2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 14, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Burt Campbell

K. Conroy

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Harry Pierre

C. James

Childhood fitness initiative in Mission

R. Hawes

Flaunt your Frenchness week in

Maillardville

D. Thorne

Preparations for 2010 Olympic Games

J. McIntyre

Lampson Street School

M. Karagianis

Harry Pierre

J. Rustad

Oral Questions

Budget provisions for health care

funding

B. Ralston

Hon. C. Taylor

Government action on surgery

cancellations

C. James

Hon. G. Abbott

Health Minister office budget

A. Dix

Hon. G. Abbott

Availability of acute care beds at

Royal Columbian Hospital

M. Sather

Hon. G. Abbott

C. Puchmayr

Internet gaming

G. Gentner

Hon. J. Les

Innovative clean energy fund

J. Horgan

Hon. C. Taylor

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, report No. 10, Follow-up of 2004/2005 Report 2: In Sickness and in Health: Healthy Work-places for British Columbia's Health Care Workers

Petitions

C. Wyse

Tabling Documents

Property Assessment Appeal Board,

annual report, 2005

Petitions

N. Macdonald

N. Simons

Budget Debate (continued)

B. Ralston

Hon. I. Chong

S. Fraser

Hon. M. Coell

R. Austin

[ Page 5427 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2007

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Bond: I am delighted today, on behalf of the

Premier, to welcome to the precinct 12 visitors from Westside Christian School

in the Premier's riding of Vancouver–Point Grey. These are students from grades

7 to 9. They are travelling with some parents and their teacher Ms. Johnson.

The group is here today because they want to experience the

history of the building, learn more about the business of government and

parliamentary tradition, and take pictures and notes, which they will share with

their family and friends when they return home. I know that you will want to

join me in making this terrific group of students and the accompanying adults

very welcome to the precinct today.

H. Bains: Visiting us in the gallery today is Mr. Gobind

Thukral, a renowned journalist who has written for all the national newspapers

in India, such as the Indian Express , India Today , the

Hindustan Times and the Tribune . Joining with him is my good friend

Beant Singh from Delta. Will the House please join me and give them a warm

welcome.

[1405]

Hon. J. Les: I have the pleasure this afternoon to

introduce to the House Master Cpl. Steve Vukic, who has recently returned to

Canada from his second tour of duty in Afghanistan. Master Corporal Vukic is

with the 1st Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment. He's based in Petawawa,

Ontario.

He and I had an opportunity earlier this morning to talk about his

experiences in Afghanistan and the contribution that the Canadian troops are

making in re-establishing order and stability to the people of Afghanistan. I

would ask the members of the House to please make Steve very welcome.

D. Thorne: It's my pleasure today to introduce my good

friend Barb Stegemann, who is sitting in the gallery. Barb is the tourism

manager of the city of Coquitlam. She's here for the tourism conference that's

in Victoria this week.

Barb has been an outstanding manager of tourism for Coquitlam. She

has almost single-handedly put Coquitlam and Maillardville on the map. She is

the creator of the Flaunt your Frenchness campaign. She's won two national

awards for the city. It's unfortunate that the week after next she's moving back

to her home in Nova Scotia, and our loss is Nova Scotia's gain. I'd ask us all

to say hello and goodbye to Barb.

B. Lekstrom: It's always a pleasure to stand in this House

to introduce a friend and a guest of mine from the Peace country. Joining us

today from the district of Chetwynd is the chief administrative officer, Mr.

Mike Redfearn. Will the House please join me in making him very welcome.

S. Simpson: I'm very pleased today to be able to introduce

Kim Manton. Kim is here from CUPE, and she's coordinating their public sewage

treatment campaign in the capital regional district. Kim and CUPE will be

handing out free cookies promoting the public sewage treatment at a forum at

Victoria city hall tonight. Please make her welcome.

Hon. K. Krueger: It's a privilege for me to introduce three

people to the House today. The executive director of our Kamloops Chamber of

Commerce, Deb McClelland, is here at the tourism conference and is in the

gallery today.

Also, I know that every one of us in this House prizes our

constituency assistant tremendously. My constituency assistant is no stranger to

you, Mr. Speaker, because she trained you before she trained me. She's here with

her husband today — June and Ern Phillips. Would the House please give them all

a warm welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: I'd like to welcome Lonie Belsey to this

place today. She is here for the tourism conference as well. She is the wife of

our former MLA for Prince Rupert, the hon. Bill Belsey.

Hon. I. Chong: Today I'd like to welcome to the House two

ladies who are no strangers to all of us as MLAs. They are the president of the

Union of B.C. Municipalities and a councillor from the city of Castlegar, Brenda

Binnie, who we all met last year at UBCM, as well as the assistant executive

director of UBCM, Marie Crawford. I would ask the House to make them both very

welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon: Joining us in the House today is a

representative — in fact, the director of public affairs — for Canadian Pacific

Railway. I would like to welcome and have my colleagues welcome Brian Humphreys,

who's joining us here today.

Hon. C. Richmond: It's indeed a pleasure for me to welcome

a longtime friend and supporter and an excellent day care operator from the city

of Kamloops, down to meet with me and the minister, Deborah Frolek. Would the

House please make her welcome.

[1410]

Tributes

BURT CAMPBELL

K. Conroy: I wanted to take this opportunity to let the

House know that last week a former member of the Legislative Assembly, Burton

Peter Campbell, passed

[ Page 5428 ]

away. Burt, as he was known by everyone, was a Social Credit MLA for the then

constituency of Revelstoke-Slocan from 1969 to 1972.

Burt spent most of his life in Castlegar as the son of the first

publisher of the Castlegar News and then as the publisher himself. He and

his wife Judy raised three children: Graham, Jennifer and Lorene.

He was incredibly active in many ways, including being a board

member for Selkirk College, a director of the community chest and a longtime

Kiwanis member. Burt will be remembered for his quick wit and his strong

commitment to the community. He will be missed.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) HARRY PIERRE

C. James: I rise today to mark the sudden passing of a

courageous British Columbian and a respected Dakelh elder statesman, Chief Harry

Pierre. Chief Pierre died yesterday in Prince George. Over a long career of

service to his community, Chief Pierre made an enormous contribution to British

Columbia and played a significant role at key junctures in the history of first

nations.

As a prominent tribal chief and a founding member of the Union of

B.C. Indian Chiefs and Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council, Harry Pierre was a

tireless advocate for justice and progress for first nations people.

I had the privilege and opportunity to work with Chief Pierre when

I lived in Prince George and worked for Carrier-Sekani Family Services. I

benefited enormously from his wisdom and his insight. I saw up close the impact

he had on his community, particularly on the lives of young people to whom he

passed on vital cultural and linguistic knowledge that will last for

generations.

Chief Harry Pierre leaves a large family behind — his wife

Genevieve, their seven children, nine grandchildren and one great-grandchild —

but he leaves even a larger legacy to our entire province.

CHILDHOOD FITNESS INITIATIVE

IN MISSION

R. Hawes: I'm taking it off for the kids. That, of course,

refers to weight. We all know that childhood obesity is reaching epidemic

proportion, and generally in North America we're getting fatter. This will have

profound consequences on our health system. In fact, unless we act now, the next

generation may be the first to have a shorter life expectancy than their

parents.

The Mission Cedar Valley Lions Club, led by Mr. Ken Selvaraja of

Lanka Jewels, are doing something about that. They've spearheaded a campaign

called Taking It Off for the Kids, and they're taking pledges whereby the local

MP, MLA — myself — and the Mission mayor are out taking pledges for each pound

we lose in a weight-loss challenge.

The money raised goes to sponsor kids from financially challenged

homes to join programs like minor hockey or dance lessons or karate classes or

what have you. Jim Pearce, the principal of Mission Senior Secondary, notes that

this sponsorship has fundamentally changed the attitude and academic program of

several kids who have benefited from the program. Many people are taking out

pledge cards now, they're taking it off for the kids themselves, and they're out

getting pledges to raise money for this project.

This is a wonderful community program that's making a difference.

I encourage the Mission Cedar Valley Lions and Mr. Selvaraja to challenge Lions

clubs throughout B.C. to act now in establishing Take It Off for the Kids

programs in their own communities.

Incidentally, I do intend on meeting my own target of a 35-pound

weight loss and would welcome a pledge from any member of the House who would

like to pledge, including my friends opposite, at any time. Just call my office.

[1415]

FLAUNT YOUR FRENCHNESS WEEK

IN MAILLARDVILLE

D. Thorne: It's that time of year to again flaunt your

Frenchness. This cheeky, national award-winning campaign is kicking off

Francophone Month in March with panache. It's a fun way to celebrate your own

French connection, whether you can speak French fluently or just a little. Maybe

you just have a love for French food and culture. We have something for

everyone, and you are all invited.

Maillardville is the oldest and largest francophone community in

B.C., and we in Coquitlam recognize this unique neighbourhood as one of our

greatest assets. So we are calling on everyone to find 50 ways to flaunt your

Frenchness. Whatever your Frenchness is — whether it's the French language,

French ancestors, French music or fashions — we can help you find many ways to

celebrate your own personal joie de vivre.

Flaunt your Frenchness week kicks off this Saturday, February 24,

and runs to March 4. Saturday's event is especially for families and children,

but there are also lots of things to do for adults. An intimate concert series

held in the salons of Maillardville's heritage homes will present 18 different

performance groups flaunting their francophone talents in a wide range of

repertoire, from classical to world fusion, from the courts of Louis XIV to

modern French Canada. Mackin House Museum will hold a special exhibit of

surprising French and French Canadian exhibits dating back to 1777.

This is Coquitlam's promise to anybody who comes to Maillardville

in the next two weeks: drop by; listen to our great music; eat our wonderful

French food. You will find many, many ways to flaunt your Frenchness.

PREPARATIONS FOR 2010 OLYMPIC GAMES

J. McIntyre: Last week over 2,000 people gathered in

Vancouver for the unveiling of the official 2010 countdown clock. Today that

clock indicates that there are only 1,087 days until the games begin.

[ Page 5429 ]

With less than three years until we welcome the world, Olympic

fever is spreading right across the country. The Royal Canadian Mint's Vancouver

2010 coin collection goes into circulation this week. Olympic fever has even

reached legendary Canadian rockers the Barenaked Ladies, who are donating a

portion of the proceeds from ticket sales on their Canadian tour to the Own the

Podium 2010.

Behind all this excitement, VANOC has had a busy year ensuring

that the preparations for the games are on track. Their last quarterly report in

December shows that venue construction is on time and on budget. Not only that;

the first Olympic venue was finished in 2006.

VANOC is committed to making this Canada's games. Last year the

committee visited every province and participated in more than 200 public

speaking events. National awareness levels for the 2010 Winter Games are now

over 80 percent, and vancouver2010.com is receiving over 800,000 hits per month.

Last fall I attended the unveiling of the official emblem for the

2010 Paralympic Winter Games and the groundbreaking ceremony for the Whistler

athletes village, as well as opening the first completed venue at Cypress

Mountain, where Cypress will host ten Olympic events, including men's and

women's aerials and moguls as well as the snowboard half-pipe and cross.

We're also fortunate to be able to partner with the Lil'wat,

Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh — the four host first nations — in hosting

the Winter Games. Earlier this month they launched their official logo, which

will be prominently displayed in 2010.

As we look ahead, VANOC anticipates the completion of seven more

venues in 2007, including several in Whistler and at Cypress. So,

congratulations. This year will also mark the much anticipated unveiling of the

2010 mascot. So stay tuned.

LAMPSON STREET SCHOOL

M. Karagianis: In the heart of old Esquimalt stands Lampson

Street School, a beautiful brick heritage building, a handsome example of

Romanesque architecture, according to the Esquimalt archivist.

The building has graced the site since 1903. It sits on high

ground, and the original bell tower that sat on the site was used as a landmark

by pilots during the Second World War. The original architect was Maxwell Muir.

At the beginning of the 1900s, 257 students attended the school. It was the

largest school in the city and the first free school in the colony.

[1420]

The beautifully landscaped gardens in the front played host to

everything from wedding receptions for teachers to children playing hopscotch.

The school was the centre of community learning for 70 years.

Then in 1976, due to declining enrolment and the high cost of

renovating and upgrading the school, it was closed. The following years were not

kind to the old building. It had a leaky roof, there was no heat, and vandals

destroyed the grand and ornate staircase.

But early in the 1990s the community rallied to restore it.

Heritage designation was granted, and the government of the day — a New Democrat

government, I might add — restored the lovely old school to its full glory and

even went beyond that, making it earthquake-proof. It remains today the only

school in the area and one of the only buildings in Esquimalt that is completely

earthquake-proof.

Unfortunately, once again due to declining enrolments, Lampson

Street School is being threatened with closure. But I know my community, and

with their passion for this wonderful, old beauty, I know the community has

enormous pride and a great sense of ownership of this great edifice, and so we

will stand strong and fight once more, if we must, to keep it open.

HARRY PIERRE

J. Rustad: I rise today, also, to recognize and celebrate

the life of Harry Pierre. Harry was a very well-respected elder, whose political

career spanned more than 40 years. He often served as the chief of the Tl'azt'en

Nation, and he also served a term as the tribal chief for the Carrier-Sekani

Tribal Council following his election in 2003.

Harry was one of the founding chiefs of the Union of B.C. Indian

Chiefs in the late '60s, the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council in the '70s, and he

was also supportive of the creation of the First Nations Summit in the 1990s.

I had the great pleasure to have many chats with Harry over time,

and whether it was about education or national issues, he always had an ability

to be able to look to the future and to be able to think about great things for

his people. Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, who is president of the Union of B.C.

Indian Chiefs, has said that the union will greatly miss Elder Pierre's strong,

visionary leadership as he relentlessly held up and defended the rights of his

people.

Harry passed away yesterday morning in Prince George after 65

years of service and working towards a better tomorrow. On behalf of the House,

I offer our condolences to his family. He will be greatly missed. I ask that the

House observe a moment of silence.

Oral Questions

BUDGET PROVISIONS FOR

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

B. Ralston: In an extraordinary preface to the budget and

fiscal plan tabled in the House yesterday, the Deputy Minister of Finance writes

that health authorities and therefore the Minister of Finance haven't agreed on

the 2008-2009 and the 2009-2010 funding targets for the Coastal and Fraser

health authorities, the two largest health authorities by budget in the

province. The budget document is substantially incomplete.

Given that the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act requires

a fiscal forecast for the fiscal year covered by the budget and the following

two fiscal years as well, will the Minister of Finance confirm here

[ Page 5430 ]

today that the incomplete nature of this budget breaks the law as set out in

the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act?

Hon. C. Taylor: The way we have presented the health budget

this year came out of consultations with the health authority chairs, and it was

very important for them to have three things in this budget. First was certainty

for this year's budget, which we have increased by $885 million. The $885

million includes a $100 million innovation fund as well.

So they asked for certainty this year, but they did ask the

government for time — time for the changes that will come about because of the

Conversation on Health. They specifically said it was difficult for them to do a

budget for two years and three years out because of the uncertainty of what

changes they will be able to make through the Conversation on Health.

[1425]

Government agreed with the fact that they wished to do it this

way, so we put in for year two and year three their current budget plus the lift

for wages and policy changes, which we have already decided. In fact, to show

that we are making room in the fiscal plan for the increases that will come once

the Conversation on Health is completed, we put an increased forecast allowance

in the budget and indicated that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: I do.

Well, that response isn't quite, "The puppy dog ate my homework,"

but it's close. Under the act, the minister is required to budget out three

years to provide stability and assurances to health authorities and the patients

they serve that beds will be there when patients need them, that surgeries won't

be cancelled, that patients will not be turned away from emergency rooms.

Why won't the Minister of Finance simply agree with the words of

her own deputy minister and accept the conclusion that this budget and this

minister have contravened the laws set out in the Budget Transparency and

Accountability Act?

Hon. C. Taylor: The third thing that the health authority

chairs actually asked for was some additional dollars that would be available

for innovation. They feel that they have ideas right now for new technology, new

pilots — new ideas that they could put into place right away, if they had

dollars up front, that would immediately impact patient care positively. So we

followed through on that request as well.

It's surprising that sometimes we're accused of not working with

the health authority chairs, but in this case, we're working closely. We have

indicated very transparently in the budget, starting with the deputy minister's

attestation and continuing through the text in the budget, exactly how we're

approaching this, how the fiscal plan is protected and where those dollars are

sitting.

GOVERNMENT ACTION

ON SURGERY CANCELLATIONS

C. James: While I continue to hear the Minister of Finance

use a lot of fancy words to describe not following their own rules and the law

around the budget, patients continue to suffer. ERs are overcrowded, hallway

medicine is standard, and patients are routinely told to expect that their

surgeries will be cancelled. Last month spine surgeons at Vancouver General

Hospital began sending patients a letter. The letter warns patients to expect

cancellations even at the last minute.

With a deficit at Vancouver Coastal Health and a deficit projected

next year, when is the Minister of Health going to step in and do something to

stop these devastating cancellations?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for her question. We

never welcome cancellations of surgeries. That's the last thing we want for any

patient in this province, and it is not a matter of resourcing. The budget for

health and health service delivery has gone from $8.4 billion when we took

office to, in the coming fiscal year, $13.1 billion. Plus every year we add

something like $700 million in new capital projects to further strengthen a

very, very good health care system that we enjoy in British Columbia.

There are occasions when, regrettably, more urgent cases get in

the way of cases that had been previously scheduled. That can happen. We regret

it when it does, but everybody is doing their very best to ensure timely service

for patients in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplemental.

C. James: Well, the government is breaking its own budget

law. They think firing board chairs is the only answer. And something missing in

this entire equation, over and over again by this government, is patients and

their families. That's who is suffering today.

Dianne Williams sent a letter to the Health Minister and the

Premier last week. She lives in Powell River. She needs surgery to fuse her

spine. Her surgery at Vancouver General has been cancelled three times. The

surgeons at Vancouver General blame a severe funding deficit.

To the Health Minister: how many cancelled surgeries does Dianne

Williams have to endure before you will finally step in and do something for

this woman?

[1430]

Hon. G. Abbott: I am familiar with the case of Ms.

Williams. We are following up to see if there are additional things that could

be done. Again, it is unusual but not out of the realm of the ordinary for

people, on occasion, to have the misfortune to have their surgery bumped because

a more urgent case presents itself. I hope that all members of the House

appreciate that members of the medical profession do their very best to

understand the urgency of cases that present themselves and to make appropriate

decisions.

[ Page 5431 ]

That having been said, we have increased the budget for the

Ministry of Health by over 50 percent since we took office. We are adding

improvements to hospitals across this province, much of which was long overdue

after a decade of neglect in the 1990s. We're adding important facilities in

Surrey that were long promised but never delivered; the Abbotsford hospital and

cancer centre — long promised, never delivered. We are building a better health

care system every day in this province.

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

supplemental.

C. James: The Minister of Health says that surgeons work

very hard. They do work very hard. They're the ones speaking out, and they're

trying to get this government to listen to them. Six years — six years — in

power and all this government can do is blame someone else.

Well, that's not good enough for patients like Dianne Williams. In

her letter, she wrote: "I'm in a lot of pain. I need surgery, or this situation

will worsen." She spent time and money and energy going to Vancouver three times

for this surgery. She deserves a government that's actually willing to take her

suffering seriously. But Dianne Williams didn't get that in the budget

yesterday. Yesterday's budget told her to expect more deficits and more

cancellations.

The government's own appointees are telling them that the budget

isn't good enough. Several have resigned in protest. Again, to the Minister of

Health: when will his government finally put patients like Dianne first?

Hon. G. Abbott: We always put patients first. That's why we

are making unprecedented investments in health human resources in this province.

One of the things that is noted in Ms. Williams's letter is the shortage of

nurses in this province. I have to point this out. Between 1993, when 839 nurses

graduated, and 2001 — 574 nurses graduating in this province…. Since that sorry

time we have increased the number of nursing spaces in this province by 75

percent — over 3,000 new nursing spaces in this province.

We are also doubling the number of doctors that we're educating in

this province. We're going to be moving to well over 200 doctors in this

province. That's going to help to address the situations that face patients

across this province as a consequence of a decade of neglect by that government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1435]

HEALTH MINISTER OFFICE BUDGET

A. Dix: If only the government did put patients first. In

fact, it's this government — this Minister of Finance, this Minister of Health —

that chose to blame its fiasco in Vancouver Coastal Health on the part-time

chair of the board. It's this government that chose to break its own

accountability laws with respect to the two most important health regions in the

province. And it's this government that chose to give an 18-percent increase to

the minister's political office budget — the largest increase in the health care

system.

Who is the minister putting first now, hon. Speaker? Why, in a

time of real need for patients everywhere in B.C., is the minister giving more

for spin doctors than medical doctors?

Hon. G. Abbott: What a load of complete and utter nonsense,

as is so typical from that member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just wait.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members on both sides.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: The difference between the two figures that

are contained in the budget, and while provided for in the budget, is, first of

all, salary and benefits to staff, as reflected in the 2006 agreements. Again,

members of the NDP staff are part of that agreement. As well, there is

additional travel expenditure for the Conversation on Health for myself and the

Parliamentary Secretary for the Conversation on Health.

Let me note that a year ago there were four political staffers in

my office. There are four today. There are three, for a total of seven, dealing

with correspondence and the business of the office. I think it compares

favourably with our $13.1 billion budget to have seven staff members, when the

Opposition House Leader, when he was Minister of Health, had eight staff

members, including two ministerial assistants, one executive assistant, one

special assistant, one administrative coordinator, one financial assistant, one

assistant to the ministerial assistant and one assistant to the special

assistant.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Inadvertently, I'm sure, the minister has misled

the House. The minister's budget in 2000-2001 was $456,000 — the minister's

office budget. His minister's office budget is $732,000.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: I'll do the math for the minister. I know he thinks

that $732,000 is less than $456,000, but in fact it's the opposite.

[ Page 5432 ]

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

A. Dix: This is about priorities. It's about putting

patients first. So I ask the minister the question again: why an 18-percent

increase in the size of his political staff and very little for patients like

Dianne Williams?

Hon. G. Abbott: I have to admire the Perry Mason work

that's being done across the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Minister, just take your seat until it's quiet.

Hon. G. Abbott: I can understand why they want to undertake

these absurd diversionary routes when there's an absolutely fabulous budget to

be debating in this House.

[1440]

I'd love to know, for example, why the opposition Health critic

and the NDP oppose the $100 million health innovation fund. Why do they oppose

that? Why do they oppose the Surrey out-patient hospital, Mr. Speaker? Why do

they oppose the Abbotsford cancer centre and regional hospital? Why do they

oppose the new perinatal wing at Nanaimo Regional Hospital? Why do they oppose

the new Lytton Health Centre? Perhaps the member for Yale-Lillooet can tell us

that. Why do they oppose the pediatric intensive care unit at Children's

Hospital?

There's so much good news to debate. I can understand why they

need to go on this diversionary witch-hunt against staff that are trying to do

their very best work for the people in this building and the people in this

province.

AVAILABILITY OF ACUTE CARE BEDS

AT ROYAL COLUMBIAN HOSPITAL

M. Sather: Well, I'm hoping that the minister won't

cavalierly dismiss the issue that I want to bring before him. One of my

constituents, Carole Auvinen, is awaiting surgery for a brain aneurysm. She was

to receive surgery at Royal Columbian Hospital at the end of January, but it was

cancelled due to the crisis — the bed situation there. Today her surgery was

cancelled again. Same reason — no beds.

My question to the minister is: how many times does Ms. Auvinen's

surgery have to be cancelled before this government and this minister will do

something about the crisis and the chaos at Royal Columbian Hospital?

Hon. G. Abbott: It always amazes me how people who purport

to be such great defenders of the public health care system constantly disparage

that system, constantly claim there is chaos in that system, constantly

undertake to undermine public confidence in that system.

We always regret, as I noted earlier, any occasion when a surgery

is cancelled or postponed. We regret that. The system works constantly,

tirelessly to provide timely services to people. There are occasions when the

urgency of some cases will have to give precedence over other cases. Those are

regrettable, but those are the ways that medical practitioners have to work to

ensure that those who need the surgery the most get it as soon as they possibly

can.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Sather: Well, I do. That was a really sorry response

from the minister, I have to say. This is not about disparaging health care

workers, and he knows it. This is about dealing with a serious situation. Out of

desperation, the Auvinen family wrote to the minister. That was over two weeks

ago. Nothing has been done, and now her surgery has been cancelled again.

Again to the minister: when will he stop all the diversionary

tactics, the blaming of others, and deal with the crisis at Royal Columbian

Hospital?

Hon. G. Abbott: Royal Columbian is a very good hospital.

The people who work each and every day at Royal Columbian Hospital work

tirelessly to provide the best of care to all of the many people who work there.

Government has certainly taken some steps to make Royal Columbian

an even stronger institution as well. We have, for example, added 45 more

sub-acute beds at Queen's Park Care Centre, adjacent to Royal Columbian. We've

added ten overflow beds. We've added ten rapid-discharge beds. We've added a new

trauma nurse practitioner. We've got a full-time geriatric nurse now on staff

there. I know that the doctors, nurses, paramedics and others have worked on an

early admission and discharge program for Royal Columbian.

Many, many positive steps have been taken, and we will be using,

for example, the health innovation fund to identify ways that we can improve

service even more at Royal Columbian and other hospitals in this province.

[1445]

C. Puchmayr: We have incredible staff that work at Royal

Columbian Hospital. I have met with many of the professionals there, and they

are working in adverse conditions because of this government. Fraser Health

Authority has 1.6 beds per thousand, one of the lowest ratios in Canada. The

budget shows that the projection will fall to about 1.3 per thousand.

Can the minister stop dreaming of the past and address this crisis

in this millennium and tell the doctors at Royal Columbian and the Fraser Health

Authority what he will do to reverse this crisis now?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm not sure where the member gets his 1.6

equation from. The most recent information we have in respect of acute bed

comparison comes from the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

[ Page 5433 ]

That tends to be the strongest organization in terms of compiling and

distributing those facts.

In 2004-2005, according to the institute, B.C. had 2.8 acute care

beds for every 1,000 residents. This is above the Canadian average, at 2.6 acute

care beds per 1,000 people. If you…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

Hon. G. Abbott: …also include psychiatric, rehab and

extended care beds, B.C. again does better than the Canadian average. In B.C. we

have 3.5 beds for every 1,000 people, compared to the national average of 3.2

per 1,000.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: Well, I sure would like to get an answer for

my community and the doctors at Royal Columbian Hospital. As the doctors at

Royal Columbian Hospital cry out for help, this minister says that they are

overplaying the situation — that "they are alarmist" were words he used last

year.

Will the minister come with me to the Royal Columbian Hospital to

meet with these doctors, as I have, to see firsthand that this crisis does exist

and needs to be addressed now?

Hon. G. Abbott: I have the greatest of respect for the

doctors and nurses and care aides and paramedics that work in Royal Columbian

Hospital, and I'd be delighted to meet with them.

Over the past year I have visited, I think, some 17 emergency

rooms around the province — at Prince George Regional Hospital, Kelowna General

Hospital, Vancouver General Hospital, St. Paul's, Nanaimo, Shuswap Lake,

Richmond, Delta, Peace Arch, East Kootenay Regional Hospital, Lions Gate, Royal

Jubilee and Vic General.

Right across the province I've benefited from visiting emergency

rooms. I'd look forward to working with the doctors, the nurses and others at

Royal Columbian, as well, to ensure that if there are things we can do to

improve the services to people, we will undertake them.

INTERNET GAMING

G. Gentner: The 2006 annual report of the lottery

corporation shows gambling revenue jumped from $2 billion to $2.26 billion,

beating the corporation's own target by nearly $11 million. In light of the

Premier's quote and a promise to stop the expansion of gaming and gambling that

has increased gambling addiction and put new strains on families, we have a new

phenomenon called Internet gaming. The addiction rate is way, way up. It's

coming to a crisis proportion.

In this service plan the government states that Internet gaming

revenues are about $12 billion worldwide and are estimated to grow to $28

billion by 2012. The government's response to this is that the B.C. Lottery

Corp.'s product and distribution strategies are designated to compete with

competitive gaming options.

My question is simply this. To the Solicitor General: how far are

you taking us into the field of Internet gaming?

[1450]

Hon. J. Les: I want to be very clear with the member who

asked the question and indeed all members of this House. There will be no

Internet gaming conducted by the B.C. Lottery Corp. — period.

I want to underline, as well, that we are committed to responsible

gaming in British Columbia. Our gaming policy and enforcement branch, I think,

has an excellent record in that regard. For those individuals who do have

difficulties with problem gaming, we are putting the programs in place on a

proactive basis to make sure that we can intervene in those situations.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Gentner: It's clear that the government is moving

towards Internet-based gaming. We're looking at the Play Now site. In fact, when

you look at the budget and where the government is going, this government really

is becoming gaming crackheads. I mean, this is where this government is going.

In the service plan, the importance of Internet and mobile gaming

devices is made clear under "External Risk and Opportunities." It says that the

B.C. Lottery Corp. will continue "to identify and evaluate the most promising

developments in technology and apply these to the business," and these "include

significant gains in network bandwidth and storage capacity that will facilitate

a shift in entertainment to mobile devices."

So to the minister. Maybe he should put down his hand-held and

describe to us what he has in mind when he talks about those mobile devices.

Hon. J. Les: As I said already in my previous answer, we

are absolutely committed to responsible gaming in British Columbia. We are not

going to entertain Internet gaming. We do have a Play Now website that the

member refers to, where people can actually access lottery products…

An Hon. Member: On line.

Hon. J. Les: …on line. That is correct. This is a

convenience that's made to the public so they can access 6/49 tickets, for

example. Not too long ago I actually got a letter from the office of the Leader

of the Opposition where she asked me to help one of her constituents to access

lottery products on the Play Now website.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 5434 ]

INNOVATIVE CLEAN ENERGY FUND

J. Horgan: In the throne speech the government announced a

new $25 million innovation clean energy fund and said it would be established to

encourage the commercialization of alternative energy solutions. At the lockup

for the budget yesterday, I looked at the estimates for the Ministry of Energy

and Mines, and under "Electricity and alternate energy," there's a 35-percent

budget cut.

In a discussion with the media, the Minister of Finance said that

the funds may well end up being a surcharge levied on public utilities. My

question is to the Minister of Finance, and it's quite simple. Is this a fund,

or is it a $25 million tax?

Hon. C. Taylor: In the throne speech it was announced that

there will be a clean energy fund, and it is called the innovative clean energy

fund. When asked whether it would be funded this year, we have, as government,

been saying yes, it will be.

It does come under the Minister of Energy. It will be in his

energy plan, which will be released soon. What I did say, as well, is that the

minister is contemplating a small surcharge on all public utilities.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the

Auditor General's report 10, follow-up to the 2004-2005 report 2, In Sickness

and in Health: Healthy Workplaces for British Columbia's Health Care Workers .

Hon. P. Bell: I seek leave to do an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Bell: We're joined by Councillor Brian Skakun from

the city of Prince George — one of the many hard-working councillors from our

part of the province. Would the House please help make him very welcome.

[1455]

Petitions

C. Wyse: I introduce a petition from the village of

Clinton, 102 signatures, requesting that the Minister of Health immediately

undertake an independent review into the state of health care in the Interior

Health Authority with full powers to examine Interior Health Authority records

and examine how cuts to health care and acute care have impacted seniors,

patients and their families.

Tabling Documents

Hon. R. Thorpe: I have the honour to present the annual

report of the Property Assessment Appeal Board for 2005.

Petitions

N. Macdonald: I present a petition. I join other MLAs in

presenting a petition that talks about the need to immediately cease funding

cuts to the child care operating funding program, immediately cease the

dismantling of existing child care resource and referral programs, and to

restore both the child care operating funding program and child care resource

and referral program.

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind members that when they're

presenting petitions, it should be short.

N. Simons: It gives me pleasure to present a petition on

behalf of constituents on the Sunshine Coast in a similar vein — decrying the

cuts to child care.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued debate on the budget.

Budget Debate

(continued)

B. Ralston: It's my honour to continue debate on the

budget. I want to deal first with a reference to the Budget Transparency and

Accountability Act. This is a statute of the Legislature that is to guide the

preparation of budgets and the public reporting of the process by which budgets

are made. Its name suggests its objectives. It is for citizens to be able to

better understand the budgets of the province that are passed in their name.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Section 12(

c) sets out the obligation of what is referred to as

the government strategic plan. On or before the date when the main estimates are

presented to the Legislative Assembly, a minister must make public strategic

plan documents that — and I'm going to refer to 12(c) — provide a fiscal

forecast for the government reporting entity for the fiscal year for which the

estimates are presented and the following two fiscal years including a statement

of all material assumptions and policy decisions underlying that forecast.

The operative term in there is "government reporting entity,"

which is legal jargon and probably government jargon. What that refers to is set

out in the

definitions section, and that includes education and health sector

organizations. When you look at the definition in

section 1 of an education and

health sector organization, that includes a board as defined in

section 1 of the

Health Authorities Act.

The conclusion of this brief explanation is that health

authorities are bound by the provisions of the Budget Transparency and

Accountability Act. It's clear that the health authorities must provide that

fiscal plan that is set out in

section 12(c), and that's for a good reason.

[1500]

[ Page 5435 ]

There's an opportunity — we hear this from the government from

time to time — to forecast out in a spirit of honesty and openness, using best

estimates in order to provide some certainty to the budgeting process in order

that a public authority — in this case the health authorities, which are very

substantial budgets — be able to plan for the future and make sure they're in a

position where they can deliver the services they're called upon to deliver.

The idea of a three-year rolling forecast, budget numbers that are

as firm as they can be three years out, is something that is repeated in budget

documents. The government isn't shy about forecasting out various accruals of

benefits to citizens as they look out three years. They roll those up. It's a

standard policy, and it's accepted by the government in all kinds of its

budgeting endeavours.

It's really an extraordinary preface to the budget which appears

in the Budget and Fiscal Plan , the document that was just tabled

yesterday. It refers to a letter of Tamara Vrooman, who is the deputy minister

and secretary to the Treasury Board. It sets out her concern about and her

attempt to set out the government's position with respect to this Budget

Transparency and Accountability Act.

It's really an extraordinary event — given the law that has been

set out, passed by the assembly and that the government likes to trumpet from

time to time — that this budget is not in compliance with that act. What the

Deputy Minister of Finance says at the very front of this budget document is:

"For full transparency and accountability it is preferable

to obtain full board approvals of financial plans. However, the sign-off of the

board chair alone has been accepted in recognition that some agencies may have

difficulty scheduling board meetings in late December or early January. For

health authorities, the chairs of the respective boards have signed off the

2007-08 forecasts, with the exceptions of Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health,

where management have provided sign-off.

" As both of these health authorities have

recently

had new chairs appointed" — I think we're familiar with the events that have led

to that. The Minister of Health fired the board chair of Vancouver Coastal, and

the chair of Fraser Health resigned, so obviously the chairs of those two boards

weren't in a position to sign off — "their boards did not have sufficient time

to review the earlier forecasts in detail prior to the budget."

They're currently reviewing these plans and are expected "to submit

revised financial plans in early 2007-08." That means after March 31 of this

year.

What the deputy minister goes on to say is:

"Due to the interim nature of the 2008-09 and 2009-10

funding targets, which increased funding for the settlement costs of the

negotiating framework, health authorities have not provided sign-off on these

out-year forecasts."

What you have is the legal requirement to make best

efforts to provide those estimates — not in a

summary way, not to dummy up some

figures and simply place them into the budget, but to make best efforts to put

those figures into the budget. That's the requirement.

These are not insubstantial authorities. These are major agencies

within the province — the two biggest health authorities, major drivers in the

delivery of health services in the lower mainland and the Fraser Valley. The

budgetary process here is broken, and the budgetary law that is there to assist

the government and to provide, as the name suggests, transparency and

accountability is not being followed.

[1505]

For such a substantive item in the budget, in my view and the view

of members opposite, that presents a really substantial problem. It really

reduces the confidence that one can have in many areas of the budget when this

major proposed expenditure hasn't been done in compliance with the act.

The Health Ministry service plan overall suggests some increases

over 2008-2009 — this is for the whole of the ministry, not for the individual

health authorities — of 2.1 percent in 2008-2009 and 2.8 percent in 2009-2010,

notwithstanding that there's a bigger increase in the proposed current year.

What reputable health economists say about projecting health care

costs — because this has been the subject of much debate and many public

statements by the Minister of Finance leading up to this particular budget,

beginning with the quarterly report in September — is that in order to properly

provide health services for a diverse population such as British Columbia, one

would ordinarily expect increases to be required to accommodate certain

attributes of the population.

Typically, 1 percent would be for population growth — British

Columbia's population is growing — 1 percent only for the changing demographic

of the population and 2 percent for inflation. Then an additional typical

estimate is 1 percent for technological change, purchasing new equipment, and

things like that. So in order to keep health care expenditures at roughly even,

and that doesn't include anything for catch-up in areas where there have been

surges in population or that have been underserviced in the past, you need

approximately a 5-percent increase per year.

The Fraser health region is one where population growth is above

the provincial average, and that makes the ability to provide those services

with something less than that increase particularly difficult. It's small wonder

that the former board chair of the Fraser Health Authority, Keith Purchase,

called the planned budget completely inadequate and unconscionable.

The failure to follow the Budget Transparency and Accountability

Act is the consequence of, I would say, the unrealistic negotiations between the

Minister of Health, supervised by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board,

and those representing the boards of both Fraser Health and Coastal Health.

These are not necessarily partisan appointments, but certainly many of the

principals involved on both boards are known for their previous public support

of the government. Indeed, the new chair of Fraser Health is someone who wrote a

financial report examining government finances after the government came to

power in 2001.

It's particularly disturbing, this aspect of the budget, that

financial mismanagement of that portfolio seems to have been sanctioned by the

Ministry of

[ Page 5436 ]

Finance and the Minister of Finance in the preparation of this budget.

It's one of the reasons why we on this side of the House will have

real difficulty supporting the budget and will not be supporting the budget,

particularly because of this kind of mismanagement and the provision of services

— particularly in Fraser Health and Coastal Health, but it also applies to

services provided by Interior Health and the other health authorities throughout

the province. The government has not successfully tackled the problems of

properly planning the budgets of these two health authorities in particular, and

it has led them into a conflict with the Budget Transparency and Accountability

Act.

[1510]

This act also is significant in another area where the government

appears to be mismanaging a major capital project, and that is the extension to

the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre. Under the same act, the Budget

Transparency and Accountability Act, under

section 8, the minister must present

to the Legislative Assembly, at the same time that the main estimates are

presented, a statement of the current and anticipated total cost to the entity

in relation to the capital cost of the project. So the capital cost that we're

talking about in this particular case is the provincial contribution to the

Trade and Convention Centre.

I'm going to turn to the budget and fiscal plan for last year. I'm

on page 44 of that, under the table which lists capital projects greater than

$50 million. Under that, we're looking at the Vancouver Convention Centre

expansion project. The total projected cost budgeted was $273 million. The

forecast was $273 million. The note says that this amount represents the

provincial portion, the cost-shared portion, with the federal government and the

tourism industry.

What we see in this year's similar note — the comparable one on

page 52 of the three-year fiscal plan, table 123, "Capital projects greater than

$50 million" — is that the Vancouver Convention Centre expansion project is now

budgeted, the provincial contribution, to cost $281 million and forecast to

complete at $281 million.

What the note says is: "An additional $8 million is reflected in

2008-2009 to meet the escalated costs…to meet the project's current schedule.

Further work is underway to review the impact of the higher-than-expected

construction costs on the project. Preliminary estimates of an updated project

cost are in the range of $800 million, depending upon the contract model

selected."

What the act requires is that…. The tabling of the estimates is

only an annual event. It requires the Minister of Finance to advise and present

to the Legislative Assembly a statement of the current and anticipated total

cost to the entity in relation to capital costs to the project — not a guess,

not a finger in the wind. The spirit of this act is accountability and

transparency. What you have from last year to this year is the budgeting for an

$8 million increase only of the provincial contribution.

It's clear that this particular

section of the Budget Transparency

and Accountability Act has not been followed by the Minister of Finance in

preparing this budget. It's well recognized, and indeed, Mr. Dobell, who has

provided a report on Crown agencies as a supplement to the budget in the service

plan, has included…. I take it that this is where this figure comes from.

Preliminary estimates are in the range of $800 million, depending on the

contract model selected.

The Minister of Finance and the Ministry of Finance have an

obligation to do better than simply float out an estimate as part of the

budgetary process. This is a major public project. This is a government that

has…. The Premier has vaunted his professed expertise on an ability to manage

these projects, yet the cost of this project is spiralling out of control, and

the minister is not engaging in the basic accountability that's required by the

Budget Transparency and Accountability Act at all.

[1515]

Simply to float out a figure with nothing to back it, nothing to

justify it, and leak it to the media a day or two before the budget in hopes

that the furore dies down before the budget is tabled just isn't good enough and

suggests to me that this isn't a government that's interested in being honest

and transparent about the cost — the real cost — of the Trade and Convention

Centre extension at all.

This is a basic issue of financial accountability. That's what the

act is about. That's why this provision is in there, and that's why this

guesstimate that's floated out here in this report in a very cursory way is

simply not acceptable.

I predict that the costs of this particular endeavour are going to

come close to $1 billion, before all the bills are in, to build this particular

convention centre. The initial estimate of the total cost — and that includes

the provincial contribution — was $495 million. It's now, the minister said

yesterday in the House, expected to come in, in the range of $800 million. When

you talk about "in the range of $800 million," that, for most people, could mean

anywhere from $800 million to $900 million.

Obviously, the time to complete the project is a very tight one.

It's very circumscribed. It's necessary as a part of the Olympics. It's the

broadcasting centre. No doubt it will be a fine facility. But the issue here is

project management and accountability for public dollars in building a public

facility, and this government just isn't coming clean on that issue at all.

Frankly, taxpayers and citizens have reason to expect better, and

they have reason to expect that when the government sets out laws to guide these

kinds of deliberations, these laws will be followed. Unfortunately, my

conclusion — and I say this respectfully — is that in this case the Budget

Transparency and Accountability Act, with respect to major capital projects, is

just not being followed by this government at all, and it's a shame.

There is a bit of a pattern here that I've detected over recent

months in the government and particularly

[ Page 5437 ]

in the minister's willingness to manipulate or shade — present the….

Interjection.

B. Ralston: I'm being very careful. I know what I want to

say, but I'm bound by parliamentary procedure. There are significant areas of

the budget where the minister has shown a willingness to present financial facts

in ways that further a political agenda rather than speak to the real question

of the budget.

I begin with the minister's statements presented with the first

quarterly report back in September, where there was a now infamous slide

projecting health care costs as a percentage of the budget. The assumptions were

very carefully crafted to result in a conclusion that perhaps surprised some

people but certainly was designed, I would say, to force people to reach a

political conclusion about the growth of health care costs rather than a

reasoned and considered and practical approach to the growth of health care

costs. This seemed to be a pattern throughout the fall.

The slide that was presented projected revenue growth of 3

percent, education growth of 3 percent and health care growth — the growth of

health care as a percentage of the budget — at 8 percent annually. When you

project those costs in that way and hold everything else constant, as the

economists say, you come very quickly to a conclusion, when you project that

forward, that health care costs are going to soar out of control, which is the

political conclusion that the minister and the Premier had hoped and wished to

present to the public and hoped that they would accept.

[1520]

The Ministry of Finance prepared the slides, and they even say….

At the bottom of the slide there's a note. It says, "NB," which is Latin for

nota bene , I believe. Note well: it's "not a budget forecast or a budget

plan." That's right on the slide, but that didn't stop the minister from taking

this figure and this projection out, and it was repeated by a number of the

government supporters and perhaps by some less-than-inquisitive members of the

media.

The reality of health care spending is that B.C.'s annual health

care expenditures — and the more accurate measure — are the health care

expenditures as a proportion of the provincial economy. They have been

remarkably consistent for the past quarter-century over a number of governments.

Health care expenditures are expected to represent 7.3 percent of

the provincial economy in the current fiscal year and 7.1 and 6.9 percent in the

two subsequent years. B.C.'s health spending has averaged 6.6 percent of GDP

since the early '80s and is estimated to reach only 6.9 percent in the fiscal

year of 2008-2009.

There's some explanation missing from the Minister of Finance's

use of this chart that's required in order to make sense of it and, I would say,

come to a more sensible conclusion about what is taking place here. Health care

is increasing as a percentage or proportion of the economy, in part because the

budget itself is growing smaller in relation to the B.C. economy. Budgets have

declined in relation to the provincial economy for a number of reasons,

including cuts to spending on social assistance, removing certain items off-book

and the impacts of GAAP — generally accepted accounting principles — which

excludes nearly all capital expenditures from the fiscal budget. They're

capitalized out over the length of the usable life of the asset.

Given those changes in the structure, transportation expenditures

over recent years have fallen, and as I've said, social assistance has fallen.

So the elements that shape the provincial budget have changed. As a result,

health care spending has increased as a proportion of the budget, but as a

percentage of the gross domestic product — that is, the operation of the

provincial economy and the ability of the economy to support health care

spending — it's remained very, very constant.

The Minister of Finance and, typically, rating agencies will look

at the ratio of debt to GDP as an important ratio as to the ability of the

economy to bear a certain level of government debt. The ratio is considered an

important one, just as the ratio of health care spending to GDP is an important

one as well.

The Minister of Finance, throughout the fall and in the September

quarterly and the December quarterly, I would say, sought to alarm people about

a likely explosion in health care costs, when the ability of the economy to bear

those costs and sustain the kind of increases that have been talked about by

reputable health economists is there, and there is not the reason to be alarmed

that the minister has suggested.

That's perhaps an unfortunate approach by the minister, but that's

the approach she took throughout the fall. In the quarterly report in September

she spoke of $1 billion in cost pressures from the health authorities. By

December, without any charts or justification or any materials to support it,

she spoke of $4 billion in cost pressures.

[1525]

The cost pressures that she claimed the ministry was experiencing

accelerated 400 percent over three months, which I suggest is simply not

credible and is more worthy of the kind of conclusion that I invite people to

draw — that this was a politically motivated statement to provide some

intellectual and political ammunition for the Premier's Conversation on Health

and whatever agenda may be rolling around in the cabinet room at the present

time.

Now, the Premier himself attempted to address this argument that

health spending as a percentage of provincial GDP is a good measure. He did that

at the provincial congress on October 10, 2006.

He said this, and I'm quoting from him on page 4: "Some have said

that really, health care spending hasn't changed as much as we would have liked

because it has grown about the same rate as GDP. The percentage of GDP hasn't

changed much in the last 20 years." He goes on to say: "Unfortunately, that

argument really doesn't hold water. GDP is not revenue, and governments can't

invest GDP. Not all…sources of revenue rise and fall with GDP."

[ Page 5438 ]

Although the Minister of Finance and, I'm sure, the Premier accept

that the ratio of debt to GDP is an important measure, he's not prepared to

accept it as health care spending. Certainly, not everything rises and falls

with GDP, but revenue in relation to GDP is relatively constant over time. What

reputable economists say is that unless there are major changes in tax policy,

government revenues tend to grow in line with the overall economy.

To suggest, in this halfhearted and weak attempt at refuting this

argument, that this measure isn't a good one is simply false. The Premier

obviously knows this argument is a strong one, because he's trying to refute it.

He completely failed to refute that argument. If that's the best his advisers

can provide, it suggests to me that the argument is a good one and that we won't

be hearing an attempted refutation from the Premier again on that argument.

The government revenues tend to grow in relation to the economy as

a percentage of the economy. Indeed, some people who seek to predict what

government revenue will be have found it to be a more accurate measure than many

of the projections done by the Ministry of Finance, either in Ottawa or in

Victoria, since the ratio of revenue to GDP is a remarkably accurate predictor

of what the government revenue will be, looking forward.

The other way to express that formula is the share of own-source

revenue relative to the provincial economy or GDP. Certainly, the government

uses ratios in relation to GDP in other contexts, but in this particular case I

would submit that unfortunately, this is a theme from this government and this

minister on health care costs. Firstly, it is a theme of mismanagement, and

secondly, it is an attempt to distort the fiscal reality of health care in

relation to the budget for political ends.

The Premier is engaged in his Conversation on Health, and we will

see, doubtlessly, where that will lead. But obviously, there's a vigorous

debate, and many people don't support the projections that the Minister of

Finance floated out in the fall.

The Premier himself, at a recent meeting in Vancouver, appears to

be drifting away from the projection of 71 percent in 2017 and said it may be

lower. He seems less committed to that projection. Perhaps he's realized that

it's simply not….

Anything in the way of assistance is not a real number. It's not

likely. In fact, it's very unlikely, and the ratio of health care spending to

GDP is a much more accurate measure. Not that health care and health care

spending are without their challenges, but it doesn't assist the debate and

positively sends the debate in the wrong direction when what I would say is

misinformation is foisted on the public — certainly in the volume and with the

kind of budget that the public affairs bureau has at its disposal to deal with

that.

[1530]

In the budget the issue of debt is dealt with, of course. The

debt-to-GDP ratio is going to rise slightly in the three-year projection, and

overall taxpayer-supported debt will rise slightly as well. The minister has

explained that and defended that.

What the minister really doesn't discuss and what really has not

been part of the public debate is what are called contractual obligations. In

the notes to the

summary financial statements for the fiscal year ending March

31, 2005 — these are compiled at the end of the year; this is note 26 — there

was an attempt by the Ministry of Finance to provide some disclosure.

Now, perhaps this disclosure was too transparent. I'm not sure.

For the same consolidated

summary financial statements for the fiscal year

ending March 31, 2006…. That is one year later; that's last year. So the first

note was 2005. The second note was 2006. Most of those figures have been

consolidated and aggregated up, and it's very difficult to discern just exactly

what is being stated.

These are not included in the calculation of debt, but these

contractual obligations are long-term, irrevocable obligations of the Crown in

contract. The Crown and the government can't break those obligations. There's

simply no legal way of doing that. They're bound to pay over a lengthy period of

time.

In the notes in 2005, which are little bit more detailed…. I'll

have more to say about it, because the Auditor General expressed his

dissatisfaction with the lack of disclosure and the lack of transparency and,

ultimately, the lack of accountability of this government for many of these

contractual obligations they've entered into.

One commentator has provided the figure publicly, which is the

note at the end of March 2006. The total amount of these obligations is $27.586

billion. So it's $27.5 billion in long-term obligations. Beyond 2012 there's an

obligation of that number — $10.432 billion. So these are substantial numbers.

They're not included in the calculation of debt, and the government would, I

think, prefer that people not know about these, not scrutinize these. They're

certainly not included in the debt calculation that's provided publicly.

When people express concern about debt, one of the concerns they

have is that it reduces the manoeuvrability and the flexibility of government,

in the event of changing financial circumstances, to borrow. If your debt ratio

is too high and there's a downturn in the economy, your ability to borrow at

certain market rates goes up, and your ability to sustain the repayment of that

debt is compromised. Generally, the view is that while a certain level of debt

is manageable, if it goes up too high, you're going to have some financial

problems, potentially, for the overall government in the long term.

These obligations, at least with the long-term debt obligations —

at some point you have an obligation to pay them off. You can pay them off with

a slight penalty, somewhat like your own home mortgage, in advance of them

coming due. But these long-term contractual obligations that the government has

entered into don't give the government that option. The government is bound to

pay.

These are not insubstantial contracts. Under what the note calls

"alternate service delivery agreements," the delivery of the Medical Services

Plan and Pharmacare services plan has a ten-year agreement. The province

[ Page 5439 ]

has a five-year renewal option. The ten-year contractual obligation under

this agreement is approximately $324 million.

The delivery of corporate and human resource and payroll services

has a ten-year agreement. That ten-year obligation is approximately $170

million. Delivery of revenue collection services is a ten-year agreement. The

ten-year base obligation out of this is $301 million. Delivery of corporate

information services is a ten-year agreement. It's worth approximately $300

million.

[1535]

Those obligations…. The government controls access. They're

providing what are government services, delivered through these mechanisms —

alternate service delivery agreements. So if a future government were to decide

to want to cancel those agreements, they would have to pay out the full

agreement, and they would have to budget to provide the same service in the

budget. More so than debt, it makes it very difficult for a government to change

course in the future. These really constitute long-term binding obligations upon

the government very, very similar to debt.

In public-private partnerships there's a similar long-term

obligation that is required. The Auditor General has something to say in a

recent report about the lack of transparency of these agreements, and I'll refer

to that shortly.

For example, the Abbotsford hospital — that agreement terminates

in 2038. It's not only a construction agreement. It's for capital facilities

management. Maintenance payments under the concession agreement will commence

once substantial completion has been received, which is expected to be in 2008.

The payments are $40 million a year, and it goes out till 2038.

Similarly, with the Vancouver General Hospital, initial capital

costs are $95 million, and there's an agreement that terminates in 2036. There's

$5.2 million a year.

Design of a water treatment plant at Britannia minesite. This

agreement terminates in 2026. I think there are a number of payments that are

set out, subject to performance penalties and adjustments for inflation.

Those notes set out and constitute, really, the entire disclosure.

When members come to ask questions, particularly about public-private

partnerships — is there value for money, and are the taxpayers getting a good

deal out of this? — the ability to scrutinize the agreements is met with an

objection by the government that due to commercial, proprietary reasons, the

agreement in its totality can't be disclosed.

Some of the alternate service delivery agreements have been

disclosed, but they're usually disclosed after the agreement is signed and the

obligation is complete. There's no way of avoiding it, so whether it's a good

deal or a bad deal, the government is obliged to pay.

Perhaps thinking that these contractual obligations, that

disclosure, were too acute, the government reduced this discussion of

contractual obligations — over $50 million in 2006 — to a table, which

chronicles obligations of $27 billion, to about a ten-line note on page 65 of

the consolidated financial statements. That's not very much like full

disclosure. That's not the kind of transparency or financial accountability that

British Columbians expect and deserve in order to decide whether or not we are

getting value for their money in the obligations that we have contracted for in

this process.

The Auditor General has provided a report. It has not yet been

discussed by the Public Accounts Committee, but it's a public report, dated

January 2007: Seeking Best Practices in Financial Reporting .

What the Auditor General says about the government's failure to

disclose these obligations is quite revealing. I'm looking at page 12. "We feel

that although disclosing the function to which contractual obligations relate is

meeting the new requirements under GAAP, it is only providing minimal

information about the nature of the obligations. In our view, the disclosure

would be more informative and a leading practice if it also included more detail

as to what types of contracts…."

[1540]

Recommendation 1 is that the government provide fuller disclosure

on the nature of its contractual obligations. In other words, what the

government has been doing up till now in terms of disclosing these billions and

billions of dollars of contracts just isn't good enough, particularly when they

have the fiscal effect that I've described of binding the government, limiting

its flexibility, its manoeuvrability and its ability to make future policy

choices, and also a call on the fiscal resources of the province for many years

out. Greater scrutiny is required rather than less.

Now, what the acting Auditor General also said in this same report

about the public-private partnerships was particularly revealing. They describe

the process by which these obligations are created, and I'm quoting:

"Although being constructed by an outside party, which may

also operate and maintain the asset once completed, the asset represents a

future benefit that involves the capacity to provide a service to which the

province controls access. Also, the province has an obligation to pay for the

asset and has little or no way of avoiding that obligation. As well, the event

that gives rise to the asset and the liability, the signing of the P3 contract,

has already happened."

What they want to undertake on behalf of the citizens of

the province is an ability to say: "Is this a good deal or not? Is the

construction of this asset priced properly? Are we getting value for money here

or not — or what?" They ask that.

"Once it has been decided to record an asset and liability for a

P3 project, the next step is to determine the amount at which it should be

recorded." That means that once the agreement is signed, the obligation is

complete. That's what they say. The event that gives rise to the asset and

liability, the signing of the P3 contract, has already happened. So at the

moment before anything in terms of construction takes place or anything on this

30-year agreement has been fulfilled, the obligation exists.

Most of these P3 agreements require the contractor to build and

maintain the asset. So what the Auditor General is interested in finding out on

behalf of the taxpayers — and ultimately, it's the Minister of Finance who is to

scrutinize and to provide the requisite

[ Page 5440 ]

accountability and oversight on the value of these assets — is simply the

following: to determine whether the taxpayers are getting fair value.

What the acting Auditor General says is revealing: "Determining

the cost of the asset would be relatively simple if the agreements to construct

them actually broke down the cost between the asset and the maintenance cost.

However, few agreements do this. This means that determining the cost of the

asset is the first challenge." So by the very opaque — that is, unclear,

disguised, perhaps, and certainly something less than transparent — way in which

these contracts are constructed, determining the cost of the asset that the

public is buying, that the taxpayers' dollars are being used to purchase, is

what the Auditor describes as a challenge.

This is public money that's being expended, and to determine the

cost of what's being purchased is a challenge. It's not like going to the store

and buying an item. The Auditor General is describing it as a challenge to

simply figure out what the cost of what's being purchased here is.

The second challenge, the report goes on to say, is how to define

"fair value." "If the province were constructing the asset itself, determining

fair value would not be a problem. The value would be the cost of the material

and the labour paid to construct the assets. Separate agreements for the

construction of the asset and the maintenance of the asset would also make

finding fair value relatively straightforward."

That's what they say, that relatively few agreements do this. The

agreements are constructed in a way as to make public scrutiny and an ability to

determine the fair market value of those assets very, very difficult to achieve,

if not impossible. What the Auditor General suggests is that there are ways that

the fair value of the constructed asset could be obtained. One is engaging an

independent appraiser to value the asset, comparing the asset with similarly

constructed assets recast in today's dollars or using the financial model

submitted by the winning contractor during the bidding process for the job.

[1545]

Those are suggestions that the Auditor makes, and I'll be

interested to see whether or not the Minister of Finance is interested in

fulfilling her obligation to steward the financial resources of the province, to

provide accountability and transparency of these substantial sums that are being

spent on behalf of the public. Certainly, the Auditor General has recognized

that there are substantial challenges to that kind of disclosure.

Given the track record of this government and, particularly, some

of the recent history that I've described in relation to health care costs and

in relation to disclosure about the real costs of the Trade and Convention

Centre extension, I fear that I may be disappointed by the minister's response

in that the public will not get the kind of disclosure that they have a right to

expect and, indeed, I would say is an obligation of the job of the Minister of

Finance. Whether the economy is good or whether the economy is bad, the Minister

of Finance has an obligation to be straight with the public and to allow people

to make their own choices based on a full and transparent disclosure of

financial information.

What I want to turn to is another area where in the run-up to the

budget, the government has been less than financially candid. I would submit

that the issue of the throne speech and the commitment we heard from the throne

speech about an obligation or a willingness to tackle the important problem of

climate change was set out with some force and some sense — at least

rhetorically — of urgency.

I don't disagree with that note of urgency, and indeed, members on

this side share much of that sense of urgency. That's why our leader has put

forward a plan to begin to address the issue of climate change.

But many were disappointed to hear the minister say just last

Friday, several days before the budget was to be tabled in the House, that there

would be nothing in the budget to deal with the issues raised in the Speech from

the Throne. Typically, the Speech from the Throne provides the rhetorical

leadership, but the budget is where the dollars are placed to match the

commitments, rhetorical or real, that are made in the Speech from the Throne.

The minister was very categorical on Friday. There was going to be nothing in

the budget to meet any of those obligations. I think it came as a shock to many

observers and to those who were somewhat heartened by some of the words in the

Speech from the Throne.

Now, even the Speech from the Throne spoke of a clean energy

innovation fund, $25 million. There wasn't any hedging or qualification of that

commitment. It was a straight commitment in the Speech from the Throne: $25

million will be set aside to do this.

It didn't appear in the budget documents on Tuesday. Nothing is in

the budget documents about that fund. As the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca

advised the House, some members were told in the budget lockup that a tax would

be imposed upon certain economic activity under the jurisdiction of the Minister

of Energy and Mines in order to fund this particular $25 million fund.

One really despairs at the lack of frankness and disclosure when

those kinds of profound commitments are made in the Speech from the Throne and

the Minister of Finance says on Friday that there's nothing in the budget. By

Monday there's a commitment that it may be funded, although it's not formally in

the budget documents. Then there's some announcement cobbled together on the day

of the budget to suggest that it will be constructed, possibly as a tax on some

economic activity that falls in the jurisdiction of the Minister of Energy and

Mines.

[1550]

This is a recurring theme with this particular ministry, this

minister and this government: the gap between rhetoric and reality. Certainly,

when it comes to financial matters, despite the rhetoric about being open and

accountable, there are a number of areas that I've set out here where the

government has been less than

[ Page 5441 ]

candid, less than frank, and has used the position of authority that's

conferred upon the Minister of Finance to provide political direction rather

than a frank discussion of the province's finances, which I would say is the

first obligation of a Minister of Finance.

Like many, I am not particularly impressed or moved by the budget.

The budget follows the theme very consistently — the housing budget. The tax

measure that's included in the budget is described as a housing development

plan, which is rhetorical overreach if I ever saw it, but it's consistent with

that lack of candour, disclosure, transparency and, ultimately, that lack of

accountability in financial matters.

As I conclude, I would just like to say that there was an

opportunity — given the fiscal circumstances of the province, lifted by one of

the longest booms in commodity prices in the post-war era — to use that

opportunity to provide for support for average families, and really this

government has failed in that obligation. The government hasn't addressed the

crisis in health care, and indeed, they've broken the basic budgetary laws that

require disclosure and candour in preparing that budget.

There's nothing in the budget — not withstanding the best twisting

and turning of the Minister of State for Childcare — to address child care.

Indeed, the commitments that were made and signed in agreements with the federal

government — that money has not been passed on, and there's nothing in the

budget that reflects that whatsoever. There's no relief for families who have

children or adult learners who are going to public colleges and universities.

There's no relief for tuition fees. The budget really does nothing to increase

the long-term supply of social housing.

I would say that one of the more cynical parts of the budget is to

take 750 units of social housing and convert that housing into assisted-living

units, but not to make a provision to provide more units. Even in the city of

New York, the heart of the market society, Mayor Bloomberg recognized that

there's an obligation and that the market, of which Mr. Bloomberg is very

knowledgable, cannot provide housing for everyone in society, and there is a

place for government-supported, government-built housing.

This government refuses to accept that and has cut back over the

time that they've been in power. The federal government has left the field as

well. There's an obligation to build units of social housing over the years, a

steady program that fills a part of the market for those who would otherwise be

without good-quality, affordable housing and all that that means for raising a

family in healthy circumstances.

[1555]

So despite the riches of the province and the bounty that's

reflected in the financial coffers of the province, many of these problems, many

of these challenges have not been addressed in this budget. This budget is a

colossal missed opportunity and, I would say, a complete failure on behalf of

the people of British Columbia. With that, Madam Speaker, I conclude my remarks.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. I. Chong: First of all, let me begin by saying I am

very pleased to be able to rise today to respond to Balanced Budget 2007. I

begin by saying that this is not the first budget I have heard. In fact, this is

about the 11th budget that I have heard.

I understand the role that the opposition feels they have to play.

They feel they have to oppose everything. But honestly, the rhetoric that I have

heard on the other side to date has been pathetic — absolutely pathetic. The

desperation they must feel to oppose is pretty clear, because by all accounts,

it's a pretty exciting, bold, assertive, aggressive, comprehensive budget. They

are finding it very difficult to find things to oppose, but they have to because

they are in opposition.

You know, it is really amazing. Over the course of the next number

of days, as member after member rises, I think we're going to be hearing a bit

of conflict over there. I guess they're going to have to decide which one of

them supports certain things, which one of them supports other things and then

which one of them wants to support the entire budget or part of the budget. It's

going to be really interesting over there when you're up to take the vote.

I'll say this right now, right here: I do challenge each and every

one of you to stand up. Have the courage. Support the budget because it's good

for your communities.

Budgets are a reflection of our province's strength, and there is

no question we are an economic powerhouse. Everyone across Canada recognizes it,

and everyone around the world recognizes it. Still, on the opposition benches

they've got their ears closed, their eyes closed and they don't want to speak

about how well we're doing. I don't know what it is. Perhaps it's because they

feel they have to stand up to the reputation of being in opposition and oppose

for the purpose of opposing — being negative, destructive and pessimistic.

It's a shame, because this year there is a real opportunity. The

critic speaks about opportunity. Well, the opportunity today is for those

members to change those negative, destructive, pessimistic attitudes.

Budget 2007 tells us one thing: we are stronger now than ever

before. This is not our first balanced budget; this is our fourth balanced

budget. Having a fourth consecutive balanced budget means we can continue to

build on a vision as outlined in the throne speech and a vision that sees

British Columbia as a leader.

It is a wonderful time to live, work and invest in British

Columbia. It's a wonderful time because British Columbia is absolutely the best

place on earth. It's pretty amazing to stop and take a look at the vibrancy of

our province, to take a look at what we can now enjoy, as opposed to what we

didn't look forward to in the dismal decade of the 1990s.

I know they don't want to hear that, but it's pretty obvious that

in the 1990s they had their heads buried in the sand. They blamed the economy on

everything they could possibly blame it on. I remember the one they had to blame

it on was the tax meltdown, the one thing

[ Page 5442 ]

they could pin it on, and they said that that was what was happening.

[1600]

Well, in our first mandate, when we were first elected in 2001, we

had more than one issue to deal with. We had 9/11. We had SARS. We had BSE. We

had a number of things.

Interjection.

Hon. I. Chong: Yet in spite of all of that, to the member

for Yale-Lillooet, we still turned our economy around — still did that.

It's pretty hard to take when they want to blame it on one thing,

when we had so many things that we could have pointed our fingers at. Yet we

still turned this economy around, we are still a leader in British Columbia, and

we still have much to be proud of.

Take a look at where we began in 2001 when we first inherited the

opportunity to lead this province. We were in last place in economic growth here

in Canada. We inherited a province where that NDP government had put us to

have-not status.

I recall being in opposition in my first term in this wonderful

precinct. There were credit downgrades. You know what a credit downgrade does,

Mr. Speaker? It means that debt servicing goes up. Dollars are spent on

interest. It means that programs are restricted. It means we can't do more.

But what did we do, Mr. Speaker? I'll tell you what we did. Our

government turned the economy around. We went from last place to first place.

What's more amazing is that we have been granted a triple-A credit rating. Now,

I know it's pretty hard for opposition members to understand the importance of a

triple-A credit rating, because as I say, they took our credit rating down.

It is significant because it's been since the 1980s — the last

time that this province had a triple-A credit rating. Right now there are only

three jurisdictions that have it here in Canada: the federal government itself,

Alberta and British Columbia — only three jurisdictions. That is something to be

proud of.

British Columbians trusted us in 2001. They trusted our government

to turn things around, and that trust has paid off in spades. It has paid off

incredibly over the last six years. We have worked hard to restore the economy

in British Columbia, and we have positioned ourselves as a national leader —

first in job growth, first in housing starts, first in consumer and investor

confidence.

I was listening to the radio this morning, and I heard that 2006

has been posted and reported as the best year in almost a decade for growth in

the retail sector. That's a strong endorsement of our government and our

economy.

British Columbians in the '90s were desperately leaving in droves

to find work elsewhere. I can attest to that personally. Friends of mine, young

families — the husbands were leaving to find work in Alberta, leaving their

wives and children here, essentially making them single parents. That has now

all changed.

People are now coming back to British Columbia, and we are in a

position where we have jobs looking for people. I know that's, again, very

difficult for the opposition to accept, but it's the truth. Everywhere you go:

help-wanted signs. Everywhere you go: "Apply within." Everywhere you go:

"Part-time, full-time, anytime — just come and apply." It's because people are

needed in those jobs.

This government has turned this economy around, because we said at

the very beginning that a strong economy is what can provide the social programs

that everybody will always demand and need. Until we turn our economy around, we

cannot be spending in areas that we know are unsustainable.

We have seen that economy turn around, and with that we have seen

the lowest unemployment in over 30 years. Essentially, it's full employment.

That's a remarkable change and one that speaks a great deal to all British

Columbians who have helped get us to that point. I do want to thank all those

hard-working British Columbians who helped get us to where we are today.

[1605]

The Premier said right from the beginning that all British

Columbians will benefit from our healthy economy, and with each balanced budget

we have strived to do that through our mandate. We have been able to deliver on

a promise of ensuring that we will focus spending to ensure that taxpayers'

dollars are well spent and accountable. During this second mandate, we have

introduced, thus far, three budgets.

In the first one we enhanced supports for seniors. Then we

invested in our children. In this budget our government continues to focus on an

area, where Balanced Budget 2007 is dedicated to housing.

Now, I know that members opposite are concerned about housing.

They must be; we all are. It's important that we work together to find ways of

improving housing in our communities. That's why I think it's essential for

those members to support this budget. If they don't support this budget, it

means they don't support helping communities to put more housing in their areas

for more affordability and more options. That would be a shame.

It would be a real shame, because from all accounts that I've

heard from people, they're excited about the prospects of working with this

government. Non-profit organizations are excited about their prospect of

improving and enhancing social housing. If the members opposite want to truly

represent their communities, I challenge them to go back to those communities,

find those projects and have those projects come forward. Let us work to help

build affordable housing around this province.

There is no question that as a result of a strong economy, we have

been met with some challenges. As I've indicated, housing and housing

affordability have been a challenge as a result of that. Housing prices have

gone up in communities around British Columbia. With Balanced Budget 2007, it

means that we're able to help all British Columbians better afford to call our

province home.

[ Page 5443 ]

As the Minister of Community Services, which allows me to work

with local governments as the minister responsible for local government, I can

tell you that the focus of this year's budget, building a housing legacy, is a

particularly exciting one for B.C. communities. I have already spoken to a

number of mayors, and they are excited about the prospects of being able to work

with us. They're excited about the prospect of finding ways to meet the

challenges head-on.

Our budget builds housing in a very comprehensive way. It is about

working in partnership with municipalities, which is certainly important, and it

builds on the work that was done through the task force, the Premier's Task

Force on Homelessness, Mental Illness and Addictions. I think we can all agree

that last year at the UBCM convention here in Victoria, the Union of B.C.

Municipalities annual convention, delegates raised concerns about affordable

housing and homelessness many times.

Even in sessions that were scheduled for other discussions — and I

attended many of them — talk of the challenge of housing and homelessness found

its way onto the platform, regardless of what session it was. Someone in the

audience, a delegate, would raise the issue of housing and homelessness. So I

know it's important. We know it's important. I would expect that members on that

side of the House who know that it's important will also rise to the challenge

of ensuring that they will support the housing initiatives that we have.

It means that with $2 billion over four years we will help people

address their housing needs. We will make a real difference in the lives of

British Columbians in communities all across British Columbia — for those with

homes and for those without.

Our government is making a tremendous difference by providing our

most vulnerable citizens with more year-round emergency shelter beds and

supportive housing, by providing income assistance clients with more money for

rent, by providing more low-income families with social housing and rent

subsidies and by providing homeowners with tax exemptions and deferrals.

I've already recently heard from a young couple looking to buy a

home, saying that it was about time we took a look at the exemption levels for

first-time homebuyers. We are providing these programs and services for a

variety of British Columbians so that they can continue to be supported in their

homes.

[1610]

Let's also not forget about those who continue to work, who

continue to pay their mortgages, who go about in their day-to-day lives — about

their needs. What they're saying is that it would still be nice to have a little

bit of cash left in their pockets. I know that they were happy with the

25-percent tax cut that we offered in 2001 and that some were beginning to say:

"Are we ever going to see another one?"

Well, they sure did see another tax cut in Balanced Budget 2007 —

a 10-percent personal income tax cut. That means more cash in people's pockets,

and it means easing some of the cost pressures they may feel in today's housing

market or in any other services or programs or needs they may have.

Here's a question for the opposition: are they opposed to the tax

cut? I think British Columbians would like to know. I think their constituents

would like to know, because the Finance critic, the member for Surrey-Whalley,

was quoted, I believe, in the Vancouver Sun . He said: "It's significant

that they are cutting taxes. I am sure that will be welcomed by many people."

Well, if he's sure that it's going to be welcomed by many people,

I expect that these many people will be people in his constituency, in his

riding. And if it's welcomed by them, does he rise up in the House and say: "No,

I'm against it, and I don't welcome that"? Is that what he's going to say? Is

that what each and every one of them is going to say? I guess we'll see when the

vote's taken. I guess we'll see.

Also included in the budget were additional dollars for an area

that I am particularly concerned about, and that is, sadly, for some people

where home is not a safe place or a safe haven — where, in fact, they need to

find a safe place elsewhere. These are for women and children fleeing abusive

relationships who need to find refuge, a safe place in a transition house.

They're looking for a place they can count on to be safe and secure — that is,

24 hours a day, seven days a week.

We know that women leaving abusive relationships are at the very

greatest risk. These are vulnerable women and children. You will see in Balanced

Budget 2007 an additional $6 million over the next three years to be invested to

strengthen our support for transition houses. As my colleague said, surely

they'll vote for that. I certainly hope so, because by providing an additional

$6 million, we will ensure that those provincial transition houses that require

it can provide 24-7 service, with staff who are available at all times to

provide women and their children with the crisis assistance and support they

need.

I have travelled around the province, Mr. Speaker, as I'm sure

you're aware — back in 2004, some in 2005 as well and definitely last year in

2006 — and have visited many of these transition houses. Some were not ready for

24-7 because they did not have the capacity, but I can tell you they're all

ready now. These additional dollars are going to be provided for those supports.

I wanted to put this in perspective, because these additional

dollars, $2 million additional per year, combined with the additional $12.5

million that was received only two short years ago, means that for direct

essential services for women and children — that budget area — we have seen an

increase of over 40 percent, the largest increase in a decade. That in itself is

reason to support this budget. Again, I guess we'll wait and see. We'll see what

the NDP does.

In addition, I was pleased to see that Budget 2007 spoke of the

needs of seniors, because we know that there are unique needs of seniors. We

know that seniors have made investments in their homes. They want to live safe

and secure in their communities. With the recent report of the Premier's Council

on Aging and Seniors Issues, Aging Well in British Columbia , we have

[ Page 5444 ]

seen that one of the recommendations, amongst many, indicates that seniors

want to continue to stay in their homes and in their communities.

[1615]

We will work on a number of those recommendations. Some will be

dealt with more quickly than others, because some will still require some

consultation on how we achieve that. At the same time, seniors said: "We want to

stay in our homes, and we need to be able to stay in our homes." Some cannot

stay in their homes, perhaps because of physical reasons — things such as

hallways that are narrow or need railings. They just need a little bit of extra

help. By investing an additional $45 million over four years, we are going to be

able to upgrade 750 social-housing units, helping older British Columbians to

continue to live comfortably at home.

As well, we're going to encourage new ideas and innovative pilots

in housing by establishing a $250 million housing endowment fund. Again, I have

to ask the opposition: are you going to support that initiative, a $250 million

endowment fund, which will allow us to receive and generate approximately $10

million a year to support innovative housing solutions?

What do they have against innovation, Mr. Speaker? I hope they

don't, because it means individuals and families with diverse housing needs who

are not currently served through existing programs and services will be able to

come forward and look to the interest generated by this fund to provide those

options they need, to allow them to stay in their communities and to be

supported by friends and family in their communities.

While I know that it may not immediately be a fund that is looked

upon by seniors, I can tell you that it probably will be more relevant soon,

because within a number of short years there will be a demographic change. Where

currently one in seven is aged 65 and older, we will soon see that to be one in

four over the age of 65. Perhaps we will need to look at innovative housing

solutions ourselves. Those of us here now may need to look at this housing

endowment fund.

This is a fund that has been established and will exist in

perpetuity. That's a good thing, because it means, as I say, for those of us

here now, some maybe sooner rather than later…. We may have to take a look at

this fund to look at innovative solutions. This fund will exist because we have

established it to be that way.

We've made improvements to our homeowner grant program, which

means that low-income seniors whose homes have appreciated significantly in our

economic upswing will still be eligible for the homeowner grant, regardless of

the home's assessed value. I can tell you that we have heard from seniors who

are well into their 80s and even in their 90s who are absolutely on fixed

incomes. The pensions that were established for them years ago in the '50s and

'60s — some of them were defined in terms of life span. The expectation of

payout on these pensions sometimes stopped at age 75 or even at age 80.

I recall, being an accountant in practice prior to entering public

office, that I used to have to do some financial planning with seniors, usually

women, who had shared with me all their financial information and said: "Well, I

think I'll be okay." I saw the pensions they had, some as little as $50 and some

greater at $125 at that time, and they said: "But it only goes to 75. I think I

can make it to 75." Some actually went to 80.

But seniors are more active, they're living longer, and they're

going well beyond these pensions. They were defined for a time period, and that

has become an issue. That is why they're on fixed incomes. While they have the

old age supplement and the Canada Pension Plan and the additional supplements we

provide through our credit program as well, it is fixed.

What has also transpired is that they live in their homes, homes

they have perhaps been in for 50 or 60 years and raised their entire families.

It just so happens they live in a neighbourhood that has been developed all

around them, and that neighbourhood has appreciated by great amounts. So we have

seniors who are asset-rich but cash-poor.

The Minister of Finance, having heard from many of us on this side

of the House — and even, as I understand it, from opposition members — said that

that didn't make a lot of sense. We did need to make some changes. So the

homeowner grant would be provided regardless of the home's assessed value, and

that is good news. That is good news for our seniors in this province.

[1620]

We've also noted that the property tax deferment program is one

that has become more popular. It has increased from the year 2001, I understand,

fivefold.

What does that do? It means that it again allows people to have

choices about their retirement. It means that if they chose to defer their

property taxes and instead allowed that to accumulate towards the home so that

when they eventually did sell it and those dollars would be paid back, they

would have more money in their pockets today and now. It's a program that

actually wasn't well used for a while in the '90s, but of late it has become

more popular.

Also, in our changing world we see people taking early retirement,

so it only made sense to allow this deferment program to start at an earlier

age, that being the age of 55. It means that, while I've heard people are taking

out reverse mortgages, perhaps now they can just deal with the property tax

deferment program.

Some people are only looking for perhaps $200 extra a month. If

their property taxes are $2,400 a year, this will provide that. As that

escalates in terms of property taxes, it's more money they can have, and they

can therefore budget accordingly.

Balanced Budget 2007 also spoke about health being a priority of

our government, and you know, it's really, really amazing — in fact, appalling —

to hear from members opposite who continually mislead the public in saying that

we've had that tax cut.

Point of Order

J. Kwan: Point of order.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

[ Page 5445 ]

J. Kwan: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I believe that

the minister has actually just used an unparliamentary term, and I ask her to

withdraw it unconditionally.

Hon. I. Chong: I will withdraw the comment, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Continue, Member .

Debate Continued

Hon. I. Chong: Well, I can say that many of the opposition

have consistently indicated that there has been a tax cut, so let's revisit what

a tax cut is.

In 2001, I believe, the operating dollars in the Health budget

were about $8.5 billion. Today it's $13.1 billion. So do the math. How does

$13.1 billion from $8.5 billion become a tax cut? I don't understand their

mathematics, but I think that the rest of British Columbians know that that has

represented an approximately 55-percent increase — not a cut, an increase. I am

truly hopeful that British Columbians will see through that kind of rhetoric,

because it really is time for that to stop.

Every year the health budget has gone up incrementally, and this

Balanced Budget 2007 sees yet another $885 million, close to a billion dollars,

being added. That is not a tax cut in my eyes, so I don't know what kind of

rose-coloured glasses they're looking through.

In addition, we know that not only are we currently having a

Conversation on Health — looking to British Columbians to give us ideas about

the sustainability of our health care system — but at the same time, we are also

acknowledging there are new technologies.

There are new ways to deliver patient care, and the health

authorities are saying: "Wouldn't it be nice to be able to access a fund?" So

$100 million have been set aside for a health innovation fund to support our

health authorities to implement new ideas to improve patient care.

As hospital after hospital and health authority after health

authority come forward and access this $100 million health innovation fund for

health facilities in those members' communities, I wonder whether they'll say

that's a good thing. I wonder whether then they will acknowledge that they

should have supported and should be supporting this budget, which provides for

that $100 million. I wonder how many of them will be writing letters of support

asking the Health Minister to provide for those things.

I'm concerned that my time is nearly up. I have so much more to

say. I wanted to talk about our new, greener British Columbia; the new programs

that our ministry is providing funding for; the Spirit Squares program; the

LocalMotion fund; our Towns for Tomorrow. I know I'll have an opportunity to

speak to those again, perhaps through the throne speech, which I am certainly

looking forward to.

[1625]

A last challenge to the NDP: are they going to support this

budget, or are they not going to support this budget? What are they saying? Are

they saying no to helping the homeless and providing housing? Are they saying no

to seniors who will be getting continued support? Are they saying no to a health

innovation fund? Are they saying no to greener communities? Are they saying no

to one or all of these? Are they saying no to health, to tax cuts? What are they

saying? Well, I guess the evidence will show.

I say that British Columbia today is in better shape than ever

before. We are a forward-thinking, economic powerhouse. This province has become

a testament to the population interested in seeing, and willing to accept,

change for the better. We are a government that is interested in careful,

thoughtful and necessary fiscal management. B.C. is a leader in so many ways.

Our government is committed to building the best system of supports for seniors

and for those with special needs, and I thank you for this opportunity to

respond.

S. Fraser: I don't know what to say to begin with after the

last speech. I appreciate the minister….

Interjections.

S. Fraser: "Let them eat cake" is what rings true. I think

it was Marie Antoinette.

The minister, previously in her speech, said: "Stand up and

support the budget." No, no. We'll stand up and support the people of British

Columbia, thank you very much.

I am proud to stand up and represent the people of

Alberni-Qualicum, and I thank them for putting their faith in me. We come to

this place, this place of decision-making, to try to make a better place for the

people of British Columbia. It's a parliamentary system that I happen to agree

with. More and more I'm seeing that our role of opposition is so much more

fundamental to protecting the people of British Columbia. This Speech from the

Throne, followed by the speech from the budget, has reinforced that for me in so

many ways.

I've never been so confused by a Speech from the Throne that is

totally disconnected with the speech from the budget. The Speech from the Throne

spent a lot of time — many, many pages — dealing with the environment, dealing

with climate change realities. The speech from the budget provided no substance.

The Speech from the Throne suggested: "The science is clear. It leaves no room

for procrastination. Global warming is real."

The budget is about procrastination, so there's a contradiction

here. I don't know if it was done intentionally, but this is very confusing to

all groups and individuals in the province that put some hope in what was said

in the throne speech.

We all remember the children's budget and throne speech. There was

a link there. The throne speech that prioritized protecting children — last

year, I believe — was followed through with some of the same statements in the

budget speech. It's taken a year for that to fall off the table — second year in

a row, B.C. is the highest in

[ Page 5446 ]

child poverty — and following that with a draconian cut to child care

funding.

That lasted a year at least before we could see it totally

unravel. The climate change issue took a week. I don't know if that's considered

progress in expedience, timesaving. Maybe just cut to the chase. The words are

not reflected in the budget.

[1630]

I have to touch on something that the previous speaker said. It's

true that in 2001 when this government came in, they did turn things around.

They turned a record surplus into a record deficit in a blink. [Laughter.]

The laugh is coming from the good minister across the way. I guess

she's laughing at this government's own Finance Ministry.

Interjection.

S. Fraser: Check the Finance Ministry.

The minister used the word that she was forced to apologize for,

so I won't use the same word. Unless you're refuting…. Well, I know you refute

the Auditor General's report. The government side does that whenever it doesn't

fit into their plans. But the Auditor General and the ministry have affirmed

what I said, so I won't say any more about it.

The true colours of this government have never shown clearer than

with this budget speech. The Liberals seem to govern by slogan in lieu of

substance, and that's not what the people of British Columbia deserve. Slogans

like "the five great goals" and "the golden decade." I call it the chalcopyrite

decade. For those that are not familiar with the geological term — I was a

rockhound as a kid — chalcopyrite is fool's gold. The fool's gold decade. We as

the opposition must make sure that we can avert the remainder of that fool's

gold decade on behalf of the people of B.C.

The year of the child, the children's budget that we saw before,

is followed by this budget, which is silent on child care. It is cruelly ironic

to see the values of children, stated so eloquently in that previous budget and

throne speech, turn to dust in the shadow of meaningless rhetoric by this

government.

This Liberal government is knowingly putting children at risk by

omitting child care — no mention of it — especially after recent events.

Petitions are coming in presented by government members, MLAs, their

constituents that they turn a deaf ear to.

This government is cutting existing child care programs, and to

add insult to injury, the minister for child care cuts was also clear that any

increase in child care spaces won't get any additional funding. This

shortsighted and skewed vision is indicative of the priorities of this

government. Silence in the budget speech — after the people of British Columbia,

families of British Columbia have appealed for help.

We now know — and I'm quoting from unquestionable studies — that

early childhood development is a determinant of health throughout childhood,

adolescence and beyond into adulthood. The conditions in which children grow and

develop are among the most important determinants of health throughout the

entire course of their life.

Studies have shown that high-quality child care could also help

disadvantaged children get a better and more effective start at school, and it's

been shown to improve children's cognitive, language and social skills. Early

development programs such as those provided by our quality child care operators,

being put at risk by this government's omission in the budget, help to make

education the truly equal opportunity it was meant to be. It's a huge

disappointment for all people in B.C. from all sectors that rely on child care,

and for those children, especially disadvantaged children, who would be getting

a leg up, a level playing field, as they hit kindergarten.

It's telling to have hundreds of citizens, parents, children,

workers and first nations from across the province marching on the Legislature

just last week, and this government, government members and ministers, turning a

blind eye — blissfully unaware, I guess — in this House. I could hear it from my

office, hon. Speaker. As we come to throne speech and budget, the deaf ears were

clear.

[1635]

For more than a year this government has been leading parents on

with spending announcements and with promises of new facilities for B.C.'s

beleaguered child care system. The people of B.C., the families of B.C., trusted

those words and that encouragement. Now, pulling the rug out from under B.C.

families with funding cuts, rate increases and cuts to child care spaces and

infrastructure….

Every dollar invested in quality child care is a huge investment

in our future, and government members know that. They have access to the same

studies that I do. They have access to the University of Manitoba studies that

have shown that it is probably the best investment we can make.

Another great investment we could make would be listening to the

students in post-secondary education. Again, nothing in the budget was

mentioned. We just had a day of action all across this province, all across this

great nation, with students coming forward with a real problem in universality:

access to post-secondary education.

I think B.C. is again a leader here in increasing costs for

post-secondary education. They've doubled. They've stickhandled the doubling of

tuition fees — more than the doubling of tuition fees — in their tenure. They've

gutted grant programs.

Students have come forward, as one, protesting this. They came to

this building last week, and I know they met with government members and

opposition members. So I know that government members knew this and are aware of

the problems and, I hope, aware of the investment that post-secondary education

represents for British Columbia and the future of British Columbia. What an

opportunity in the budget to address those needs. Deaf ears. Don't care. Don't

listen.

Back to the children's budget, a distant memory now. As I

mentioned, first nations attended the protest to

[ Page 5447 ]

child care cuts here at the Legislature. It was the members of the Esketemc

First Nation, and they came here all the way from Alkali Lake, 100 miles

southwest of Williams Lake. It was a long trip. It does not appear that they

were consulted on child care cuts, and they are also disappointed in the

omission in this budget.

It does not appear that they are seeing this government's new

relationship. We on this side have supported the principle of that new

relationship. Of course, I, as critic, know members of the leadership council

and am friends with many first nations leaders who are expecting much from the

new relationship, as are we from the opposition.

This budget is a great disappointment regarding aboriginal

relations and reconciliation. Indeed, the throne speech lauds the existing

treaties process, but this does not tell the whole story. A great many treaty

tables are being ignored. A few breakout tables only are receiving the bulk of

the cut resources from this government in treaty. This is causing great

discontent and frustration among many nations and may ultimately scuttle many

negotiations. It's disproportionate.

[1640]

The public is kept from information from the ministry. The

ministry does not report out fully on the status of many negotiations. What, if

anything, is it doing to overcome the challenges and barriers to success? I know

that first nations leadership and the aboriginal people in B.C. were surprised

and disappointed in the budget speech the other day.

What about this government addressing the realities of off-reserve

aboriginal needs, urban aboriginal needs? The majority of aboriginal people in

B.C. live off reserve — many with desperate needs, many being ignored by this

government's fool's gold decade.

There are 24 friendship centres in B.C. They provide programs for

over 50 percent of the total B.C. aboriginal population who now live in urban

centres off reserve. In the many cities and towns where friendship centres are

located great work is done, often with youth. Limited funding determines how

many days the youth centres associated with friendship centres can be open and

what activities can be provided. A huge investment, a wise investment, but

serious underfunding limits the success of these programs and the ability of

friendship centres to meet the needs of the urban aboriginal youth and other

youth.

There was no mention in the budget of any help here. I know that

the minister, the ministry and this government know of the issues, yet they were

silent. I suppose that as we enter the estimates that follow this budget

process, I will be probing that. Will the B.C. government provide support for

these programs at friendship centres so that there's continuity in their

funding, so that they don't