British Columbia Hansard — WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2003
20030219pm-Hansard-v11n9
British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2003
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 11, Number 9
CONTENTS
Routine
Proceedings
Page
Introductions by Members
Tributes
F.C. Austin Pelton
K. Stewart
Introduction and First Reading of Bills
Employee Investment Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 8)
Hon. R. Thorpe
Statements (Standing Order 25 B )
Long-term care services
P. Sahota
Heartlands economic strategy
W. Cobb
Olympic Games referendum
S. Brice
Oral Questions
Purchase of liquor by restaurants
J. MacPhail
Hon. R. Thorpe
Education funding
J. Kwan
Hon. C. Clark
Health care funding and recruitment of nurses
K. Krueger
Hon. C. Hansen
2010 Olympic Winter Games benefits to B.C.
P. Bell
Hon. T. Nebbeling
Ambulance payment for transfer of long-term care patient
Hon. K. Whittred
Ministerial Statements
Tissue transplant safety and investigation into B.C. Ear Bank
Hon. C. Hansen
J. MacPhail
Tabling Documents
Funding the Office of the
Ombudsman , special financial report
No. 1, February 2003
Office of the ombudsman service plan 2003-04 – 2005-06
Budget Debate (continued)
J. MacPhail
R. Sultan
B. Kerr
B. Lekstrom
M. Hunter
G. Trumper
R. Visser
[ Page 4877 ]
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2003
The House
met at 2:04 p.m.
Prayers.
[1405]
Introductions by Members
Hon. G.
Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery we have special guests from
Indonesia. Binarti Sumirat is the newly appointed consul general of Indonesia at
Vancouver. She is accompanied by the deputy consul general, Bebeb Djundjunan.
Today the consul general is in Victoria meeting with the Lieutenant-Governor and
ministers of the government.
Indonesia
is an important market for Canadian companies to invest in and is an export
market for our mining, power and energy sectors. Please join me in giving her a
warm welcome to this House and our Pacific province.
J. Bray:
Joining us in the gallery today are some wonderful people from my community who
live at beautiful Somerset House on Dallas Road, overlooking the strait of Juan
de Fuca. They're here today to watch the proceedings. I'd ask that the House
please make them all very welcome.
B. Kerr:
Included in that group from Somerset House is a person very close to me. She's
taught me to balance life but live it to the fullest. At 89 years young, she has
more energy than I could ever hope to have. I'd like the House to make my mother
feel very welcome.
Hamilton: It's my honour to welcome to the House Duncan Malcolm, one of my
constituents. Would the House please make him welcome.
Tributes
F.C. AUSTIN PELTON
Stewart: It's with great sadness that I rise today to report the passing of
a former member of this House and a past mayor of Maple Ridge. Mr. Austin Pelton
passed away this morning at the age of 82. Austin represented the riding of
Dewdney from 1983 to 1991 with the Social Credit government. He served as the
Minister of Environment and was a longtime Deputy Speaker in this House.
Austin was
a much respected and loved member of our community. He was in a very select
group, one of only seven to receive the freeman status within Maple Ridge. An
inspiration to many, including myself and to those who served with him — some
who are still in this House today — Forbes Charles Austin Pelton was
affectionately known as the Senator for his stately mannerisms and reflective
views. I hope the House will join me in sending condolences to his wife Louise
and their family.
Mr.
Speaker: Noted. The assembly will respond.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
EMPLOYEE INVESTMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2003
Hon. R.
Thorpe presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill
intituled Employee Investment Amendment Act, 2003.
Hon. R.
Thorpe I move that Bill 8 be read a first time now.
Motion
approved.
Hon. R.
Thorpe I am pleased to introduce Bill 8, the Employee Investment Amendment
Act. The Employee Investment Act is the governing legislation for
labour-sponsored funds and employee share ownership plans registered in British
Columbia. The Employee Investment Amendment Act will harmonize the treatment of
all registrants under the act and strengthen the competition in the
labour-sponsored fund market in British Columbia. The amendments will make it
easier and more attractive for employee investors to participate in business
successorship investments by eliminating the need for unnecessary regulatory
orders otherwise required for new labour-sponsored funds. This amendment
supports the government's commitment to reducing red tape in making it easier
for individuals and small businesses to succeed in British Columbia.
I move that
the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next
sitting of the House after today.
[1410]
Bill 8
introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for
second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25
b) LONG-TERM CARE SERVICES
Sahota: Long-term care providers in our province provide incredibly
important services to our health care system and to our communities through the
care they provide for our seniors. Last week I, along with my colleagues from
Burquitlam, Coquitlam-Maillardville and Burnaby-Willingdon and close to 15
long-term care operators, owners and administrators, met with the Minister of
State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care.
The
minister heard their concerns and ideas for how this government can continue to
develop the kinds of policies that best enable them to care for our aging
population. They shared their ideas on how to
[ Page 4878 ]
improve care for our seniors and for the disabled in British Columbia.
What we
heard was encouraging. They told us that the changes we have made so far are
working. The changes allow them more flexibility and, more importantly, make the
facilities more responsive to seniors' needs.
They also
encouraged us to do more. They have asked for more input in the planning process
that affects how well they can deliver services to seniors. They asked us to
work toward providing more options for assisted living that allow greater
independence while ensuring that the level of care remains the same.
I am
fortunate to have some of the very best care facilities in my riding from George
Derby Centre to Normanna, the New Vista Society and the Nikkei Home, just to
name a few. Every service is provided with an eye to making the facilities more
home-like. For example, in the New Vista there is a community thrift shop and a
community cafeteria. These are facilities led by incredibly dedicated
individuals who are involved in some of the most innovative initiatives aimed at
improving the quality of the life of the people who live there.
HEARTLANDS ECONOMIC STRATEGY
W. Cobb:
The numbers for a decade of decline are well known to the people in my riding.
We lost thousands of jobs in the forest industry. The mining industry saw
employment cut in half. We saw population decline. Building permits for
construction of residential units dropped by 82 percent. These are only numbers.
What they don't tell us is the human side of the story about the people who had
to leave town to find work. With resources as rich as ours, there is no excuse
for people being forced out of the province in order to support their families.
We hear
what the impact of losing families has on the education. Declining enrolment
puts tremendous pressures on school boards, but it's also not easy for children
who have to leave behind their schools, their teams and their friends. Working
families deserve better. The heartlands economic strategy is designed to make
sure that families can stay together so that parents can have good-paying jobs,
so that teenagers can finish high school and then decide what steps to take
next.
The
investments being made in transportation are long overdue. Our roads and
railways carry the wealth of this province, and they need to be repaired. I
drive these roads every day, and that money will be well spent.
Extending
the mineral exploration credit will see investment returned in this sector.
Reforms to the forest sector, the creation of the working forest and the
results-based forest and range practices code will help the industry remain
competitive. Forestry is our number one industry, and it's about time we treated
it that way.
Where are
the heartlands, the opposition asks. That probably explains the neglect of this
area for the past decade. I am proud to say I'm from the heartlands.
Our
government understands the needs and the desires of those families. They want to
work hard, live where they want and enjoy life with their families. That's what
we want to give them.
OLYMPIC GAMES REFERENDUM
Brice: Today I have a memo, and it's a memo to the folks living in
Vancouver. It's from a riding outside the 2010 plebiscite area, and the subject
is "Vote yes." We in greater Victoria and all the communities on
Vancouver Island say yes to the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic bid.
The memo
goes on to say: "We ask you in Vancouver to use your ballot on Saturday to
ensure that the IOC hears a strong, resounding yes coming from all corners of
this province."
[1415]
Those of us
who live in greater Victoria know better than most just what hosting a huge
international event will do for the city. We hosted the 1994 Commonwealth Games.
We welcomed 63 nations, 2,450 athletes and hundreds of thousands of visitors to
our games. The volunteers and the residents at large burst with pride at the
amazing results of our efforts.
Oh sure,
leading up to the event there were the usual naysayers, the gloom-and-doom
crowd, but by the time Her Majesty arrived at the opening ceremonies, even the
most fervent skeptics acknowledged that this was great for our city, great for
our economy and great for our spirit. Vancouver, don't let us down. Don't let
our young people down. Catch the spirit. Use your vote to help make it happen.
Vote yes, and together we will welcome the world again.
Oral Questions
PURCHASE OF LIQUOR BY RESTAURANTS
MacPhail: Can the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise explain
why he's threatening independent restaurants across B.C. with bankruptcy by
taking away their ability to buy liquor on credit?
Hon. R.
Thorpe: I take exception to the member's comments in using the word
"threatening." What we are doing is making sure that the financial
resources British Columbia has are directed to the priorities our government has
established: (1) putting patients first in health care and (2) putting students
first in education. Our government is committed to those principles, and this is
what we're doing.
Mr.
Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.
MacPhail: Maybe the minister didn't have time to pay attention to the
question, and him taking offence at the word "threaten…." It's not
my word. It's the word of restaurateurs I've been meeting with over the past few
days. Apparently, what's good for the government
[ Page 4879 ]
is not good for small business. It's fine, as we saw yesterday with the $3.8
billion deficit, for the government to use its credit card to rack up those
record deficits, but small businesses — restaurants — are now, because of
this government, not even allowed to buy a case of wine on credit.
As the
minister should know, restaurants, even very successful ones, operate on a small
margin. At certain times of the year, right now being one, they need credit to
stay afloat. Restaurant owners are telling me this bone-headed Liberal policy is
threatening them with financial disaster. Not my words — theirs.
Again to
the minister: when does he plan to back off his policy and save thousands of
small businesses in B.C. from financial ruin?
Hon. R.
Thorpe: In fact, our government has taken proactive action in making sure
that businesses, small and large, and individuals throughout British Columbia
can prosper and make their own decisions. The member may have forgotten. We've
reduced taxes to small businesses. We've streamlined WCB. We've put flexibility
in the Labour Code. We've reduced their personal taxes by 25 percent. We are
making it easier and better to do business in British Columbia.
We are
meeting and talking with the restaurant associations, both the Canadian and the
British Columbia Restaurant Association. We will not be changing our position on
taking $2.5 million out of education and health care and giving it in credit
card discounts, but we have altered for 90 days the single-bottle pick for small
restaurateurs around British Columbia, and they acknowledged to me last night
they were very thankful for that change.
Mr.
Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.
MacPhail: I'm sure the restaurateurs that are watching the minister right
now will be incredibly disappointed. This is supposed to be a business-friendly
government. That's what they announced with great fanfare yesterday. As the
minister notes, unlike any of their own rules around using credit, not only are
they denying restaurateurs credit, but soon, as the minister notes, they're
going to refuse to let restaurateurs buy anything less than a full case of one
kind of wine or one kind of spirits.
[1420]
I don't
know about the minister, but there are thousands of restaurants throughout this
province that cannot afford to do that bulk purchase. Yes, the minister backed
off for 90 days. Why? Because of the huge outcry from restaurateurs. Instead of
just delaying the pain until June, why doesn't he just stand up, admit that the
policy was stupid and anti-business, and forever stop the policy — put an end
to it?
Hon. R.
Thorpe: With respect to the single-bottle purchase, we have amended that and
extended that for 90 days. In the interim….
Interjection.
Hon. R.
Thorpe: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. In the interim, we are going to enhance the
private sector's involvement in….
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Could we have some order, please.
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Please
continue.
Hon. R.
Thorpe: The enhanced bottle pick has been extended for 90 days. We are going
to ensure that the private sector can provide that service to the private
sector. That will be done within the 90 days. The Solicitor General and I are
working on that. That will be done.
Let us be
clear here. Our government has had to make tough decisions because of the
financial ruin…
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. R.
Thorpe: …you left this province in — $4.4 billion. When I have to make
the decision whether I'm putting dollars to health care or to education or to
discounts for credit cards, I'm picking health care and I'm picking education
— every day.
EDUCATION FUNDING
J. Kwan:
For the Minister of Enterprise's information, the $4.4 billion deficit was his
government's deficit.
In the
Premier's infomercial he said education funding was going to go up by $100
million. British Columbians took him at his word and expected to see the money
start to flow this year, but funding in public schools is going down by $13
million. Can the Minister of Education explain why parents and students have to
wait until next year before there's some relief for the failing schools?
Hon. C.
Clark: We just announced a $50 million injection of money into our school
system. That's good news. Last year we announced a $42 million additional
increase for school districts. The Premier announced a $100 million — and it's
actually $107 million — in new base money that will be made available to our
public school system.
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. C.
Clark: The reason we have been able to make these savings and disburse this
money to school
[ Page 4880 ]
districts is because for the first time in two generations in British
Columbia, we have a government that is managing prudently and that is making
sure we have every ministry come in on or under budget. The dividend for that
means that rather than paying an extra $200 million to the banks, we can pump
more money into health care, more money into education, more money into early
childhood development. That's the benefit of good fiscal management.
Mr.
Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary
question.
J. Kwan:
Maybe the minister should actually look at the budget book, and she'll note that
there is no increase in the education funding this year. Not only is the
government cutting funding to the education system for public schools, but other
education programs are also being impacted. The poorest and most vulnerable
children are going to get hit the hardest. Funding for inner-city schools is
being chopped by about $6 million — about the same amount of money, I might
add, that the Premier plans to spend in extra spending for advertising, no less.
To the
Deputy Premier: why is her government targeting the neediest children for deep
cuts at a time when the Premier is boosting funding for infomercials,
advertising, spin-doctoring?
Hon. C.
Clark: You know, when that member stands up after ten years of the most
irresponsible government in British Columbia's history, stands up here and says
that our government — this government — is underfunding social programs, it
is a disgrace. What we've done this year…
[1425]
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. C.
Clark: …is, in fact.…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. C.
Clark: Because of good fiscal management…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. C.
Clark: …we have saved $200 million that would otherwise have been going to
pay the banks for debt service and interest costs. That's the result of good,
prudent fiscal management. The Premier was very clear. We are going to continue
to fund those important programs for kids who depend on school lunches, because
we know that kids can't go to school and learn on an empty stomach.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.
Hon. C.
Clark: We're going to make sure we continue to fund inner-city school
programs.
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Order. Would the opposition please come to order, and question
period will continue when that happens.
Hon. C.
Clark: Shall I start again? Mr. Speaker, I'll just conclude by saying this.
It is a disgrace to hear that member get up and decry this budget, because what
we've seen in this budget is the result of good, prudent fiscal management. For
the first time in generations we are on track with our budget, and for the first
time in generations we are seeing the educational dividend, the social dividend,
of making sure we manage our budgets well. Yes, we've got an extra $200 million.
If she'd been in government, she might have chosen to spend that on fast ferries
or something else. We chose in this government to pump that money into
education, to pump that money into early childhood development, to protect kids
in inner-city schools…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. C.
Clark: …and we're going to keep on doing that.
HEALTH CARE FUNDING AND
RECRUITMENT OF NURSES
Krueger: My question is to the Minister of Health Services. The B.C. Nurses
Union is falsely claiming that, as part of yesterday's budget, the government is
cutting back on health care across British Columbia. They also claim that these
cuts will hurt patient care in the heartlands of the province. Once again we
have the spectacle of a public sector union deliberately frightening vulnerable
people, especially seniors. My constituents deserve to know the truth. Would the
Minister of Health Services please set the record straight?
Hon. C.
Hansen: In fact, this government has added $1.1 billion to the health care
budget since we took office. That's good news for all parts of British Columbia,
and in particular the heartlands of British Columbia. What we have seen over
this last year is a strengthening of services from region to region throughout
the province as we consolidate services. That means we can actually do more in
those regions
[ Page 4881 ]
than we were able to do before. Fewer patients have to be transferred outside
of those regions to come to Vancouver or Victoria, and that's good news for
British Columbians in every single corner of this province.
Mr.
Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson has a supplementary
question.
Krueger: The B.C. Nurses Union is also claiming that the government has no
plan for recruiting registered nurses. The people of British Columbia….
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Order. Order, please. The member for
Cariboo South rises on a point of order.
W. Cobb:
Yes. I would like to hear the questions.
Mr.
Speaker: I think we all would. Question period will continue in a moment.
Krueger: The B.C. Nurses Union is also claiming that the government has no
plan for recruiting registered nurses. The people of British Columbia, certainly
including every member in this House, esteem our nurses tremendously and know
what vital services they provide. Could the Minister of Health Services tell us
what the government is doing to increase the number of registered nurses in our
hospitals?
[1430]
Hon. C.
Hansen: That, in fact, has been a tremendous good-news story over the last
year and a half. The Registered Nurses Association of British Columbia produced
a report a few months back which shows that between June of the year 2001 —
which was the time we took office — and October 31 of last year, there was a
net increase of 1,255 registered nurses in British Columbia.
The
Registered Nurses Association of British Columbia also has recently done a
survey of graduating nursing students from British Columbia. They did the same
study in 1997, and at that time it showed that 18 percent of them were looking
for jobs outside of British Columbia. Last year it showed only 10 percent were
looking for jobs outside of British Columbia. It also showed that in 1997, only
25 percent of the graduates were able to find permanent nursing positions in
this province. Last year when they did the same survey, 75 percent of our
nursing graduates found permanent jobs in British Columbia.
2010 OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES
BENEFITS TO B.C.
P. Bell:
Yesterday a certain member of this House didn't know where the heartlands
were. I'm from the heartlands, and as a member from the heartlands, I hear from
many of my constituents that they're concerned about the 2010 Olympics and that
they'll divert important infrastructure dollars away from the heartlands into
urban B.C. I think I speak for many heartlands members and as the northern
representative on the Olympic live site committee when I say that all of B.C.
must benefit from the Olympics.
Can the
minister responsible for the 2010 Olympic bid tell us how he intends to ensure
that all of the heartlands will benefit from the infrastructure dollars
available?
Hon. T.
Nebbeling: First of all, all British Columbians will benefit from bringing
the 2010 games to British Columbia. I think that the best way to deal with the
question is to refer the member to the throne speech and to the budget speech.
You will see that the throne speech and the budget speech are full of good
things for the heartlands and other parts of British Columbia as well.
The
commitment that our province has made to start upgrading the much-needed routes
throughout the province is a firm commitment. We will start with the first
priority, which is the Kicking Horse Pass — $670 million. This will open up
the Kootenays. That's a commitment by this province. It's a commitment towards
public safety, and it's also a commitment towards tourism, sports and recreation
opportunities, because we will open up Canada's route into British Columbia by
this particular upgrade.
There's
also a program that was introduced by the Premier during the UBCM. It's called
the live sites program. We will make $40 million available for communities
throughout British Columbia who can, if they're interested, get involved during
the time the games are in British Columbia. The live sites will be provided with
equipment. Some of the communities may choose the upgrade of a community hall.
The whole purpose of this program is to make sure that…
Mr.
Speaker: Thank you.
Hon. T.
Nebbeling: …British Columbians will be part of…
Mr.
Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Minister.
Hon. T.
Nebbeling: …the games through coming together as community members. That,
again, is a great thing for the heartlands. What is good for the heartlands…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. T.
Nebbeling: …is good for all British Columbians.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Thank you.
[End
of question period.]
[ Page 4882 ]
AMBULANCE PAYMENT FOR TRANSFER
OF LONG-TERM CARE PATIENT
Hon. K.
Whittred: I rise to respond to a question taken on notice yesterday.
Yesterday
the member for Vancouver-Hastings asked a question regarding ambulance bills for
the late Mr. Edward Laitenen. I am pleased to advise the House of the actions
that have been taken since the member first raised that question last October.
On October
28, 2002, the member opposite first raised the question in the House. I advised
her at that time that if she provided me with details, I would look into the
situation. My office immediately contacted the interior health authority on Mr.
Laitenen's behalf, and a patient advocate was appointed to resolve the issue of
the ambulance billings. The office of the member opposite was notified.
On November
7 the member for Shuswap contacted Mrs. Laitenen to also offer his assistance.
On November 19, 2002, the member for Vancouver-Hastings raised this matter in
the House again, and I answered her question — contrary to her statement
yesterday where she said I had taken the question on notice.
I followed
up the matter with the interior health authority, and they were working with the
advocate and the family to resolve the issue. As a result of that intervention
and with the assistance of the member for Shuswap, the situation has been
resolved. As stated previously, Mrs. Laitenen is not responsible for any
ambulance bills.
Interjections.
[1435]
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.
Hon. K.
Whittred: I have asked the B.C. Ambulance Service to notify Mrs. Laitenen of
this in writing and to ensure final closure on this issue.
Ministerial Statements
TISSUE TRANSPLANT SAFETY AND
INVESTIGATION INTO B.C. EAR BANK
Hon. C.
Hansen: A news conference was launched in Vancouver a short time ago to
provide details around a Health Canada investigation into the operation of the
B.C. Ear Bank at St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver. The review, which is still
ongoing, has uncovered health and safety concerns that our government takes very
seriously.
To some
degree these concerns boil down to poor recordkeeping and a lack of clear
documentation to show that appropriate screening of tissue donors and
sterilization of tissue took place. While we have been advised by experts at
Health Canada and by our provincial health officer that the risk to patients
potentially impacted by this situation is extremely low, the damage to the
credibility of all those responsible for safeguarding our public health care
system over the past two decades is real.
In fact, it
is clear to myself, my health care colleagues and the Premier that these issues
undermine the public's faith in the operation, management and regulation of
tissue banks not only in British Columbia but across the country. It is not
acceptable to me, to the Premier or to our government as a whole, and I know it
is not acceptable to the people of British Columbia. I want to make it clear
today that we will take every action necessary to ensure that British Columbians
have full confidence in the ability of our public health system to deliver safe,
high-quality care and that their health and safety will be protected now and in
the future.
Before I
explain some of the elements of our action plan, I'd like to clarify some of the
history around the B.C. Ear Bank and the chain of events that led us here today.
The B.C. Ear Bank has been in existence since 1974, first operating out of the
Vancouver General Hospital before moving to the former Shaughnessy Hospital in
Vancouver. Responsibility for the bank was transferred to St. Paul's in 1993,
and it relocated the actual bank to the St. Paul's Hospital site in 1995. It
served as a combination teaching lab and transplant tissue bank under the
medical direction of the University of British Columbia. The B.C. Ear Bank
collected, processed, sterilized and stored bone and tissue. The bank then sent
these materials to hospitals across the country that requested them for both
teaching purposes and for use in transplant operations on patients suffering
from hearing loss.
understand that in September of 2002, administrators at Providence Health Care
first became aware of concerns around quality control and standards of practice
at the bank, and they began to gather the facts. By the first week of October,
Providence had launched a more formal internal investigation and advised Health
Canada of its concerns. Health Canada subsequently launched its own review. At
that time, Providence suspended the B.C. Ear Bank's operations, and no tissue or
bones have been collected or shipped since that time.
I am
advised that there is evidence of concerns relayed between clinicians associated
with the bank as far back as the early 1990s and again in 1998. I have also been
made aware that broader concerns around the operation and regulation of tissue
banks in this country are longstanding within the medical community. In fact, in
recent days I have been advised by health experts that for years they have
lobbied the federal government for a stronger regulatory framework in Canada and
for clear standards to ensure that patient safety is protected. As far back as
the release of the Krever inquiry report in 1997, Health Canada began looking at
the risk of disease transmission from tissue transplants, and while the debate
around standards has dragged on, the potential risk to British Columbians and
patients across the country has remained.
On February
7 of this year Health Canada approached the provincial health officer, Dr. Perry
Kend-
[ Page 4883 ]
all, with preliminary results of its investigation, and Dr. Kendall launched
a formal assessment to determine the level of risk to patients arising from
Health Canada's concerns. Dr. Kendall immediately informed the deputy minister,
who contacted me.
[1440]
Since that
time we have been working closely with Health Canada to assist and advise in the
planning of the notification and recall strategy, which is being announced today
in Vancouver. Once the risk assessment was complete, the Premier was given a
verbal telephone briefing about the issue on February 14, and both he and I were
clear to officials on the need for immediate action to ensure full cooperation
with Health Canada's investigation and appropriate notification of both patients
and providers.
The Premier
also directed me to initiate a plan of action over the weekend to ensure that
the situation was fully investigated, with paramount concerns at all time for
public health and safety. The Premier was clear that this information is to be
released this week, and that is what we are doing. We were to release it in a
manner that was responsible and mindful of patient needs.
On Monday I
met with the Premier, Dr. Kendall and ministry staff to discuss the situation.
It was agreed that Dr. Kendall would develop a course of action, which I am
sharing with you today. Dr. Kendall's action plan includes the following steps:
(1) that we
call on Health Canada to launch a comprehensive review to ensure a clear and
accountable regulatory and accreditation framework for tissue banks across the
country;
(2) that we
direct the B.C. Transplant Society, through the provincial health services
authority, to prepare a plan to assume responsibility for the quality control
and regulatory compliance of all tissue banks operating in British Columbia;
(3) that we
request that the B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons review the practice of
doctors involved with the B.C. Ear Bank and develop professional guidelines for
tissue bank physicians;
(4) that we
appoint an independent expert team to review the circumstances leading to this
investigation and assess the activity of other tissue banks in the province. The
team would be expected to make public recommendations to government and the B.C.
Transplant Society to ensure that these issues identified by Health Canada never
occur again.
Finally,
Dr. Kendall recommends the expert team also review the role of the University of
British Columbia in overseeing clinical research relating to tissue transplants
and ensure that appropriate transition plans are in place when research programs
are transferred into clinical practice.
Our
government accepts these recommendations fully and will take action on each and
every one.
At the
request of the Premier, I am also writing to the federal Health minister to
ensure that an independent, comprehensive investigation is undertaken on this
entire matter and to encourage swift implementation of any other measures they
deem necessary to expedite this process and ensure that health of patients is
protected. Clearly, this is a matter of national importance, and it is
appropriate in this circumstance that the federal government, through Health
Canada, take a leadership role on these matters while our own action plan is
being implemented.
I want to
make it perfectly clear that all of these actions do not preclude any other
measures we believe may be necessary in the coming days and weeks to restore the
public's confidence in our public health system. The health and safety of
patients is paramount, and we will continue to work closely with Health Canada,
our health authorities and our stakeholders to ensure the highest standards of
patient care are in place and clear lines of accountability are drawn.
As this
process continues, Providence Health Care has asked 87 hospitals across Canada
and in two U.S. cities to return tissue and bone distributed by B.C. Ear Bank
that they may have in their inventories. Physicians at these hospitals who used
the materials are being asked to inform their patients about these problems and
to provide whatever clinical follow-up they deem medically necessary.
Let me
repeat: the risk of transmission to patients who received these products is
extremely low, and there have been no reports to date of disease transmission
attributed to any patient who received tissues processed or distributed by the
B.C. Ear Bank. In fact, Dr. Kendall has advised that the actual risk of disease
transmission attached to these close to 6,000 tissue samples identified in this
investigation is about one in 100,000, and even though documents don't exist in
every case, there is clear information that sterilization of tissues did take
place.
We are
fortunate the risk to patients is extremely small, but we cannot afford to be
complacent. I can assure you today that this government must and will take
action.
[1445]
MacPhail: I want to thank the minister for briefing me on the subject matter
earlier today. It is, indeed, a matter of concern for all British Columbians and
those who are outside of this province who now rely on or have relied upon this
service. The tissues are vitally needed for reconstructive surgeries and have
played an important role in our health care system.
When
matters of safety and security are brought to light, it is incumbent upon all of
us to work together to address the current concerns quickly and restore public
confidence. We from the opposition are ready to provide our support to the
minister in his efforts to do so.
Tabling Documents
Mr.
Speaker: I have the honour to present the following reports: office of the
ombudsman special financial report No. 1, February 2003, Funding the Office
of the Ombudsman ; and the office of the ombudsman service plan 2003-04,
2005-06.
[ Page 4884 ]
Orders of the Day
Hon. G.
Halsey-Brandt: I call debate on the budget.
Budget Debate
(continued)
Mr. Speaker:
The debate on the budget continues. The Leader of the Opposition adjourned the
debate.
MacPhail: Following on with my comments of yesterday, I continue in my
response to the 2003-04 budget. It's interesting. I spoke yesterday about what
was not in the budget.
Of course,
today we see the Minister of Education admitting that the $100 million is not in
the budget for this year, but that's only one of the things that the public was
misled about by the Premier and the Minister of Education. Not only is there not
$100 million extra in the education budget this year, but there are many other
things in this budget that the Minister of Finance did not talk about.
Budget 2003
hurts the middle class, it hurts the poor and vulnerable, it hurts interior and
coastal communities — no matter how much this government tries to rename those
communities — and it hurts B.C.'s economy.
Six hundred
million dollars in new taxes over two years — taxes that come directly out of
the pockets of the middle- and low-income earners, taxes that come directly out
of the economy, taxes that go to pay for the government's failing fiscal and
economic agenda, taxes that break a fundamental promise the Premier made to
lower the tax burden for middle- and low-income earners.
In his
television speech in which he raised taxes, he promised British Columbians $100
million in education this year — and nothing. But the tax increases are real.
How did
this come to pass? How has a government that told British Columbians that it
would cut taxes for middle- and low-income earners turned around and raised them
over and over again on those very same British Columbians?
[1450]
It comes
down to this. It comes down to the government's desperate attempt to reconcile
its promise to balance the budget while giving the biggest high-income tax
break, tax giveaway, ever in the history of British Columbia. That tax giveaway
didn't do the job that the Liberals thought it would. It didn't spur the
economy, it didn't drive business confidence through the roof, it didn't usher
in a new era, and it most certainly didn't pay for itself. In fact, the
third-quarter report that was tabled with this new budget shows that income
taxes, both from corporations and personal income taxes, are even lower than the
underestimate of the second-quarter report. Every time this government reports,
income tax revenue has dropped even further than they estimated.
The tax
giveaway blew a huge hole in the balanced budget that the government inherited,
creating the biggest deficit in B.C. history. In fact, even the Minister of
Competition has lost sight of the fact that not only did they inherit two
balanced budgets and a surplus, but it is his government that now has the
largest deficit not one year running, not two years running, but three years in
a row. It's this Liberal government that has tabled the biggest deficits in
history.
Now, I know
you wouldn't be able to figure that out from reading the Vancouver Sun or
the Province . They actually didn't report the deficit. I think they
reported the deficit once, but you wouldn't actually know that the deficit is at
$3.8 billion as we conclude this fiscal year and that it's going to be $2.3
billion next year.
Anyway,
those are the facts. That is what happened because this government decided on
day one to show, to demonstrate, no prudence but to give the biggest tax break
to the wealthy in the history of British Columbia. At the same time, it added
record debt to B.C.'s books. We didn't know that from yesterday either.
On track
and on budget for this government means having the highest increase in debt in
the history of B.C. as well. For some reason, that didn't get reported either.
The Finance minister stood up and said, "Debt is down," and that's
what got reported. What was missed in them being on track is the highest record
of debt ever — the highest percentage ever as a percentage of GDP debt — in
this province. That's what we're on track for. That's what they're celebrating
as such good news.
Instead,
the budget, the tax break given in the first day the Premier stepped over the
threshold of his new office…. He was backed into a corner. That tax break
forced him to implement a regressive program of harsh cuts to pay for his big
mistake. Instead, his big mistake has resulted in a shifting of the tax burden
directly onto the shoulders of those who can least afford to pay. It's the
biggest transfer of wealth away from the middle class and poor in B.C. history
to the wealthiest.
School
property taxes are up. Gee, I wonder how the interior and coastal communities
feel about that. Rural property taxes are up for the second year in a row. Sales
taxes are up. Sin taxes are up. MSP premiums are up, and of course gas taxes
have gone through the roof at precisely the moment when fuel costs are already
reaching record highs.
This is not
a stay-the-course budget. For anybody to be drawn into that misleading statement
is foolish or deliberately trying to divert attention away from what's really
going on here. This is an admission, a full-fledged retreat from the Liberals'
promise to cut taxes, balance the books and maintain vital public service. Am I
making up that little rhetoric? Is that rhetoric? No, that's straight out of the
New Era document.
[1455]
Here's how
this government interprets staying the course. Taxes are up after they promised
they wouldn't raise taxes. The budget deficit is at a record high after they
said that they wouldn't run deficits, and public services are being cut to the
bone.
Yesterday I
heard a pundit explain where someone said: "Well, they're staying the
course, aren't they?"
[ Page 4885 ]
This pundit said: "You know, if your child steals your credit card and
leaves a note saying, 'I'm going out, and I'm spending $10,000 on your credit
card, and you can't stop me,' and she comes home on Monday with the credit card
and has spent only $9,000, do you leap up and say: 'Hurrah! Isn't that
great'?" That's exactly what this government's trying to convince British
Columbians to do: to get praise for "staying the course."
Taxes up.
Debt up. Deficit at a record high, and public services cut to the bone. Stay the
course. New Liberalspeak again. Another addition to new Liberalspeak: stay the
course. We have a list of new Liberalspeak now, and this will be added to it:
stay the course. What that means for British Columbians…. But then again, what
the government promised in the New Era document and what the government
did after the election was safely behind them are two very different things.
The
Liberals' faith in right-wing, trickle-down, voodoo economics, a faith that was
kept under wraps and unveiled only after the votes were counted, has damaged
B.C. in ways that will take years to come…. It has damaged B.C. in such a way
that this government is now forced to attack small businesses, to attack
restaurants to the point where they're facing bankruptcy. That's what this
government is doing.
I've
already talked about the increased tax burden borne by the middle class, but
that alone doesn't capture the full magnitude of what this Liberal folly truly
is. Not only are the middle class now expected to pay well beyond their means,
they are also paying much more for much less in service. They're paying much
more for a health care system that is not there where and when they need it. It
was interesting to see the Minister for Intermediate and Long Term Care somehow
say it was good news that because the opposition had raised a financial attack
on a senior, it was now being taken care of.
Not once
did the member for Shuswap go to the Minister for Intermediate and Long Term
Care and say: "I made a commitment to have this bill paid" — this
ambulance bill of a poor senior with Parkinson's — "and you haven't
delivered." Not once did the member for Shuswap do that. He didn't follow
up. It took the opposition to do that. In the coming days and weeks and months
and years, you will see, over and over again, constituents being abandoned by
their MLAs and, more and more, it being left up to the opposition to represent
the interests of the constituents throughout the interior and coastal
communities.
Secondly,
British Columbians are paying more for a post-secondary education system where
the price of admission is putting education out of reach for their children.
Children who live in Trail or in Castlegar can no longer go to university or
college, and they're paying more — much more. British Columbians are paying
much more to look after their parents. They're paying more for day care. They're
paying more for auto insurance, and they're paying more for everything from a
driver's licence to a hunting licence.
When you
add it all up, the small tax cut the government delivered on its first day in
office to middle- and low-income families is gone. My tax break was gone a long
time ago.
[1500]
Interjections.
MacPhail: Absolutely. My tax break was gone when I paid…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
MacPhail: …my ICBC premium increases. When you add it all up, despite the
hectoring…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
MacPhail: …of this illustrious executive council, the small tax cut is
gone, gone, gone for middle- and low-income families — up in smoke to pay for
a massive transfer of wealth, opportunity and security away from the many and
into the hands of the few.
This wealth
and opportunity transfer is being felt throughout B.C. but especially in the
interior and coastal communities, communities that have been rebranded the
heartlands. The heartlands is the new name. It's now the name by the high-priced
communications…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
MacPhail: …advisers who, no doubt, are keeping their tax cut. No doubt
Martyn Brown still has his tax cut.
No matter
what this government tries to rebrand those communities, those communities are
hurting — hurting in ways that we haven't seen since the 1930s. I'll give some
statistics from the government's own book in a moment on what's happened to
those communities under their own government. Instead of helping those
communities through the tough times, the government is helping itself to as much
as it can possibly lay its hands on, making it harder for these communities to
get back on their feet and to take advantage of new opportunities to rebuild the
economy.
Let me just
demonstrate to all those who think their rebranding and their big tax cut for
the rich would work. I want to talk about the Kootenays, actually. Since this
government brought in their huge budget last year, how many people are working
in the Kootenays? There are 3,600 fewer people working in the Kootenays.
How about
the Thompson-Okanagan? There's another area that's been rebranded. How many
people in
[ Page 4886 ]
the Thompson-Okanagan are working now because of this government? The
comparison is not to my government, because there would have been a lot fewer
people working in the Thompson-Okanagan region. I've just compared it to last
year — that's all. There are 3,700 fewer people working in the
Thompson-Okanagan.
In the
Cariboo there are 1,800 people who are now not working, who were working when
this government took office. In the north coast and the Nechako there are 1,100
fewer people working now than when this government…. Oh, where's all the
hectoring now?
Those are
the statistics that demonstrate that this government has brought misery and
hardship to the heartlands. Of course, the member who represents the Kootenays
tries to justify it. Well, stand up and justify it. Stand up and justify why
there are fewer people working now, since your government took over, than there
were before. Just stand up. Tell the people of the interior how great it is for
them.
[1505]
In the
cities throughout this province there are fewer people working as well. But does
the Premier admit to that? No. The Premier obfuscates with statistics that are
simply not true. If I hear the Premier one more time saying, "For the first
time, two million people are working in this province," I'm going to have
to stand up and tell him he's misleading the public. There are 31,000 more
people in total working now than there were working at the beginning of their
term — in one year — not the 78,000.
There are
not two million people working. There are about the same number of people
working in this province — around 1.9 million — as there were in 2000.
That's it. There aren't 88,000 new jobs. There are 31,000 more people working,
and they're not working in the interior and the coastal communities. They're not
full-time jobs. There are 31,000 more people working at two and three jobs
because of this government.
British
Columbians living in the interior and coastal B.C. provide this province with
its most important economic engine, but they're being treated like the
government's personal bank account — withdrawing money at will to pay off the
huge credit card payments this government has racked up to pay for a reckless,
high-income tax cut, very, very little of which found its way into the pockets
of interior residents.
The
transfer of wealth and opportunity is also being felt by those who start life
with the least of each and who have suffered the most as the government
dismantles the social safety net. Unemployment amongst our youth is up
dramatically since this government took over — up dramatically all across the
province.
Child
protection services for our youth have been cut by $136 million. Inner-city
school funding is cut by $6 million — money to help kids who start life with
the steepest obstacles to climb. Did we hear that in the budget yesterday? No.
Just the same way that the Minister of Education wouldn't admit that there's no
$100 million increase in education this year, she wouldn't admit that there's a
cut of $6 million to pay for inner-city school funding.
I might add
that there's less money now for inner-city school funding than the Premier has
increased his own budget to pay for more advertising and spin. I can hardly wait
for those members who represent inner-city schools to stand up and justify that.
All those who were pounding on their desks yesterday with the good news, stand
up and justify a $6 million cut to inner-city school funding while the Premier's
advertisers get $6 million more.
Income
assistance is being chopped by a further $255 million, but it will work out just
fine. Unlike what the member for Cariboo South said in question period, there
are more people leaving this province now than in the 1990s. They're leaving
because they can't find jobs, and this government has ripped a hole so big in
the social safety net that they can't feed and clothe their children. People are
leaving British Columbia as we speak, because of the policies of this
government.
Let me say
today that those cuts are going to make the hard lives of the poorest children
in this province — the British Columbians for whom we should be reserving our
greatest compassion and generosity — much, much harder. I see it every day in
east Vancouver — parents and kids ground down by poverty, exhausted,
demoralized, frustrated. Now, once again, with this budget they are the ones
targeted for more pain.
It's not
fair, and it's not right to treat these people like they don't matter. You can't
rename the poor. This government can't rename the poor and expect all the
troubles will go away, like they tried to rename the interior and the coastal
communities.
[1510]
The way we
treat the most vulnerable amongst us measures the limits of our moral
imagination. Sadly, for this government, that imagination does not seem to
extend beyond the narrow limits of its ideological preoccupations. As I said
yesterday, the government's approach is creating a meaner, less cohesive, less
fair and ultimately less prosperous society. If British Columbia is to flourish
and prosper, we cannot afford to leave one person behind. Everyone, in every
community and from every background, must have the opportunity to make the most
of themselves, to realize their own dreams and to give their kids the best
chance they can. If it is true that knowledge is the new source of wealth, then
providing opportunity is the key to our future. What this budget does is draw a
line between economic innovation and social justice when, more than ever, they
need to go hand in hand.
Yesterday
the government and the members still continued to say we're on track. We're on
track. We're on track to what? I read statistics earlier from their own book.
Let me read some more. Here's what has happened in British Columbia in the last
year. Manufacturing shipments are down, exports are plummeting, housing starts
are up — thank goodness for the consumer — but non-residential building
permits are down by a whopping 17 percent. This government
[ Page 4887 ]
would be dead without the consumer. So what do they do? They take more money
out of the pockets of working British Columbians and thereby blow out the candle
on the ability of a consumer to spend the money as the only group keeping this
economy going.
As long as
this government insists on separating economic innovation and social justice,
the new era continues to pit one group against the other. As long as this
government chooses winners and delights in making losers, the new era it
promised — the hope and opportunity it says that it seeks — will continue to
elude its grasp.
I had a
chance to read this document, the budget and fiscal plan, cover to cover today,
and it was interesting to note, as a former Finance minister, how much of the
government's spin is in a government document for the very first time in
budget-making. The public servants who used to work on this document
deliberately kept things factual and to the point, but with this government,
they've put spin and misleading statements throughout their fiscal plan, hoping
that people wouldn't notice that debt is up the highest it's ever been, that the
deficit is the biggest it's ever been, that the economy is not in recovery and
that taxes have gone up. The new era has brought forward a group of people who
feel it's okay to use this public document to spin a message that British
Columbians simply won't believe when they check their paycheque and check to see
what they've got left in their pockets.
There is so
much that is misleading in this document and that was not told in the budget
yesterday, but for the time being, it seems that the media at least — or some
of them — are willing to give this government a chance to say that they are on
track. Fair enough. It's hard to wade through a budget with an opposition of
this size and with the government members merely going, "Aye-aye, sir; oh
yes, there's more money for inner-city school funding; there's more money for
education," when indeed there isn't. It's hard for the public to understand
what's really in the budget.
colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I will do our best during
estimates to point out the hardship that is being foisted upon British
Columbians, except those who are wealthy, and to try to give this government
guidance away from their harsh ideological path toward one that treats and gives
every British Columbian opportunity.
[1515]
Sultan: I have the honour of responding to the Finance minister's speech
outlining the government's budget for fiscal 2003-04 and its fiscal plan for the
two years after that. The government's latest three-year projection pushes the
numbers another year into the future. Such updating aside, the plan is
remarkably similar to the plan presented last year.
Anybody
looking for evidence to support journalists' claims that this government is
shifting gears to tax-and-spend mode — recalling in one example Glen Clark
shovelling money off the back of a truck or claiming in another example that the
Liberals are "changing course" — is bound to be disappointed. It
would be more accurate to say this budget and the government are boringly on
course.
Meanwhile,
from the other side of the aisle, we've just heard the Leader of the Opposition
dissect the minister's numbers. The former Finance minister did her best ably
but, in the time available, seemed to have trouble finding a handhold among the
current Finance minister's numbers. It's too bad opposition parties don't have
an obligation to tell us what their budget would look like. Then we could at
least say: let the better budget win.
But wait a
minute. We do have two budgets to compare: the minister's budget just presented
to this House and another budget which is a reasonable proxy for what the other
party's would look like. I refer, of course, to the three-year fiscal plan
presented to the world a couple of weeks ago by the Canadian Centre for Policy
Alternatives, otherwise known as CCPA. The Canadian Centre for Policy
Alternatives, in full Sunday morning rectitude, calls its budget "the path
not taken." The path not taken is a detailed blueprint of what our
province's three-year fiscal plan would have looked like if there had not been a
change of government 20 years ago.
Its
preparation has paralleled the government's own effort. Like the ministry, CCPA
is staffed with expert economists. Like the ministry, CCPA has adopted the
three-year planning cycle. Like the ministry, CCPA is funded by B.C. taxpayers.
That's because the previous government, in its dying days, sent over more than
$200,000 as a little grant among friends.
But there's
one big difference. CCPA celebrates its unflinching — I would say aggressive;
some might say unrepentant — skew to the left. Thus, it's reasonable to
believe that the path not taken closely approximates what we would have heard
from the Finance minister yesterday if government and opposition had suddenly
switched places. This seems reasonable, since the path not taken was, in fact,
the path taken by the previous government.
If there
had been a sudden switching of places, what would British Columbians be enduring
today? The centre's claims are hardly modest. Under their alternative regime, we
would have an increase in tax revenues — in fact, billions more, relative to
the government's own projections — lower MSP premiums, health care
expenditures in lockstep with those demanded by the Hospital Employees Union,
rising education expenditures in lockstep with figures presented by the teachers
union, higher social services spending, lower debt service costs and a balanced
budget in 2004-05 — just like the government.
[1520]
Wow. You've
got to hand it to these guys. They're fiscal geniuses. How do they do it? Easy.
They cook the books. Now, hold on. Before you accuse me of resurrecting the
phrase "fudge-it budget," let's look at their plan more closely.
First, the spending side. Total spending in path not taken averages $2 billion a
year
[ Page 4888 ]
higher than in the government's plan. That's 8 percent more per year on
average. Next the revenue side. How do they pay for all this extra spending?
With higher revenues, of course. Revenues in path not taken average 12 percent
more in each year than in the government's plan. That's an additional $2.8
billion per year they take out of the economy. Fiscally speaking, as my
granddaughter would say: "Cool." Boost spending by 8 percent; boost
revenues by 12 percent — ergo, balanced budget in a couple of years.
The
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has once again demonstrated its famous
trick of pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Given those kinds of numbers, Glen Clark
would have immediately called an election. Well, it's simple enough to see where
the CCPA spends its additional money. Actually, let's call it "the
centre" from now on. The letters CCPA, unfortunately, remind me too much of
those letters you used to see painted on the side of the Soviet Union missiles
in the good old days of Stalin and Khrushchev going through Red Square in
Moscow. I'm sure this was unintended.
Where the
centre spends its additional money is primarily on wages and benefits for its
pals in the public sector unions. Sure, they camouflage it by saying it's for
the patients and the kids, but after ten years of in-the-face, unabashed public
sector rewards, we finally figured out who gets most of the cash.
Where the
centre gets its additional money is also simple to figure out. Relative to the
government's fiscal plan, they raise 42 percent more money from personal income
taxes and 120 percent more money every year from the corporate income tax. Since
it's hard to believe that more people will rush to live in British Columbia
under the centre's tax regime or that more corporations will hasten to set up
business here under their tax regime, we can only assume the centre intends to
extract that money from those existing hardy souls who are sticking it out in
British Columbia — CCP missiles notwithstanding. Welcome to the new society,
folks. Oh, by the way, we're raising your personal income tax 42 percent, and if
you happen to own a small business, we're more than doubling your taxes too.
Look at it this way. In three years we'll balance the budget. Those bond-rating
agencies down on Wall Street and Bay Street, where all those nasty
multinationals and transnationals hang out, will love it.
What's
wrong with this picture? What's wrong with this picture is that it doesn't take
account of human nature. In the centre's view, taxpayers are sort of like that
horse in George Orwell's famous parody of socialism called Animal Farm .
I'm sure many of you read that book. That poor old horse, a true believer in the
socialist dream, just kept working and working, regardless of the burdens the
party apparatchiks loaded on him, until one day he keeled over and died. Human
beings don't behave that way. They move to Alberta.
Before we
leave Animal Farm , I can't resist quoting one final sound bite from the
centre's "The Path Not Taken" White Paper: "We need to use the
tax system creatively, designing carrots and sticks." Well, we've already
seen this bad movie, and it was a multibillion-dollar flop. It was called
"Carrots for the few; sticks for everybody."
During the
1990s the NDP used the tax system like a stick to beat down our economy. While
other provinces saw investments in their economy soar, investment in B.C.
dropped to the bottom. B.C. led the country in bankruptcies. Tens of thousands
of highly skilled workers and their families left British Columbia to seek
better opportunities elsewhere. The carrots were reserved for the public sector
unions.
Let's get
back to the real world and consider the serious economic and fiscal situation
the Finance minister inherited, which this government is doggedly determined to
rectify. Let's look at the raw material he had to work with. The B.C. Progress
Board, one of our Premier's superb innovations, is a blue-ribbon panel of
distinguished private citizens advised by various experts. It does good work. It
puts out an annual report card on how British Columbia is doing relative to our
competitors in Canada and the United States measured in terms of the economy,
innovation, education, environment, health and social conditions. I recommend it
to you — 150 pages long, lots of statistics and advice to anybody who really
wants to figure out what's going on.
[1525]
While the
Progress Board is oriented to the future, it also lets us learn from the past.
It shows us where we've been for the last ten years. What does the report card
say about this economy the government and our Finance minister inherited? It
says that in 2001, B.C. ranked tenth among all the provinces for the annual
growth of GDP per capita. It says that in the ten years leading up to the
election, B.C. ranked tenth in Canada in terms of improvement in real disposable
income per capita. In terms of job creation, in the ten years prior to the
election B.C. ranked tenth in Canada. It says that when comparing with bordering
American states — looking at ten indicators of economy, innovation and
education — in none of them was B.C. in the "strong" category. To
sum up, the Progress Board report card we brought home had "economic
failure" written across it in big letters.
The failed
policies that created this dismal track record are the same policies that the
centre and the NDP are still advocating. Talk about slow learners. Could we
suggest remedial studies in economics?
As an
interesting aside, another NDP policy paradox is revealed in the Progress Board
report, and at first glance it's a puzzler. In 2001, the report card says, B.C.
lagged the national average in real personal disposable income per capita by
over $500. But for six of the ten years between '92 and '01, B.C. had the
highest real average hourly wage in Canada. How can this be? What it tells me
is: elect the NDP, and they will boost your hourly wage, but guess what. Your
average disposable income will go down. Great. That's just the program British
Columbians have been waiting for to help pay the rent and groceries.
Moving into
the future, let's consider economic performance under this new B.C. Liberal
government. To borrow a phrase from the member for Peace River
[ Page 4889 ]
North, every week there's more good news. Consider that during 2002, the
economy created almost 80,000 new jobs. Since last year the number of people on
income assistance has dropped by 55,000. More importantly, of those, over 90
percent indicated they either had found work, had gone back to school or were in
improved financial circumstances. I think that's a phenomenal statistic for any
government to report, regardless of political persuasion.
Because
social assistance caseloads are down, resources have been freed for other
productive purposes. For example, over the next three years almost a third of a
billion dollars will be allocated to skills and development training for those
still on income assistance. With the government's 25 percent income tax cut the
first day on the job, British Columbians at the low end of the income scale now
have the lowest base rate of personal income tax of any jurisdiction in Canada.
Our opponents quickly glide over that fact when delivering their "tax cuts
for the rich" rhetoric.
[H.
Long in the chair.]
Housing
starts are up 25 percent, mineral exploration is up 25 percent, average weekly
wages in B.C. went up three times faster than the national average, the health
system has been stabilized, and so on. It's no exaggeration, in my opinion, to
say that the public health system has in fact been saved. If it had continued on
its previous path and broken through the ceiling of consuming more than half of
government revenues, I think something would have cracked. While we're not yet
out of the woods, we have put in place management systems that will ensure that
health dollars will go where they're needed most and where they will deliver the
greatest health care benefit.
Incidentally,
those who think it was the folks in Ottawa who came riding to the rescue like
the U.S. cavalry on the health care front the same day the minister presented
our provincial budget should consider that the health care money B.C. has been
so generously granted by Ottawa after all that huff and puff, all that royal
commission, all that debate, will sustain our health system for all of 92 hours.
Despite the
clamour from the public sector unions that this government is cutting health
budgets, it is not. Someone once called this propaganda technique "the big
lie," and I think the big lie is in evidence when they deny the reality
that health budgets actually went up $1.1 billion last year alone, as everyone
in this House well knows.
[1530]
Turning to
Pharmacare. The Pharmacare program has been saved. With costs going up 15
percent a year and the economy growing only 2 percent, figure out where we were
heading with that one. The Health minister's new Fair Pharmacare program will
see benefits going to those who need them most — the exact opposite of the
mean-spirited, steal-from-the-poor-and-give-to-the-rich story our opponents make
up and, in fact, which we have recently been reminded of.
Under Fair
Pharmacare 280,000 low-income families will pay less than they do now. This will
affect all ridings. Were you aware that in supposedly fat-cat West Vancouver, 15
percent of single women over age 65 are on social assistance? So this cuts
across all ridings in the province. Many young families with lower incomes will
for the first time be supported in their drug costs, and the revised plan will
end inequities where higher-income earners sometimes pay less for their drug
costs than those with much, much lower incomes.
Let's
consider next what's happening on the education front. Education budgets are
being increased by $143 million over the next three years on top of a one-time
$50 million injection of funds in '02-03. The "cuts" — and I put
that in quotation marks — in education spending that the public sector unions
keep screaming about turn out to be the difference between what they would like
us to spend and what we actually intend to spend. That's their definition of
cuts. What we actually intend to spend is a continuation of the growth in
dollars per student of the recent past. Per-student spending has grown about 10
percent over the past five years, about in line with inflation.
Frankly,
the big problem with our education budget is that we have this magnificent
education system, and British Columbians are not having enough babies to fill it
up, so let's get busy. The Deputy Premier, the Minister of Finance and even a
member of the opposition are doing their best, but they can't do it all by
themselves. They need help from the rest of us, so pitch in.
On the
advanced education front, $900 million has been committed to advanced education
for access to research over and above regular colleges and universities funding.
The government, in hard times — and we are in hard times; let's not kid
ourselves — continues to fund our critically important investment in the
knowledge society.
Finally,
consider transportation and highways. At long last, the public embarrassment of
the half billion wasted by the NDP on fast ferries will be behind us. I hope the
auction recovers some portion of the taxpayers' money. The Minister of
Transportation has a bold plan for highways reconstruction, new bridges and
other infrastructure. Over $650 million of government money will be invested
over the next two years, and that's just the beginning. All evidence is that
British Columbians have endorsed the means required to pay for it.
Finally,
the government has recognized the plight of the heartlands. I must say that
thanks to my colleagues, I have been reintroduced to the heartlands myself, and
it is a wonderful and educational experience. I think we too easily figure out
what's happening in British Columbia is what we're happening to read in the
headlines of the Vancouver newspapers that day, and that is not an accurate
assessment of the genuine distress much of our heartlands has experienced. The
government's new heartlands economic strategy will bring new vigour and hope to
that half of British Co-
[ Page 4890 ]
lumbia living beyond the enclave of privilege — at least as they would see
it — which surrounds us here in Victoria and on the lower mainland. This is
all, to borrow the phrase again, more good news.
Do British
Columbians approve? Well, McIntyre and Mustel says so. Between December and
February, through two months all the pundits described as punishing — and we
know whereof they speak — party ratings soared, and so did the Premier's. How
about that? More good news.
[1535]
To sum up,
the Finance minister has prepared in his characteristically competent and
deliberate fashion a budget which stays the course, which will ensure that we
have balanced the books beginning in '04-05 just like he said we would, which
preserves our cherished health care and education systems, which offers hope to
the heartlands — hammered by beetles, American protectionism and the NDP's
legacy — and which, for the first time in living history, ministers actually
pay attention to. Consider this: all 20 ministries and the Premier's office came
in on time, on or under budget ? a first in British Columbia. For all I know, it
may be a first in Canada, although someone said maybe Alberta beat us to it.
Beleaguered
taxpayers of this province should say a little prayer of thanks to our Treasury
Board officials, to the ministers responsible and to the custodians of the
taxpayers' purse for making all of that possible. Under this minister, we have
at least achieved credible expenditure control. Budgets are real budgets, and
accounting standards, which…. Even the Institute of Chartered Accountants, a
national organization, came out to Vancouver from Toronto recently and
recognized the Minister of Finance as leading the nation in terms of the
integrity of the financial reporting. More good news.
Now,
there's no good reason the minister's budget over the next three years can't be
achieved. I sense a renewed sense of confidence in that, even among those not in
this Legislature. Yes, there are very tangible risks — softwood lumber, soft
Asian economies, soft U.S. economy, rumours of war — not to mention coping
with all that stuff pumped out by the Centre for Policy Alternatives.
These
negative external factors will continue to be a drag, but despite these
handicaps, British Columbia's track record in adversity is excellent. The
government is doing exactly what we said we would do. We are going to balance
the budget in '04-05. This is still the greatest place in the world to live, and
thanks to this Premier, this minister and this government, all British
Columbians have a new era they can be proud of.
B. Kerr:
It gives me great pleasure to stand up this afternoon and address the budget and
speak in favour of the budget. Like my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano,
I, too, went back and compared some previous budgets. Although I had no
aspirations whatsoever for politics a number of years ago, I was involved with
the executive of the chartered accountants, and I came over here to go into the
lockup. In the lockup we get to review the budget before it's presented to the
House, but because they don't want any leaks, they lock us up and let us review
it there until the minister stands up to give the budget.
Now, this
particular year it was very tough on my part. I had never been there before, so
this was an absolute first thing for me. I didn't know how the system worked.
This was a time that apparently there was a leak of the document, and we were
given one hour to prepare our notes for that time. This was when, I believe,
Elizabeth Cull was the Finance minister — I think; I'm not sure. I shouldn't
say that. I'm not sure when it was. Nevertheless, I reviewed that particular
document. I went through it, and there were certain things I was looking for —
the same things then that I'm looking for now.
I was
looking for a road, a path, to a balanced budget. I was looking for a debt
management plan. I was looking for a reduction in income taxes. There were a
number of things we were looking for to stimulate the economy and to show sound
fiscal management. Believe it or not, that budget had those in there. I thought:
this is great, and I'm going to give it 75 percent. I did. I gave it a mark, and
the headlines came out, "Chartered accountants give budget 75
percent," and this was used in the House to support the budget.
The
opposition member — I guess, the opposition Finance critic at that time, Fred
Gingell — phoned me that very day and said: "Brian, I want to meet with
you and your executive." I said, "Fine," so he came to meet with
me the next morning and set me straight. I'll be quite candid with you. I was
aghast. There were things in there that nobody would have included in revenue.
One of them
was the downstream power to Bonneville Power in the U.S., where there was, I
believe, $450 million in revenue that they included in revenue on a deal that I
don't even know was a handshake. It was a deal where the revenue was supposed to
come over a ten-year period, and they had plunked it all into the one year. I
guess the Premier at that time had shaken hands or had said: "Let's do a
deal." In his mind the deal was done, and let's put the revenue in one
year. There was $450 million that, under generally accepted accounting
principles, would never, never have been included.
[1540]
There were
a number of other issues, and so that budget became known as the fudge-it
budget. I guess I was party to it. I played up to it. I felt quite badly about
that, and it stuck in my mind for some time.
The
following year I went back. The following year the budget came out, and I went
back and again was in the lockup. I had a little bit more idea of what I was
doing then, and of course once burned, twice wary. I took a much more careful
look. Given that we had a little bit of extra time, we took a much more careful
look at what was going on. I was in there with people from independent business,
with economists, with certified management accountants, with general
accountants, with us as the chartered accountants, with the
[ Page 4891 ]
board of trade. There was a whole number of people that were in this lockup,
and as we were progressively going through it sort of at the same time, what
happened was there was a general sort of snickering in the room a little bit.
With all due respect to my colleagues in the heartlands, some of us were saying:
"What are these guys smoking?" Again, we knew there was no way they
were going to meet that budget. I was a little tougher on it that time, and my
comments weren't brought up in the House. That was my second time.
Then that
was it. I had finished my term on the executive of chartered accountants, so I
didn't go back. What happened in the interim was that I had grandchildren. My
kids got married — young adults starting out in life. Then they had children,
and suddenly we started looking, as grandparents…. For those of us who are
grandparents here, we start looking at things in a different light. I started to
think: what kind of a legacy are we leaving our children? When my little
granddaughter, 20 years from now, wants to enter the workforce or wants to go to
university, what are we going to be leaving for her?
Remembering
back to what I went through and the lack of what I would call sound fiscal
management, I decided to throw my hat into the ring to see if I could help and
use some of my accounting skills to help bring the budgets under control so at
least there'd be some transparency and accountability. This is what we were
looking for.
In my
nomination speech, which was way back in the year 2000…. In those days there
wasn't a set legislative agenda. We didn't know when the election was going to
be. It's something that's almost taken for granted now, I might add. We just
know when the election is going to be. It's May 17, 2005. But in those days we
didn't know when it was going to be, and of course, that could have all kinds of
disruption in people's personal lives. I then mentioned the things my colleague
from West Vancouver–Capilano mentioned. We were tenth in GDP growth, tenth in
improvement of wages, tenth in investments. I mean, we were down at the bottom.
I said that they were making B.C. jokes in Newfoundland about us and that unless
we were prepared to recognize there was a problem, we couldn't solve it.
The first
step in this road to recovery would be recognizing that there's a problem.
That's what I wanted to do, and I'm glad to see that's exactly what my
colleagues wanted to do — particularly the Minister of Finance, who recognized
the problem and was prepared to take the hard line to fix it so we can move
towards a balanced budget, so we can move towards having some opportunity for
our children and our grandchildren.
I'd like to
mention what happened at the budget prior to the election, and I'll follow the
lead of my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano. I went back, and I looked
at the budget that was prepared prior to the election. This was the budget that
was prepared, I'm sure, knowing that they would not be elected and would not be
held accountable for that budget. It's a budget that we don't hear the end of.
"We've got two balanced budgets. We gave you two surpluses in a row."
Well, that may have been one surplus. I can tell you, the year they did have the
surplus, the budget for that year did not show a surplus. The only reason they
had a surplus was because there was this huge windfall profit from selling
energy to the U.S. That's not there anymore.
[1545]
The second
year was a budget they prepared showing that it was going to be balanced. In
that budget it didn't take into account the large increases that would have to
be given to the nurses or the doctors or the softwood lumber problems. It didn't
take anything into account.
What it
did, buried way back on page 95 of this budget…. I want to quote from it, if I
may. It said: "Government spending is primarily driven by inflation,
population growth, rising per-capita utilization of health care and other social
services, new government initiatives and interest costs associated with capital
spending." That was sort of the recital to lead up to this part on page 95:
"Fully funding all of these pressures would not be possible given the
forecast increase in revenue." Wait a sec. This was the balanced budget,
but buried way back in page 95, it's saying fully funding all of these pressures
that he mentioned above would not be possible, given the forecast increase in
revenue.
This
situation typically faced the government at the beginning of a budget process
and will require difficult trade-offs. What was he telling us? The same thing
they told us in the fudge-it budget, the same thing they told us in the other
budget and now this budget. We're going to give you a budget, but there's no way
in heck we'll be able to ever meet it. That's what we were up against.
I want to
just speak about sound fiscal management, because I think sound fiscal
management is very important. I think it's absolutely critical if we want to
accomplish any of our objectives. You can see that there was no sound fiscal
management. The budget process, contrary to the opposition member for
Vancouver-Hastings, was a spin document for the government at that time. That's
what they used it for, because they had no intention of meeting it. In fact, on
only one occasion did they meet it, and that was strictly by accident.
Again, as
far as sound fiscal management is concerned, the auditor general looks over a
lot of agencies and ministries, and I and a number of us on the Public Accounts
Committee review the auditor general's reports. One of them was allocating
resources in the Health ministry, and he looked at it and said: "There is
no measurement or no reason to determine how they were allocating the resources
in the Health ministry." In other words, they were expending money but had
no idea why they were spending it and what the outcome was going to be or how to
allocate resources. They were going on the philosophy, like the entire
government was, that the way to solve the problem was to spend more money. The
way to show success is to throw more money at it. Let's talk about inputs. I
[ Page 4892 ]
know: we'll do a good job. We'll just give it more money, so it must be
successful. Well, I can tell you from my business experience and from what we've
experienced in the past, that just doesn't work.
I'd like to
go and say what we've done, because I'm quite proud of what we've done. I'm very
proud of what the Finance minister has done in revitalizing the economy by
restoring sound fiscal management — the first step to revitalizing the
economy. Firstly, we started and kept to the goal of budget accountability and
transparency. Every minister was required to come out with a three-year service
plan, moving us forward three years so we could look at what was happening. They
were required to set up performance measurement goals. They were required to set
up benchmarks so they could measure the progress, and we're moving towards GAAP
so things can be measured on a consistent basis from year to year.
Just so you
understand, GAAP is an acronym for generally accepted accounting principles.
These accounting principles are laid out by the chartered accountants across
Canada, and they have a whole compendium of accounting principles for within the
public service. Now that we have that, we can compare performance from year to
year to year. I think that's pretty critical when we're making decisions.
Not only
that, they set some discipline into the process. The ministers put their pocket
books in front of their objectives, because if they didn't meet their
objectives, it was going to cost them money because they were having a holdback
of the ministerial salary. I think that's great. There should be some negativism
to force people to sit down and get it right. Sure enough, that's what they did
to get it right.
Well, what
was the result of that? Debt is lower than expected, interest is down, and the
deficit will be lower than anticipated. We're on the trail to a balanced budget,
which is exactly what we said we wanted to do. More importantly, for the first
time that I can remember, every minister came in on plan, and that's just
terrific.
I want you
to read something that came out by the CGA Association. It's from the news
release on the budget. It's a takeoff on the PGA slogan, and it says: "Hey,
these guys are good." That's what you get for coming in on budget.
[1550]
I want to
thank all the ministers for showing that discipline and coming in on budget.
That's so critically important for us, who are sometimes sitting on the
sidelines, watching from the outside, rooting for you all the time to do it.
We're glad to see you were able to put in that discipline and get the job done.
I would
like now to talk about revitalizing the economy. That's the second step of the
two things I wanted to talk about: sound fiscal management and revitalizing the
economy. We came out with some tax cuts, and the tax cuts created a deficit.
They increased the size of the deficit the first year. I must admit I was
aghast, because I don't want to see a deficit. I'm not happy with a deficit.
Then I thought: maybe I'll try to put it into some simple terms. Maybe I'll even
try to put it into a context of the way I run my business, of what you have to
do and why those tax cuts are important. Make no mistake: they were important.
They had to be done.
As some of
you may know, I own a grocery store. The grocery business is very competitive.
If I started from the bottom line on my grocery business….
Hon. R.
Coleman: I worked in a grocery store.
B. Kerr:
Good for you. I have a colleague here who worked in a grocery store. That's
where you really learned about hard work and initiative.
Hon. R.
Coleman: An award-winning grocery store.
B. Kerr:
Oh, an award-winning grocery store. Thank you very much for that recognition.
If I
started from the bottom line to say, "Okay, what kind of profit do I need
to lead my lifestyle, then what are my expenses, and how much do I want to pay
my employees, and how much rent should I pay?" and then worked from the
bottom line up and said, "Okay, in order to do that I need X number of
dollars, and I serve this many customers and divide the customers into the X
number of dollars," I could come up with a price for my groceries.
That's
really simple. I can meet all my goals. All I would have to do is sell my
groceries at this price, and that's very simple. If the price for those
groceries were higher than what my competitor's store was charging across the
street or down the road, would I get those customers, and what would happen?
Well, no, I wouldn't, because people would walk with their feet and go across
the road and do their shopping there. My revenue expectations might even be
lower than what I thought they would be. They might be considerably lower than
what I thought they would be because I wasn't competitive in the price that I
was charging.
That's the
same in taxes. We had one of the highest tax regimes in all of North America. We
had a tax regime that was considerably higher than our next door neighbour,
Alberta. It was considerably higher than our neighbours to the south in
Washington and Idaho. What was happening as a result of that? I think in one
year over 500 charters got up, 500 businesses got up and walked to Alberta. We
lose all the revenue that we would get from those businesses and all the revenue
that we would get from the employees that work for those businesses. Not only
that, but people were leaving and going to Alberta. That's why the revenue in
British Columbia became stagnant. That's why our province went from being one of
the best provinces from an economic investment point of view to one of the last
provinces, because our tax regime was just not competitive.
Now, we've
heard about our reckless tax cuts. I'll insert this right now. I wasn't sure
whether I was going to insert this. We've heard about reckless tax cuts, and
[ Page 4893 ]
we've heard about how we've clawed it back, and the middle-income person
isn't making as much money. Well, I can tell you that in the budget that was
prepared before we were elected, compared to our budget now, for a family of
four — it could be dual-income family that's making, let's say, $60,000, which
is a decent income…. They're a dual-income family; they're not wealthy by any
stretch of the imagination. Under our budget, compared to what the budget would
have been, there's a savings of almost $1,000. Even after doing the user fees
and various things that we had to do to carry on with the expenses we needed,
individuals are still better off now than they were before.
[1555]
So do they
work? Do the tax deductions work? Absolutely they worked. I would like to quote
you a few statistics to show you how well they worked. Residential building
permits are ahead of the national average. We're up 37.4 percent. B.C. created
78,000 jobs in 2002. A record year for home sales. Housing starts exceeded
forecast. B.C. wholesale sales lead Canada. Port of Vancouver shipped record
cargo volumes. Wireless tech companies expected double employment. Small
business optimistic and benefiting from tax cuts.
A recent
survey of the B.C.
chapter of Canadian Federation of Independent Business found
59 percent of B.C. small businesses expected business to be stronger over the
next year. Fully 91 percent of small businesses expect to increase or maintain
the number of full-time employees, and more than 76 of them say that the
government's personal income taxes had a positive effect on their business.
Mineral explorations are up 25 percent. That's what tax cuts have done. That's
what our revitalizing the economy has done.
Now, I
mentioned that I have a granddaughter. My third little granddaughter was born a
year ago. At the christening, at the baptism…. My daughter is a teacher, so
the godparents are in the teaching profession also. At least one of them was —
the godmother. I didn't know her, but she came up to me and said: "Brian,
Debbie says I'm not allowed to talk to you, but I just have to talk to
you." Knowing that she was a teacher, I said: "Well, this probably
isn't the most appropriate time, but okay, have at me." She said:
"Brian, I just want to thank you" — something I wasn't expecting —
"because we had moved to the United States because of the taxes down there.
We were taking home more money. Now, with the tax regime in British Columbia….
My husband is a high-tech executive. He said we could now come back and work in
the high-tech industry in British Columbia, so we're back at home with my
family." She thanked me for that.
This
morning the Leader of the Opposition was on one of the radio shows, and he asked
her: "What would you do if it was your budget?" Well, we know what
they would have done from my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano: tax and
spend — absolutely. We know that. She said: "I would have consulted the
province of British Columbia more. I would have gone out and consulted the
people more, and then I would have come up with a budget." Well, Mr.
Speaker, I want to tell you that she was on the same committee as I was on, the
Finance and Government Services Committee. One of the jobs that our committee
has to do is travel the province and consult the people of British Columbia
because of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, and we did just that.
We went to 16 communities from Fort St. John to Victoria. We listened to over
300 presentations from everybody coming down telling us what they would like to
see. Then we put that in a compendium, and we presented that to the Finance
minister.
I would
just like to go over that right now, because contrary to what the Leader of the
Opposition says, the Finance minister listened. He listened to the people of the
province.
There are a
number of themes that came out on this thing. The first theme was: "Stay
the course on balancing the budget by 2004-05."
Theme 2
was: "Communicate your vision and plan more effectively to the
public." Well, that's been difficult for us to do when we have 220,000
people out there going against us, giving us misinformation and half-truths and
working to their ideology to show that no matter what we do, it's not right. We
have to get out to the people, and 77 MLAs just aren't enough. We have to find
other means of getting out to the people. This budget indicates how we're going
to do that. I'll say this about this budget too: it is probably one of the most
transparent…. Contrary, again, to the Leader of the Opposition, this budget
lays it all out. That's how they're able to get the information, because they
can see it all. It's all there.
"Ensure
that government policies foster economic growth" — theme No. 3. Theme No.
4: "Address the growing gap between rural and urban B.C." The
heartlands economic strategy is going to do that. Theme No. 5: "Continue to
put education and health care first in line for additional funding."
[1600]
Theme No.
6: "Invest in transportation infrastructure now and in the future."
Boy, does this sound like he's been listening to us? I should think so. As far
as the transportation infrastructure, we can tie that into Theme 4,
"Address the growing gap between rural and urban British Columbia,"
because a good percentage of those dollars on our investment in transportation
infrastructure is going directly into the heartlands.
Continue to
reform the tax system to revitalize the economy. Theme No. 8: "Pay down the
debt." I'm sorry that's one we haven't been able to do, but I'm sure that
when we get that budget under control and get it balanced in 2004-05, that will
be on the agenda.
Theme No.
10 is "Lobby Ottawa for more dollars."
So what
conclusions do we draw from this? This is a public document. Anybody can read
it. We recognize that budget-making involves terribly difficult decisions —
choices — at the best of times and that the financial decisions about any
additional spending in the next two budgets will have to be made within the con-
[ Page 4894 ]
straints of the existing fiscal plan and the ministry spending targets. That
says: "Stay the course."
We also
said that the government provide some form of assistance in the 2003 budget to
resource-dependent rural communities. A good percentage of our transportation
infrastructure is going to be doing just that.
"That
the government give serious consideration to providing additional transition
funding to the K-12 education system." We'll be doing just that. We've done
that now with a $50 million one-time grant, a $42 million one-time grant last
year and, I believe, $143 million coming in the future — this in spite of
declining enrolment.
The third
recommendation is that the government consider making transportation
infrastructure a top priority for capital spending now and in the future. The
committee thinks it's essential to have a quality integrated transportation
network to serve as the backbone for economic development in all regions of the
province and to realize the full potential of the province's natural resources.
The Leader
of the Opposition was on that committee with us, so I don't know where she was.
Maybe she wasn't listening when we were hearing those 303 presentations. Those
are some of the recommendations that we made to the Finance minister before he
prepared the budget. I'm happy to say that he listened to just about every
single one of those recommendations.
One of the
things I'm hearing a lot about — and again it's something that people blow up
out of proportion…. I just want to address it while I have the opportunity.
There are two things I seem to be hearing time and time again. One of them is
the huge, huge increase in the licence fee to get your driver's licence. I think
that works out to 60 cents a month. Any way you cut it, 60 cents a month is not
a large increase to me in driver's licence fees, considering we're looking well
out into the future.
The other
one is the 3.5 percent gas tax. We're setting up a $650 million program, exactly
what the people in the heartlands wanted, exactly what the people in the lower
mainland wanted — in the 604 area wanted — and that has to be financed. The
best way to do it, the most efficient way to do it, is get a tax in there that
can be collected by somebody else and given to the government.
Let's take
a look at what 3½ cents per litre really is. If you drive your car to and from
work, you're probably putting 7,000 kilometres on your car. That's $21 per year.
It's less than the price of a cup of coffee per fill-up. For that they're
getting an infrastructure that's going to open up the north, it's going to open
up the heartlands, it's going to relieve congestion in the lower mainland, and
it's going to make the economy in British Columbia grow so that we can have a
good economy for our children to provide for education and health care now and
well into the future.
What a
small price to pay for that, Mr. Speaker. I'm happy to do it, quite frankly.
Fortunately, I drive a small compact car, so it's not going to cost as much. For
those people that want to drive the big SUVs in downtown Vancouver, then they'll
pay more, and they should be happy to do that also.
[1605]
In
summary,
I'd just like to quote from my organization — the chartered accountants —
from their press release that they sent out. It says:
"The
Chartered Accountants of British Columbia are pleased that a difficult economy
and unexpected external pressures didn't sway the government from its
commitment to balance the budget in 2004-05 and begin reducing the debt
burden.
"For
years B.C. CAs have been pushing the government to manage our finances
responsibly. In a February survey, over 90 percent of the CAs across the
province reiterated that the top priority is balancing the budget and managing
the debt load. The message was clear: stand firm. Live within your means.
Don't mortgage our children's future."
They want to congratulate Minister Collins on listening to the strong
message. "This budget is realistic, achievable and responsible. B.C. is on
the road to recovery. The signs are everywhere."
Nuraney: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to introduce a guest.
Leave
granted.
Introductions by Members
Nuraney: We have in the gallery Pam Gardner, a good community worker and a
great Rotarian from my riding of Burnaby-Willingdon. Would the House please make
her welcome.
Debate Continued
Lekstrom: It's certainly a privilege for me to stand here today and respond
to our budget that was presented by the hon. Minister of Finance, Gary Collins.
The issue that we're here to speak about today is one that I fully support, and
that's the budget that was presented. I think the key issue for many people and
many British Columbians is…. Over the years they've looked at budgets and
tried to focus on one key issue over the other: what's good, what's bad, what's
in this budget, what isn't in this budget. For myself and the people that I
represent in Peace River South, the key issue here is very simple and
straightforward. This budget reflects that our government is on track to balance
the budget in 2004-05, and that is good news for the people of British Columbia.
I'm going
to touch on a number of issues, and I'm going to start with health care. We hear
all kinds of talk around the province about what the cuts are doing in health
care, and I address that every chance I get. For anybody that can talk about
cuts in our health care system, it baffles me; $1.1 billion of additional money
is what our government has injected into health care in the last year. That's a
12 percent increase from the time we've taken office — 12 percent. How anybody
can
[ Page 4895 ]
stand and talk to the public or sit in a coffee shop and talk to their
neighbour about a cut in health care is beyond me. It's wrong, and I make no
apologies for telling these people that they should stand up and be accountable
to the people they speak with. Speak with factual information — speak with the
information that's right, that's in the budget, that's in the audited financial
statements of this province — and then we can come to the table and sit down
and discuss the issues. Far too often we have people that are out there
spreading misinformation, and it's unacceptable.
Our
government has done a tremendous job on health care. We have many challenges
that we face and many that we have to overcome yet, but I can tell you that
things are moving ahead. They're moving ahead in Peace River South, they're
moving ahead in northern British Columbia, and they're moving ahead right across
this province.
I'm going
to touch on education — again, an area where we hear people talking about cuts
to education. We've increased the budget to education. We've increased it
substantially. Last year we had a one-time injection of $42 million to the
K-to-12 education budget. This year we've injected another $50 million in a
one-time grant. That's a lot of money — a lot of money by any account. For
anybody to stand up and say we've made cuts to education, again, I just can't
understand that. I would have to question their mathematics teacher and where
they got to in school if a $50 million increase is a cut.
When we
have a situation where our student enrolment is declining and has significantly
over the last year…. Since 1998-99, we've lost 15,000 students in our
province. We're projected to lose roughly another 4,700 students this year, all
at the same time maintaining our budget. What that tells me is the per-capita
student funding is on the increase, not on the decrease. That's something we
should be proud of.
[1610]
Can we do
better? Can we spend more? When is enough, enough? All of those questions have
answers, but when is enough, enough money? I think if we utilize the money that
we have in the system — whether it's education, health care, social programs
— and we use it responsibly and effectively, and apply it where it's needed to
be applied, there is enough money in the system. That's one thing that I think
all British Columbians have to come to grips with.
Families
and communities — something we all are here to try and improve. We've run for
this position — and I've said it many times in this House before — because
we believe we have something to offer. What we have to offer is improving the
quality of life for the people that elect us — the people of British Columbia,
our families and our friends — and by doing that, we improve our own lives.
That's the goal, I think, of any good society.
We are
going to invest $11 million per year for intervention for school-aged children
with autism spectrum disorder — another terrific move by this government and
something I'm proud of. You can never help a child in need enough. It's
something a good society takes seriously and looks after and does the best they
can, and this government, which I'm proud to be part of, is doing that.
Child care
spaces eligible for subsidy assistance will increase by 50 percent this year. We
hear people talking about child care and that we need to do more and that this
government hasn't done enough. An increase of 50 percent is a significant
increase in spaces and one that I think all British Columbians, again, should be
very proud of.
People with
disabilities. We've increased their earning exemptions. From $200 when we took
office, we've doubled it to $400. We increased it $100 last year in the budget.
We've increased it again this year by $100 — a pretty good, sound fiscal
policy by this government to help those most in need.
I've had
many people come into my office since I've been in the position that I hold,
talking about the ability to look at increasing the earning exemptions. Once you
get in, you learn a lot. I can tell you that as an MLA, not one day has gone by
since I was elected that I haven't learned something new. When you get into the
issues and start looking at them and you understand the people that are affected
by these changes, it makes a person feel pretty good to be able to go back to
them and say: "You know, the situation you brought into my office was
addressed by this government. It was recognized by other MLAs. It was recognized
that changes had to be made, and those changes were made." It's not always
that easy, and it doesn't always happen that well, where you bring an issue
forward and you can correct it. But in this situation, I can tell you, it's a
very good-news story.
Other
community issues we've addressed. We are looking at and have been working with
the Union of British Columbia Municipalities on policing costs. Presently in the
province municipalities with a population of under 5,000 people don't pay
anything for policing. Municipalities of between 5,000 and 15,000 people pay 70
percent of their policing costs, while municipalities of over 15,000 people pay
90 percent of those costs. Also, we have communities with their own police
forces. They pay 100 percent.
We've been
in discussions with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and the
affected parties to try to come up with a new plan. It was certainly my belief
and our intent that we would like to implement that plan this year. We couldn't
reach agreement, and we had some further work to do. Rather than trudge forward
and implement something that wasn't going to work for everybody, we stepped
back, and this year we've put that on hold. We're going to sit and communicate,
and we're going to have some dialogue with the affected parties to find out
what's the best way to implement this plan, because we do need to find a more
equitable plan in British Columbia in how we fund policing. To think that
communities of under 5,000 people pay nothing while our people who live in the
rural areas pay very little under their property assessment tax doesn't make a
lot of sense. We're all trying to build a better society. We're all trying to
look after each
[ Page 4896 ]
other, and that means sharing in the costs of providing that security in our
society. We will come up with something that works.
This isn't
a new issue. I've been involved with local politics for a number of years, going
back to 1993. It's an issue that's been around since then, but it's not an easy
one to solve. Communities that don't pay anything right now aren't jumping up
and down to say yes, they want to pay, but what they do understand is that there
is a need to find an equitable solution. Our government is working on that. I'm
very happy that the minister responsible has recognized that we need a little
more discussion on this issue, but we will be bringing something forward for
future years.
Our forest
industry. A lot has been said in the province about what our forest industry has
faced over the last number of years, particularly since the latest episode on
the softwood lumber agreement with our neighbours to the south. It's an argument
we've won three previous times at the WTO, but here we are again, taking on the
big power to the south.
[1615]
While we
take that on as a government and the governments sit down and talk, communities
are hurting out there — people and families. People that have worked 20 and 25
years in the industry are out of work today. They've worked hard to develop
their homes and raise their children and maybe try to put them into university
or help them. They're out of work as a result of what's taking place in our
forest sector.
In our
budget and with speaking to British Columbians, there was a need to address
what's taking place out there. It's nice that our government once again has
recognized that need, has listened to British Columbians and has come up with
$275 million in transitional funding to help those communities and those
individuals in need. That says a lot about a community and a lot about a
government that recognizes the needs of those communities.
I'm going
to go on to the heartlands economic strategy. Certainly, the Leader of the
Opposition seems to want to make fun of the name of it. I live in the heartlands
of British Columbia, and I have lived in the heartlands all of my life. I'm
proud to be from there. It is a different way of life. Just as many people have
lived in the lower mainland or Victoria, I'm sure they're very proud of where
they live and where they've grown up and what they've been able to accomplish.
Well, likewise in the heartlands of this province. We do live somewhat of a
different life. I can tell you that getting up in the morning when it's 35 below
and having to go out to start your vehicle just to get to work is somewhat
different than getting up and going out to get in your vehicle while it's
raining in the lower mainland. There are challenges we face.
Most
importantly, every person I know — that I work with and that I am friends with
— understands that we contribute greatly to the economic well-being of this
province. We extract the resources from the heartlands. We process those
resources. We ship them to the lower mainland. We get them to the ports. All of
that derives revenue for the province of British Columbia, which helps generate
the needs for health care, for education and for our social programs — and for
years.
Nobody in
the north or in the heartlands of British Columbia is saying: "We want to
keep all that money. We want it all reinvested here." What we have said for
many, many years is that we want a fair amount put back in. We want a fair
amount invested in our infrastructure to help build the roads that have been
devastated by the new industrial development that's taking place in our mining,
in our forestry, in our oil and gas sectors, and in our agricultural industry.
It seems
that people haven't listened. Governments haven't listened in the past. They
have to a degree. I'm not going to say they absolutely haven't. To a small
degree there have been some successes, but no success as great as what I see in
this heartlands strategy that we put forward for the province of British
Columbia. This recognizes the needs for economic development strategies, for
transportation initiatives, for tourism initiatives, for all communities in the
heartland — that we can survive and still deliver products to deliver the
money to the government, that we can drive our economy and then provide the
services.
It is a
great day. It is a great year for the province of British Columbia and a great
year for myself, to be able to go back and speak to my constituents about what
this heartlands economic strategy is going to mean not only to my riding and not
only to the northeast or the northwest or the Kootenays or the interior but to
the entire province of British Columbia.
I'm going
to narrow down my speaking on the heartlands economic strategy somewhat to one
key issue, something I bring to the table every chance I get, and that's the
need for transportation improvements in the heartlands of British Columbia. We
have a commitment to spend $650 million to upgrade our roads in the heartlands
of British Columbia and right around our province. The majority of that money is
going to go to the heartlands, to rural and northern British Columbia, where for
many, many years the roads have been neglected to the point where many are
impassable after a small rain.
It's
incredible to think that people live out there. They've generated their living.
They may be a farmer; they may be a rancher; or they may have a small woodlot.
They can't get to where they have to make their money so that they can provide
for the families and help the economic well-being of our province.
We're going
to correct that. We're going to spend, on northern and heartland roads, $225
million over the next three years. That's an awful lot of money, but money that
will be eaten up quite easily with the needs that are out there.
[1620]
For
rehabilitation alone, we have $146 million scheduled to go into that. I want to
touch on rehabilitation for a moment. In Peace River South many of our roads
were built 50 and 60 years ago, at a time when our agriculture industry was much
different. You didn't have the large trucks hauling the grain into the rail-
[ Page 4897 ]
head in Dawson Creek, for instance. Our forest industry didn't transport the
amount of lumber that they do today — or our mining sector or our oil and gas.
Over the
years what we've seen are roads that were built and were suitable 50 years ago
barely maintained at the existing status that they had, not upgraded to the
point where we needed wider roads and better bases. When we talk about roads in
Peace River South and Peace River North and all over our province that have been
hammered out, it costs a lot of money to repair those roads.
No longer
on many of our roads are we able to go in and top-dress them with a three-inch
lift of gravel — much of what used to happen in British Columbia. What's
happened now is that our bases have deteriorated beyond repair. Instead of going
in and doing a three-inch lift of gravel, we have to go in, in the north, and
dig that entire road base out — sometimes at double and triple the cost of
what it would have been just to look after that road properly in the first
place. That is why our infrastructure is in such dire straits today.
We're also
going to invest in airports and ports for our province, something that we have
touched on. The Premier spoke about the extension to the Cranbrook Airport that
will open up the Kootenays. It's something that will help the Kootenays, but the
goal — and I know it will happen — is that it's going to enhance British
Columbians' economic well-being — something we all strive to do.
Our border
crossing infrastructure is going to see an injection of $93 million. Again, many
people say: "Well, maybe that's just going to help the people in that
immediate area where the border crossings are." If our goods and services
can't flow freely across these borders from British Columbia to our partners —
whether it be south into the United States, east into Alberta or north up to the
Yukon or Alaska — we have a difficult time in making the revenue and
generating what we need to deliver for the people of British Columbia. It's
going to enhance that.
We have a
number of other projects that are included in that issue as well. We talk about
looking after the Kicking Horse Canyon, something that is long overdue. We talk
about the Sea to Sky Highway, and many people from rural and northern British
Columbia — the heartlands of this province — question if there is a need
there. I've driven the road. I've been on it a number of times, and I can tell
you that although there are no potholes on it, there are many dangerous areas on
that road. As a person that represents the far northern community and riding of
Peace River South, I fully support upgrading that highway so no more lives are
lost on it, and the people can move with some sense of security and not fear for
their lives to get back and forth either to their homes or to destinations of
their choice. It's something that's long overdue.
I want to
touch on the 3.5-cent-per-litre gas tax that we have increased. Certainly, I'm
sure that everybody in this room, everybody in this province, wasn't jumping for
joy when 3.5 cents per litre had to be added to our fuel tax. But there's a
reality, and certainly from my area, I can speak very long and in depth about
the issue of roads. It's the most significant issue we face up there, and
there's probably not a single person I've talked to on government issues that
"roads" doesn't come out of their mouth. We talk about the need to
upgrade them, we talk about the deterioration, and we talk about the lack of
investment that's taken place over the last number of years. To date I've had
two people call expressing a concern about the 3.5-cents-per-litre gas tax
increase, and I can tell you that when we were finished talking about that, they
were fully supportive — not jumping for joy, not saying it's a wonderful tax,
but fully supportive of paying that tax because they knew that money was going
to be reinvested in the infrastructure to repair the roads in northern and rural
British Columbia and spread that money out.
This isn't
money that's collected into some mysterious pot, like many would think, and
spent on some things that they think don't provide services. All of the gas tax
we collect in British Columbia is spent on roads and more — not less. That's