to child and youth issues, purportedly due to significant cutbacks.

While the existing child and youth officer — a title that is unfortunate, as

it implies a stand-alone position like the auditor general, ombudsman and

privacy commissioner, all officers of the Legislature — is attached to the

Attorney General, as was the children's commissioner, it is constituted in

quite a different manner and has a significantly different governing statute.

"The office has absolutely no independent

investigative powers based on complaints received or on its own

initiative. The incumbent has made it known publicly that she will not

investigate, save and except on the request of the Attorney General, in

keeping with the terms of her statute. To date, to our knowledge, no such

reference has been initiated.

"It is inconceivable and unrealistic that

the Attorney General has, in his busy schedule, time to remain

sensitive to all the matters of concern in another ministry, despite the

efforts by the child and youth officer to keep him up to date. In any case,

the way in which this officer has been constituted has left members of the

public unable to contribute to quality outcomes for children and youth, with

no place to make their concerns known. We are not suggesting a return to the

previous model, but wish to discuss ways in which to enhance the status quo.

[1540]

"This, in our opinion, has an unfortunate result for you.

It leaves people with the impression that you do not give credence to the

concerns, often forcing them to politicize matters that should more properly

be the subject of legitimate complaints about the administration of

government, not the executive.

"It also looks like children do not

matter to this government — a message inconsistent with what was

on your home page — and that you are avoiding responsibility by refusing to be

held to account through independent offices.

"These same questions have arisen

regarding the budget-setting process and ensuring protection of

children. Put simply: how will government report publicly on maintaining, if

not enhancing, the health and safety of children, while the budget is reduced

for services to children and families?

"We have examined the service outcomes

for the ministry and are unable to see transparent measures that

address these matters. This is inconsistent with the commitment that you have

made publicly to hold all ministries to account for quality outcomes."

The letter goes on at length. The general gist of it is to

say that these respected child and family advocates want to work with the

government to ensure that there is accountability, that there is an avenue for

families and children who are in need of protection to review matters, and that

on the budgeting process, there is accountability to ensure the financing — the

funding — is actually in place to address these concerns. The government,

however, refused to meet. They ignored the concerns raised by these three

advocates, and they carried on as though everything was just fine.

We heard today, in question period, the government's response. I

ask you this, Mr. Speaker: who do you trust? Do you trust this government, these

Liberal MLAs and this Premier who have proven their track record in broken

promises in the last four years? Or do you believe the words of three respected

children and family advocates and the recommendations and reports which they

wrote when they held their independent roles in office and which this Premier,

who was then in opposition, and some members of the Liberal back benches — MLAs

and cabinet ministers — wholeheartedly supported?

They supported those recommendations when these three independent

officers were in place and forwarded reports. But now, is the government

suggesting that what these advocates are saying is not valid, that they're not

somehow valid concerns?

I put this to you, Mr. Speaker. Who would you trust — a Premier

and a government that has broken its promise on B.C. Rail? He said that he

wouldn't sell B.C. Rail and then turned around and sold B.C. Rail with a

990-year lease. Would you trust this government and this Premier, who said that

he would freeze tuition fees and then turned around…? We saw tuition fees

increase by more than 100 percent in post-secondary

[ Page 12389 ]

education systems. Would you trust this government that said they would not

rip up contracts and actually, after the election, went about ripping up all

sorts of contracts?

[1545]

Would you believe this Premier and this government, who said they

would actually honour the words of an arbitrator in arbitrated decisions —

whether it be with the doctors or the Crown prosecutors? As soon as the

arbitrators forwarded their report and it was not in keeping with what the

government wanted to see, they turned around and wielded the legislative hammer,

brought forward legislation and shattered the arbitrator's decisions,

recommendations and reports, and arbitrated decisions for these sectors. Would

you trust that government and that Premier, who went about doing exactly the

opposite of what they said they would do?

Would you trust a Premier and a government that said they would

protect the most vulnerable people and then went about closing down some 4,000

long-term care beds, leaving seniors out in the cold, separating seniors who had

been together all their lives, moving them out in the communities where they

have very few, if any, friends and relatives around them — a government that

promised they would build 5,000 new long-term care beds and delivered only 174

to date, a government that says it will deliver 5,000 new long-term care beds by

2008? When you look at the budget, there are actually not the dollars to provide

for it. Would you trust this government based on their track record to date?

What about the children? I spoke on protection of children. What

about the children who needed hot meal programs? What did this government do?

They went and cut the funding for school boards. They reduced the

dollars, and then they said: "Oh, but you know, we don't have enough money, and

there are so many children who are hungry, so we have to spend the dollars all

across British Columbia. Sorry, Vancouver children. We have to take away some of

that money so that we can give it to other children."

Were it not for the community that stood up and challenged this

government…. They actually put a little bit of the money back — not the full

amount, only a tiny bit of it back. The Vancouver school board had to actually

make do by cutting other programs in spite of increased costs for the education

system.

Interjection.

J. Kwan: Would you trust them if you were a parent who

actually faced what this government has done to our education system? I hear the

member for Vancouver-Kingsway heckling me. Well, I just received correspondence.

Get this. This is an MLA who writes to a constituent and tells the constituent

to get a life. Why? Because the constituent disputes what he has to say around

the electoral reform system. This is what this member says and how he treats his

constituents — the member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I have the e-mail downstairs,

which says that.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Order.

J. Kwan: This is how the MLA treats the constituents. Would

you trust them to represent you in this House?

Then today — oh, my goodness — the Liberal MLAs all of a sudden

found new voices. We had a whole bunch of backbench MLAs all of a sudden getting

up to move private members' bills. Funny how that is — that they all lost their

voices for four years before today, and there are only three days left before

this government is going to shut down the House. All of a sudden those poor MLAs

who have been sitting around for four years found their voices.

Except this, Mr. Speaker. The government has made it clear that

nothing these backbench MLAs introduce today will even be debated or be

considered by government. What a waste of time and waste of breath. You'd think

that for the last four years they might have actually responded to their

constituents' concerns, but no — not so. They waited until three days before the

House is forced to adjourn. Then all of a sudden they decide they'd better get

up there and say something now so that they can say they did say something in

the last four years in the Legislature. Isn't that the real motivation behind

why some of these Liberal MLAs all of a sudden started to speak?

Interjection.

J. Kwan: It is fascinating to note….

[1550]

Interjection.

J. Kwan: You know, I hear the member for Vancouver-Burrard

heckling me. He goes: "Well, I didn't hear you put forward any bills."

But you know what, Mr. Speaker? Let me tell you this. Every single

day in this Legislature for the last four years, save and except four weeks

after I had my daughter….

Interjection.

J. Kwan: Save and except four weeks when I was away from

this Legislature…. Beyond that, I was in here every single day holding this

government to account. I held the government to account on their bills, on their

legislation, on their budgets, to the point where….

The member for Vancouver-Burrard was asked by his constituents to

raise issues — around the tenancy rights issue, around the welfare changes — and

he did nothing. He did nothing.

Interjection.

J. Kwan: Get this. Then the member for Vancouver-Burrard

said: "Oh, gee. I didn't think I was supposed to

[ Page 12390 ]

ask anything, because the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has asked all

the things that I wanted to ask."

With the exception of this: when it came down to vote when

amendments were put forward to amend various bills, which I and my colleague

from Vancouver-Hastings put forward and which this government voted against,

including the member for Vancouver-Burrard…. Where was he if he said that I

actually raised all the issues that he wanted to raise? He voted against every

one of those amendments.

The record is there. Thank goodness for Hansard, for the good work

that they do, because every single word that's spoken in this House is actually

recorded. They can't hide from that record. At least on that basis, they cannot

hide.

What this government is now doing is that they will run and they

will hide. That explains why the Minister of Finance had running shoes on budget

day — so that he can run as fast as he can and go hide from the public so that a

light could not be shone on the budget. That's why we have the interim supply

bill before us — because the government does not want a light shone on their

budget. That is the real reason why this is happening.

What accountability? What transparency? This government does not

even know the meaning of those words. When the public tried to hold them to

account over the last four years, here's what they've done. In every single

instance they say: "Don't blame us. Blame someone else. It wasn't me. They made

the decision. Other people made the decision. We didn't do it." That's been

their consistent record.

[H. Long in the chair.]

Well, this government wants to go and have taxpayers pay for their

pre-election campaign work. That's what's happening. All the Liberal MLAs, after

Thursday, will run out there and start campaigning and making promises all over

again. They will try to get British Columbians to forget about their record. But

you know what? British Columbians are not stupid. They will know the difference

of what this government has done, and they will remember what this government

has done.

Let me just highlight another area for you. Today is International

Women's Day. We celebrated earlier the memory of Rosemary Brown and many other

women who worked very hard to establish the record and to move us forward. But

what has this government done in the last four years to move the women's agenda

forward?

Well, let's just take a quick review. It has been well documented

and supported by experts like Dr. Clyde Hertzman that we need to have

good-quality day care. In spite of that, what has the government done? They

cancelled universal day care, one of their top cancellation of programs.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order, member. The member has the floor.

[1555]

J. Kwan: They cut day care. They cancelled the universal

program. Then they cut subsidies in the area of day care. Then the federal

dollars that came and were earmarked for day care…. They didn't put it into day

care. It went everywhere else but to day care. That's their track record. Go and

ask the advocates, the experts in the field, what they say about this

government's record around day care. It isn't just me who is saying this.

Everyone who knows the truth is saying this.

We all know that by and large, the responsibility for children

still falls mainly on women. We know that. We're trying to work towards change,

but the society is still such that the responsibility is still primarily on the

shoulders of women. Has the government done anything to help them to advance

that agenda? They have done anything but advance the agenda.

Well, let's think a little bit about the most vulnerable people.

This government said that they were going to protect the most vulnerable people.

Let's see what they have done. Massive reductions and reduced eligibility for

people on income assistance, creating some of the greatest hardships for people

who are in greatest need.

Just so members in this House know, one-third of B.C.'s income

assistance recipients are single-parent families, 88 percent of which are headed

by women. That's the legacy of this government. Welfare benefits constitute

between 32 and 49 percent of Statistics Canada's low-income cutoff in large

cities. Single mothers can no longer keep the $100 child support under this

government's policy and direction, taking money that's actually directed for

children living in poverty. That's the government's track record.

Earning exemptions have disappeared for single parents. Mothers

are employable when the youngest child reaches the age of three. Welfare

recipients no longer attend universities or colleges, and those deemed

employable can only receive time-limited assistance for two out of five years.

Those are the policies that this government brought in, which the member for

Vancouver-Burrard voted for. In fact, every single Liberal voted for those

policy decisions and the legislation that was brought in by this government.

We brought forward amendments. We challenged the government on

this. We told the government to table that piece of legislation, and they did

none of that. That's how they have advanced women.

Now we just have — February 9, 2005 — the Minister for Women's

Services saying that she doesn't support universal child care. This is on

February 9, 2005, in the Invermere Valley Echo from the Minister of State

for Women's Services, who is actually on record to say that she does not support

universal child care. This is how a government works to support children and

women.

Let me just close with a few other remarks. What about the

children in the community living sector, the

[ Page 12391 ]

people with developmental disabilities, children with autism? None of them

got the support that they deserve from this government, and this is the record

that we will be voting on, on May 17. If the government has any guts, they would

allow for line-by-line debate so that they can be held to account, as they

pretend they want to be.

J. Brar: It is with great frustration that I stand here to

debate Bill 20. First of all, I feel compelled to repeat what my colleagues

before me have stated — that it's shameful for this government to shrug off its

responsibility to British Columbians and close down this House six weeks early.

[1600]

It was this government that brought in the fixed sittings of the

House, and now this government is abusing its power to ensure that its MLAs get

a head start on the election campaign. What a great job this government is

doing.

Each and every one of us in this House has a responsibility to our

constituents, to the people of British Columbia, to represent them and ensure

that their needs are being met and their hard-earned tax dollars are being well

spent. That's what I intended to do when I came here as the new MLA for

Surrey–Panorama Ridge. That's what I believe my constituents in Surrey–Panorama

Ridge elected me to do. Now this government is stopping me from doing my job.

Immediately after the by-election the Premier of this province

promised that as a new MLA, I would have the benefit of the fall sitting of the

House. I ran in the by-election with the determination to do right by my

constituents. When I came here as a new MLA, I came with a lot of ideas, a lot

of energy, a lot of heart and a lot of expectations from the people of

Surrey–Panorama Ridge.

First of all, the by-election was delayed for four months.

Therefore, there was no MLA in Surrey–Panorama Ridge to stand up for the people

of Surrey–Panorama Ridge. Then the by-election, which I won, finally took place

on October 28. The people of Surrey–Panorama Ridge elected me, put their faith

in me and sent me here to stand up for them and speak on behalf of them. That is

my job. That was the goal with which I came here in the last session of this

government.

Let me tell you that this government has done everything possible

from the very first day to silence my voice since I came. On the very second

day, the timing of question period was changed, which of course limited my

ability to ask questions. But that did not stop me from asking questions on

behalf of my people in Surrey–Panorama Ridge. When I stand up every day to ask

questions, and I see that 15 to 20 members are heckling to again limit my

ability to ask questions…. But that did not stop me. I still continue asking

hard questions on behalf of the people of Surrey–Panorama Ridge.

On the very first day, I asked the question about Surrey Memorial

Hospital and the crisis we have in the emergency room. I continued asking that

question for almost seven days without getting any straight answers from the

minister. But that did not stop me from doing my job. I will continue standing

up here and asking questions on behalf of the people of Surrey–Panorama Ridge.

[1605]

The other thing I want to say…. As a new MLA, my understanding

about this House was that this is the highest institution in the province to

protect democracy, provide leadership on the issues of democracy, provide a role

model for our new generation and debate the very important issues to the people

of British Columbia. But this government is telling us, and telling me as the

new MLA, that I cannot even debate the budget ministry by ministry, line by

line. Now I stand up here to speak for the interim supply act, Bill 20, and it

is shocking to me as a new MLA that the government is trying to get approval for

six long months out of 12 months.

The tradition of interim supply bills, as I know, has usually been

up to three months. But this is a strange situation we face in British Columbia.

The government is asking for a six-month interim supply bill. My question is: in

that situation, why do we even need to debate the budget for a full year? I

don't see any logical connection between the two.

That's what this Liberal government is doing. I assume they're not

prepared to debate the budget because there are a lot of questions and a lot of

things they're probably trying to hide from the people of British Columbia,

because it is too close to the election. But the people of British Columbia

cannot be fooled again. When we go to the election on May 17, the people of

British Columbia will send a very clear message to Victoria and to the Liberal

government.

Let me tell you why I ran in the by-election. One of the major

factors was that this government made tons of promises in the New Era

document when they went into election in 2001, stating to the people of British

Columbia that they will do all those beautiful promises in these four years.

What we saw, in fact, was promises broken one after the other.

Just to say a few, the New Era document says that we will

provide the best education so that no child is left behind. But in fact, what

happened in this province? One hundred and fourteen schools have been closed.

Libraries have been closed. In one school in my riding, Princess Margaret

School, funding cuts to the special needs kids and ESL kids have been done. In

2001 there were 17 teachers teaching ESL and special needs kids in Princess

Margaret School, which falls in the Surrey–Panorama riding. Now there are only

seven.

[1610]

The tuition fees in post-secondary education have gone up 300

percent in some cases. That limits the ability of ordinary families to send

their children to universities and colleges so that they can achieve their

dreams. There are many families I know…. There are many parents of young

students who have to change their whole plan for their career, because they can

certainly not afford the fees which we have in this province. The grant program,

which was put in place to

[ Page 12392 ]

ensure that the kids of ordinary families and low-income families get the

same opportunity to realize their potential as anybody else, was taken away by

this government.

Health care is the same story. This government promised, very

clearly, health care when you need it, where you need it. In fact, the

government did exactly the opposite. They closed hospitals, they privatized

health care services, and they cut funding to the health care system. The story

of Surrey Memorial is a living example. This government has confirmed that by

taking some actions after we put a lot of pressure on the government.

B.C. Rail. There was a promise that they would not sell B.C. Rail,

but in fact, they did the opposite. They sold B.C. Rail. They also promised not

to expand gambling, but in fact, they did the opposite. They expanded gambling

as well.

If you look at the list of promises made in 2001, I have lots of

questions, and my people in Surrey–Panorama Ridge have lots of questions on the

budget as well. What I hear from this government is that we cannot ask those

questions, when it was high on the agenda that this government would provide the

most open, transparent and accountable government. I see none of that in

shutting down the House and in not debating the budget and giving us the

opportunity to ask questions of the government.

The end result of this is that the people of British Columbia are

paying the price. For example, in Surrey Memorial Hospital, in the Fraser health

region, 800 long-term care beds were cut. The capital budget shortfall this year

is $50 million, which is going to go up to $150 million by next year. The

response of this government to the tremendous pressure put by the opposition on

the situation of the emergency room in Surrey Memorial was to fire CEO Bob Smith

as a scapegoat. That was the response; that was the action this government took.

That is nothing more than a quick political fix, to expand the ER in Surrey

Memorial Hospital after the great embarrassment this government has been

through.

[1615]

Well, let me tell you, the crisis in health care is not isolated

to Surrey alone. Everywhere I go, I see people with lots of questions, with lots

of concerns. I went to Port Alice, for example — a very small town in this

province, just 900 people in the community. One of the things I heard in the

community hall meeting from a young mother was that her son was the last child

to be born in the hospital and that after that the hospital was closed.

If you go and talk to people in Penticton, it's the same story.

Talk to people in Kamloops — the same story. Just a few days ago we heard a

story that the staff had to wait almost 12 hours with a patient in the corridor

because there was no bed — same as Victoria. There's a big capital shortfall and

no money for the expansion of the emergency room.

That is not the story of a few cities; that is the story of the

whole province. It becomes worse when we go to smaller communities. In this

country, it is almost shocking to believe that you have to travel for three

hours with your kid just to get a prescription from a doctor. That's not what I

thought about Canada when I made my decision to move to this country. That's not

what many people think about Canada when they come to this country — that this

is what we get in hospitals.

Can we believe that a young mother with a two-year-old child who

has some problems, who is constantly crying for six hours without being seen by

a doctor…? That's what is happening in hospitals in British Columbia. This

Liberal government has done nothing to fix the problem. The wait-list has gone

up 32 percent, 34 percent in many cases. In many cases, particularly when we

talk about seniors, their knee replacements, it has gone up 80 percent.

Yet we hear from the Liberal government that they have put in more

money. Is that the response you do to fix the problem? I think the government

has been too much obsessed with their extreme agenda and not looking into the

real problems people of this province are facing: health care and education.

They didn't spend even a single second to think and fix the problem in this

province.

I came here with many, many questions. I'm totally frustrated to

hear from the government that they are not prepared to answer the questions. It

is shocking to me that from a new MLA…. I don't know why the government is

scared that he can stand and ask questions. If they cannot answer my questions,

how can they answer questions from the people of British Columbia? What are they

hiding in the budget? Why are they not telling the true story to the people of

British Columbia?

I was also surprised to hear that the Minister of Finance is

saying: "We may change the budget when we come back." How can we trust the

interim supply act, Bill 20? How can we give approval to this without debating

all those things and asking questions and getting the right answers?

[1620]

I think the people of my riding will probably accept my answer: I

don't think that it's responsible on my part to approve something without

debating in this House, without asking the questions so that the hard-earned tax

dollars of my constituents are well spent in this province and so that they get

the services they need. I'm sure British Columbians have a lot of questions as

well, but this government has made it very clear from the very first day that

they're not prepared to answer any questions.

I think the Liberal government has defined democracy in a

different way. I cannot find in any possible directory the definition of

democracy which I see here from the Liberal government. Democracy has been

shrinking from the day this government took over.

Finally, what we have seen is that they have almost put a lid on

it by saying that they're not prepared to debate the budget. All these questions

cannot be answered without having full debate ministry by minis-

[ Page 12393 ]

try, line by line. I must say this: I will go back with more questions in my

mind about this government than when I came here. I must say this: I will go

back and try my best to tell the true story of what's happening in Victoria to

the people of my city, the people of my riding and the people of British

Columbia, so that when they go to polls on May 17, the people send a very strong

message to Victoria and to the Liberal government.

R. Sultan: The opposition has made the point over and over

again that there has been insufficient debate on the provisions of this budget

and interim supply, of which Bill 20 is an integral part. I would suggest to the

House that perhaps parts of this budget are not debatable, even by our friends

on the Left. I refer in particular to the tax cuts for the poor, and I would

just like to review once again what this budget accomplishes in that regard.

In the budget, almost three-quarters of a million British

Columbians — about a third of the entire workforce in B.C. — will either pay no

provincial income taxes at all or will see their British Columbia income taxes

reduced. More specifically, about 330,000 people earning up to $16,000 a year

will pay no tax at all, and another 400,000 earning up to $26,000 will have

their taxes cut. Add on reduced MSP premiums for a big chunk of the population,

and it adds up to a big tax break for the poor. It has been skewed towards the

lower incomes. I doubt if our friends on the Left would object to that.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order, member.

R. Sultan: If the magnitude of the tax breaks for the poor

in this budget is difficult to grasp, it's convenient to compare the tax cuts of

this government as proposed in the budget to those contained in the recent

federal budget. Let me just review those again.

The federal budget, on the matter of taxes paid by lower-income

people, raised the basic exemption to $10,000 by 2009 — eliminating taxes for

860,000 low-income people by 2009. By comparison, this government eliminated

provincial income taxes for 330,000 people, as I've just said.

[1625]

If the feds had followed the B.C. model, they wouldn't have

eliminated taxes for 860,000 people; they would have eliminated taxes for 2.4

million people. They're moving in the right direction, but they've got a long

way to go to catch up. They're only one-third of the way there, according to my

calculations.

Let's look at the dollars. The federal government's changes

amounted to $387 million in savings across Canada this year. The B.C.

government's budget provides $480 million in relief in British Columbia alone.

If the federal government had carried out our fiscal plan, we would have seen

the federal budget with $3.6 billion of tax relief this year, instead of $387

million actually delivered. I think they're about 11 percent of the way there,

according to British Columbia standards.

Taxes are, of course, important to fund necessary social programs,

and we really cannot do without them and operate government. What is

particularly difficult to understand is that anybody would object to tax cuts

for the very segment of society that many of these programs are targeted to

serve.

What do taxes do to the low-income poor, and why would our friends

opposite vote against those tax cuts for low-income people, as they have done?

Why would they vote against removing low-income people from the tax rolls

entirely, as they have done?

Here's what high taxes do for people on low income. They give a

double whammy to the welfare trap: lose your income assistance, and pay taxes on

what little you earn. That is not good social policy. Why would the opposition

favour doing that?

Disproportionately, taxes are more important to the poor than the

rich. The bite is heavier because, of course, they have a lower margin to live

on in the first place. Why would anybody vote against tax cuts for the poor?

Finally, taxes raised on the backs of low-income people really

produce meagre income for the government. If one looks at social policy in the

whole, the pain of discomfort they inflict on the payer is far in excess of the

revenue benefit to government. Why would the party opposite vote in favour of

that? I ask the question.

This vote taken is not really in the tradition of the great names

of their party. I'm wondering how voting against tax cuts for the poor would sit

with Tommy Douglas. I wonder how voting against tax cuts for the poor would sit

with Stephen Lewis, if he were present in this House. I wonder what Ed Broadbent

would say about voting against tax cuts for the poor. For that matter, I wonder

what Mike Harcourt would say about voting against tax cuts for the poor. I don't

think they'd be too pleased with that approach.

I find it surprising and astonishing; in fact, I would even say it

is shocking. I would say the budget, when it provides massive tax cuts for the

poor, is one that deserves all of our credit and praise.

Hon. G. Bruce: I move second reading of Bill 20.

[1630-1635]

Second reading of Bill 20

approved on the following division:

YEAS — 36

Falcon

Coell

Wong

Chong

Hawkins

Bell

van Dongen

Barisoff

Roddick

Wilson

Bray

Cobb

Murray

Bond

Bruce

Brice

Abbott

Anderson

Jarvis

Orr

Nebbeling

Chutter

Mayencourt

Krueger

J. Reid

Stephens

Masi

[ Page 12394 ]

Bhullar

Lekstrom

MacKay

K. Stewart

Suffredine

Whittred

Sultan

Hawes

Kerr

NAYS — 4

Kwan

MacPhail

Brar

Nettleton

Hon. G. Bruce: I move that the bill be referred to a

committee to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 20, Supply Act (No. 1), 2005, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Hon. G. Bruce moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: The House will stand adjourned until 2 p.m.

tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 4:38 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on

the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the

Internet.

channel guide • Broadcast

schedule

Copyright ©

2005: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN: 1499-2175