Hansard -- Volume 20, Number 8 -- Thursday, June 8, 2000

2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th 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)

THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 2000

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 8

[ Page 16375 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In nine years that I've been elected, not one member of my family has ever come over here.

An Hon. Member: Shame!

Hon. M. Farnworth: Shame -- exactly. So today it gives me great pleasure to welcome my nephew, who is nine years old and in grade 4. Josh Farnworth, along with his friend, Missy Anderson, is over here with his school. They're all visiting the gallery later on, but Josh is in the gallery here to watch question period. He's my only nephew, and my favourite nephew, and I'd like the House to give him a big welcome.

M. Coell: In the gallery today we have five guests from the University of Victoria B.C. Young Liberals: Dale Flood, Erin Drew, Lawrence Mak, Sonia Manhas and Raymond Lau. Will the House please make them welcome.

The Speaker: The Deputy Premier . . . .

T. Stevenson: No, I'm the Deputy Speaker.

The Speaker: Sorry. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard.

T. Stevenson: Hon. Speaker, thanks for the promotion.

In the gallery today are members of my family as well: my mother Edith-Mary Platt from West Vancouver; my sister Mary Ann Sanderson from Hobart, Tasmania, Australia; and here again today, my one and only nephew and therefore my favourite nephew also, Justin Sanderson. I hope the House will make them welcome.

C. Clark: I am delighted today to be able to welcome into the gallery a group of grade 5 students visiting from Glenayre Elementary School, who are being accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Morin-Mackenzie. I hope the House will make them welcome if they encounter them in the halls.

[1410]

Hon. J. Sawicki: I hope the members will bear with me. I have a bit of a long introduction today, because it is of course Environment Week. In that regard, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to introduce the winners of the Minister's Environmental Awards for the year 2000. The winners are here in the visitors' gallery this afternoon.

In the excellence in stewardship category, I'd like to introduce Darrell Penner and Ted Wingrove of Port Coquitlam, representing Hyde Creek Streamkeepers.

In the individual citizen category, we have two winners: Ruth Masters of Courtenay, with her guest Marilyn Misner; and Darryl Grams of Williams Lake, with his wife Sandra.

Award recipients in the youth category are: Maia Green of Victoria, here today with her mother, Cheryl Alexander; and Franka Raynier and Laurel Gurnsey from Burnaby, representing Buckingham Elementary School.

The winner under the government category is Eric Jackson, representing the city of Vernon, with his wife Mavis.

In the community-non-profit organization category, we have Elmer Rudolph and his wife Margo representing Sapperton Fish and Game Club in New Westminster. And Jack Wilson is here today in the gallery from Brown Property Preservation Society of Qualicum Beach, accompanied by his wife Elsemarie.

Kevin Chipperfield and Daryl Arnold are here to represent award recipient Sustainable Poultry Farming Group of Abbotsford, under the business, labour or industry category.

In the environment education category, Sally Emory from Fort St. John is here with her husband Greg.

And finally, in the communication and media category, the award recipient is West Kootenay Power Ltd., and they are represented here today by Brian Parent and his wife Gail from Trail.

Will the House please join me not only in welcoming these outstanding leaders but in congratulating them for the environmental leadership they have shown in their communities.

Hon. G. Wilson: Today in the members' gallery we have a very special guest from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Please join me in welcoming His Excellency Krunoslav Vasilj. This is the ambassador's first visit on an official basis to British Columbia, so I hope all members of the House will please make him very welcome.

M. Coell: I would like, on behalf of our side of the House, to congratulate the winners of the ministerial awards for environment, as well, and to also say that Maia Green, who is from the Victoria area of my colleague's Oak Bay-Gordon Head riding, won a Women of Distinction award two weeks ago as well. So this young lady has been winning awards, and we wish her well in her future. Will the House make them welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: Many people who have had an opportunity to work with the Ministry of Education know the very competent assistant deputy minister Rick Connolly. Rick's daughter Sarah's grade 5 class from Cordova Bay Elementary School is visiting today. They're studying politics and law. Their teacher is Mr. Stinson and I think other adults are accompanying them. So I would ask the House to please make them very welcome.

G. Abbott: I have constituents visiting today from the Shuswap. From the city of Armstrong are Don and Lee Muir, who are the parents of one of our hard-working interns, Jerry Muir. Also accompanying them to the Legislature today is Joan Schuetz, who is the grandmother of Jerry. So I'll ask the House to make them all welcome.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'd like, if I may, to introduce three visitors today. The first is a dear friend formerly from my constituency, now living in Victoria -- Ms. Maggie Warren. Maggie is accompanied by her good friend, a woman from Campbell River whose name is Berthe LaPierre.

In addition, my executive assistant Susan Baker is with us today. I'd ask my colleagues to please make them all most welcome.

[ Page 16376 ]

M. de Jong: Paula McAleese is a resident of Abbotsford. She is a friend, and she is dental hygienist and is in Victoria attending the annual general meeting of the Canadian Dental Hygienists Association. I hope the members of the House will make her welcome.

[1415]

T. Stevenson: In the Legislature today we have approximately 90 students from the Cathcart Elementary School in Snohomish, Washington. They're here for a visit to the Legislature, and they're accompanied by their teacher Mr. Moffitt. I hope all members will make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 2000

Hon. J. MacPhail presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2000.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm very pleased to introduce during Environment Week an amendment that will help government achieve its goal of more transportation choices for British Columbians. The amendment to exempt motor-assisted cycles from registration requirements is also in keeping with our government's efforts to develop a sensible regulatory environment, one that meets the real needs of people.

Every day British Columbians see the increased number of passenger cars clogging B.C. roadways, and they ask: "What are we doing to ease the burden?" Well, part of the answer lies in the development of alternative modes of transportation such as car and van pooling, transit and the use of smaller vehicles. We've had tremendous success in getting more people to bike to work instead of taking the car -- some recent wonderful examples.

Encouraging people to consider using motor-assisted cycles will also benefit commuters. Motor-assisted cycles are ordinary bicycles that are fitted with an accessory motor kit. They offer a temporary reprieve from the fatigue of pedalling to those who would not otherwise ride a bicycle. Very simply, it helps more people to become fit. Motor-assisted cycles provide an alternate mode of transport for those who cannot or do not wish to drive a car or other larger vehicle. Provided the right conditions are in place, they are also easier on the environment than the much larger vehicles.

Amending existing legislation will make it easier for people to take advantage of this increasingly popular mode of transportation, while maintaining strict safety standards -- excellent news during Environment Week.

Hon. Speaker, I'd like to move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 20 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.

BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSIT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2000

Hon. G. Bowbrick presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled British Columbia Transit Amendment Act, 2000.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move that Bill 23 be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: For those for whom motorized bicycles won't be their preferred mode of transport, this bill will help to make SkyTrain a reality in the lower mainland as soon as possible and as efficiently as possible. These legislative amendments confirm the existing agency agreement between B.C. Transit and Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd. They will clarify that B.C. Transit retains, for the purpose of planning property acquisition and construction of the rapid transit project, all of its rights, powers and privileges in the regions serviced by TransLink. Under these amendments, the agency agreement with B.C.

Transit clearly ensures that Rapid Transit Project 2000 has the powers to plan, acquire property and construct the project and ancillary property works and to acquire rights and property for the future maintenance and operation of the project.

[1420]

These amendments are retroactive to March 25, 1999, the date Rapid Transit Project 2000 entered into the agency agreement with B.C. Transit. These powers were recently challenged in court, causing a three-week delay in construction of the guideway and station at Lougheed town centre. Although the court ruled in favour of B.C. Transit, we need to ensure that Rapid Transit Project's powers are clear and not subject to further legal action. The legislation is intended to strengthen the existing agency agreement between B.C. Transit and RTP 2000, confirming that RTP 2000 has the necessary powers to build the Millennium Line and plan future lines.

I move that this bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 23 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.

Oral Questions

HEALTH CARE IN PRINCE GEORGE

P. Nettleton: Hon. Speaker, how much longer do the people of Prince George have to suffer from this government's mismanagement of health care? People suffering -- people like Leone Kowalewich of Prince George, who had to travel to Vancouver for arthoscopic surgery because the wait-list just to see a specialist in Prince George is over two years. Will the Health minister tell us why health care in Prince George has gotten so bad that people like Ms. Kowalewich have to fly all the way to Vancouver for one-hour surgery?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We're aware of the needs of health care that are required in Prince George. That's why we're working with the health authority and the physicians in the

[ Page 16377 ]

area to look at options and ways of addressing some of the issues, particularly around specialists, and to look at ways of retaining and attracting physicians to Prince George, so that we can deal with the health care situation in the community and the surrounding area.

The Speaker: The member for Prince George-Omineca has a supplemental question.

P. Nettleton: Ms. Kowalewich had to go to the False Creek Surgical Center in Vancouver and have a friend put the $1,400 surgery bill on a credit card. She didn't use the public system, because she didn't couldn't even get in the front door to see a surgeon. Will the Health minister tell us why health care in Prince George is so bad that not only do people have to leave town to get treatment but they have to pull out their credit card because a health care card is no good any longer?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think it's worth recognizing two particular issues here. One is the situation in Prince George and how we're trying to address it by working with physicians and working with the health authorities. We have sat down with them and are negotiating with them to try and address some of the issues. They have presented a proposal to us which, for example, could cost as much as $30 million.

At the same time, we're trying to present proposals and negotiate with them in a way that not just addresses the issues around specialists and physicians but also recognizes the broader scope of health care -- around nurses, around technicians, around training and access to opportunities -- so that we can attract physicians and specialists to Prince George and deal with rural and northern health care on the whole scope that's required.

The second issue that the member raises is around the issue of whether or not an individual has to travel to Vancouver. And no, that is not the case. But what is really disturbing, hon. Speaker, is that what we're seeing is what appears to be a deliberate attempt to undermine the Canada Health Act. This government will not stand by and watch that happen.

C. Hansen: It is the sanctimonious NDP that is creating a two-tier health care system in this province, when you send WCB patients to Alberta. You send them to private clinics; you send them to the United States. It's the NDP that has created the health care crisis in this province that gets worse year after year after year. Hon. Speaker, a ministry spokesperson said: "No citizen should have to be extra-billed for services they are entitled to." If Ms. Kowalewich is entitled to that kind of treatment, why can she not depend on the public health care system to be there for her when she needs it?

[1425]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Physicians make the diagnosis and make the determination on the proper course of treatment, and that's the way it is in British Columbia and every province right across the country. But my question to the opposition is that . . . . In the provision of services, we have agreements with the BCMA and around rural health care in this province, agreements which have been voted on and ratified. Yet what we are facing is an escalation in job action by physicians in Prince George, when we have said that we are willing to sit down and negotiate with them.

We are willing to sit down and address the issues and find the issues. Do they support their efforts in threatening to withdraw their services on June 15? Where does the opposition stand on that?

The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena has a supplemental question.

B.C.'S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

C. Hansen: If this government had not wasted $460 million on a fast ferry project, let me tell you about some of the things you could have done in health care. You could have wiped out the entire wait-list for cardiac surgery and hip replacement surgery and knee surgery. You could have hired 400 nurses, opened 900 long term care beds, installed six MRI scanners, ten mobile mammography units, 12 CT scanners, and the list goes on and on.

Will the Health minister tell us why he is forcing patients into private clinics because the NDP has mismanaged the health care system and patients can no longer rely on the public system to be there for them when they need it?

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, hon. Speaker, the only people who would force people to use their credit cards for the health care system is that opposition. They're on record. Physicians make the diagnosis and the treatment; they're the ones in charge of treatment for the patient. Just before the last election, it was Gur Singh who pulled out a Visa card and said: "That's what people in British Columbia should get ready to use."

This side of the House recognizes that we have a publicly funded health care system that people want to maintain. That's why we're working constructively with the federal government to achieve that. That's why we've said that we would sit down and work with physicians in Prince George and the health authority to address their needs. And that's why we're also going to ensure that those who deliberately try to subvert the Canada Health Act . . . . We will not stand by and let that happen.

M. de Jong: Time out, Mr. Speaker. Let's make it clear: it's the NDP that's created two-tier health care in the province of British Columbia. And what's more, there are members of the NDP cabinet that have admitted it -- the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. Let's review what he wrote to one of his very constituents. "I agree with you," he said, "that the notion that we have a one-tier universal health care system is a myth. We already have a multi-tiered system in British Columbia." It's a multi-tiered system, according to the now Minister of Employment and Investment.

Does the Health minister agree with his colleague that thanks to NDP mismanagement, we don't have a two-tiered health care system; we have a multi-tiered health care system?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The greatest threat to health care in this country comes from a lack of will to protect the health care system from those who want to subvert the Canada Health Act. It comes from those who are not willing to fund the system properly. That's why we've been engaged in discussions with Ottawa -- to get them back to the table, up to the 50-50 partnership that health care in this country used to be. The provinces right now are carrying 85 cents; 85 cents of every health care dollar in this province is provincial money. And only 15 cents comes from the federal government. Why don't you get onside and help us in getting that 15 cents back up to 50 cents?

[1430]

[ Page 16378 ]

GOVERNMENT'S B.C. MAX

PROCUREMENT STRATEGY

R. Neufeld: My question is to the minister responsible for B.C. Max. I have an implementation guide dated February 1998, which states that government procurement of goods "under $100,000 will be" -- and get it: will be -- "restricted to B.C. suppliers." If you go to the web site today, there's a bit of a change. In fact, it changes to government procurement of goods "may be restricted to B.C. suppliers." My question is: which is it -- will or may?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yesterday the opposition gets up to defend BCTV. It's good they're reverting to their sources. Now they've managed to read the Province . Way to go -- well informed and literate.

We put ads out. Some 85 percent of the bids we received on the contracts that Mr. Smyth refers to in his column came from B.C. businesses. I'm very pleased to see that ICBC, for example, spent a full 88 percent of its budget for printing buying from B.C. businesses. We give B.C. businesses an advantage here. We also want to make sure that we're getting good value for the tax dollars. That's the whole purpose of B.C. Max; I think it's working well.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River North has a supplementary question.

R. Neufeld: It's interesting. "Will" or "may" or pointing fingers at one another -- it just doesn't wash anymore. Why don't you admit it, Mr. Minister? The problem in British Columbia is this inept government. The things that they put into place to hinder business, to actually make British Columbia businesses uncompetitive with their counterparts, is the reason that ICBC, Ferries and all of government buy from Alberta. Why don't you admit today that it's your problem? What are you going to do to rectify it, Mr. Minister?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, it's quite remarkable. These advocates of universal free trade, who say we must accede to every whim that blows through the international market, all of a sudden want us to revoke our agreement on internal trade by which we provide all Canadian suppliers free and open access to government procurement opportunities on goods over $25,000 and services over $100,000.

That's what we do as part of it, hon. Speaker. That's the appropriate thing to do. We also seek to make sure that B.C. businesses are aware of and get a chance to bid on and benefit from government contracts.

STUMPAGE CALCULATION ERROR

G. Abbott: On Tuesday the B.C. Court of Appeal came out with a decision. And guess what. This government lost again. The facts here are clear, hon. Speaker. In March 1997 the Coast Forest and Lumber Association advised the Ministry of Forests that they had made a huge mistake in their stumpage calculation. However, rather than admit their mistake, they refused to correct it in compliance with the coast appraisal manual. Instead, they forced the CFLA to go to court to obtain redress.

To the Minister of Forests: whether it's Carrier Lumber, Husby timber or displaced forest workers, why do British Columbians always have to go to court in order to obtain justice?

Hon. J. Doyle: The member is correct. It was appealed, and the courts did say that we did owe some moneys to some companies on the coast. That has been looked at. That has worked its way through the court. It's now going to be corrected.

GOVERNMENT CHILD CARE INITIATIVE

E. Gillespie: Hon. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Women's Equality. Earlier this week the opposition member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale said that the government's new child care initiative was nothing more than the cheapest babysitting that anyone's ever going to get and suggested that working parents are in the habit of dropping their children off at child care centres in order to go play tennis. Can the minister confirm that this government is proceeding with a comprehensive approach to child care, in spite of this opposition attack on working families?

[1435]

Hon. J. Smallwood: I have to confess that I actually did have to check Hansard , because I could not believe my ears when the member repeated that particular quote. Let me assure the member that not only does this government respect the work of the child care providers, we understand the needs of working parents. We also understand the needs of single parents that are working hard to improve their lives and their ability to support their children.

I also want to emphasize the opportunity that good-quality, licensed day care provides for children in this province. The initiative that this government has introduced is one that we should all celebrate. I am saddened and disappointed by the member's comment, and I'm saddened and disappointed by the lack of support from the opposition.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Miller: I table the annual reports of the B.C. Rail Group of Companies.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: It's in there.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. I. Waddell: I rise to table the report of the B.C. Pavilion Corporation, the business plan up to April 2000.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 16379 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Lovick: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. We will begin the estimates debate of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. In this chamber, I call continued debate on second reading of Bill 16, the electoral boundaries act.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. I call committee Chair, Committee A . . . .

Sorry. The Government House Leader rises.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I'm so unaccustomed to seeing legislation go through so quickly and so trippingly. We have dealt with Bill 16, I believe, and completed second reading. I therefore call committee stage on Bill 2.

BUDGET TRANSPARENCY

AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 2; T. Stevenson in the chair.

[1440]

section 1.

R. Thorpe: With respect to the definition of government organization, can the minister confirm that it's all the ministries, all the Crowns, all the agencies and all of the boards? Is that what the definition of government organization means?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I was listening carefully. I think I can agree with the member's comments on the definition of government reporting entity. This is the term that's used in this act to define the

summary reporting entity, which does include the consolidated revenue fund, all ministries and government corporations.

R. Thorpe: I want to be fair to the minister here. I wasn't on "reporting entity"; I was on "government organization." The minister started his answer with "entity," so I would like the minister to perhaps clarify it. My question was on the definition of government organization. I don't know if the minister wanted me to repeat that. Or did he get the gist of my question?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Government organizations are all Crown corporations and agencies other than direct government -- CRF. Okay? I mean to say that all government . . . . I've got to give the complete one here. All the Crown corporations and agencies that are within the

summary reporting entity, other than direct government . . . . If I can try this and try to be both visual and verbal at the same time, this is the

summary account -- CRF and all Crowns. Take CRF away, and we have government organizations -- Crown corporations and agencies within the

summary reporting entity other than direct government.

R. Thorpe: Can the minister advise: in his definition, does he foresee any exclusions at all from government with the intent and spirit of this definition in this bill?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No, we think they're all in there.

R. Thorpe: With respect to the definition of government reporting entity, I'm just wondering if this government reporting entity will comply with generally accepted accounting principles.

[1445]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm trying to grasp the import of the question. I believe the concern the member raises is whether the government reporting entity, as defined in this act, includes all government-related or -funded activities that might be included in a government entity. The answer is no. When we introduced our response to the Enns committee report and when we introduced this bill, we said very clearly that the SUCH sector -- the schools, universities, colleges, hospitals -- was not included in the government reporting entity. We said that what we intended to do in the

summary accounts and in this reporting entity was capture direct government and all government Crowns. That's what this definition is about.

R. Thorpe: I thought I heard the minister say it, hon. Chair, but I just want to make sure. I believe the minister said -- and if he didn't say it, then he will clear the record -- that this government reporting entity does not comply, then, with generally accepted accounting principles. I believe I heard the minister say that no, it does not comply with generally accepted accounting principles. I just wanted to confirm that.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think I can confirm the member's understanding. I would simply read from the Estimates documents that talk about accounting policies and presentation. Here's what it says on reporting entity:

" . . . the government's

summary accounts combine the consolidated revenue fund with the operating results of Crown corporations and agencies. The PSAB defines the government reporting entity to include organizations that are accountable for the administration of their financial affairs and resources either to a minister of the government or directly to the Legislature, or local government council, and are owned or controlled by the government. In the auditor general's opinion, adoption of the PSAB recommendation would result in the inclusion of the schools, universities, colleges, hospitals -- SUCH -- sectors in the

summary accounts. The government

summary's accounts does not include the SUCH sectors."

We've been very explicit in what we're doing here -- what's in and what's not -- and I'm sure we'll have a debate on why.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

R. Thorpe: With respect to

section 2(2)(a): " . . . present a fiscal forecast . . . . " Do I interpret it that the minister will put a range of financial goalposts out there for consideration for

[ Page 16380 ]

these consultations? In other words, our deficit may be this amount, or our surplus may be this amount. Is that what I understand when I see "present a fiscal forecast . . . "? Is that the intention?

Hon. P. Ramsey: If I understand your question, the answer is clearly yes. What we intend to do with our consultation paper which we will be presenting in the fall of this year, by October 31 -- which will be the first one done in this particular format -- is present a fiscal forecast which outlines, obviously, what we forecast for expenses, what we forecast for revenues, what we see as the major policy issues that need to be addressed in dealing with that and information on the economic and policy assumptions that underline that forecast.

[1450]

R. Thorpe: When you're presenting a fiscal forecast, will you just be laying out one financial forecast? Or will you be laying out a set of alternative forecasts based on your various major economic and policy discussions, so that you will be guiding people one way -- or may not be guiding people -- in the consultation process?

Hon. P. Ramsey: That is an excellent question, and I would appreciate even the member's view on what should be done. On the one hand, it would make good sense to present a fiscal forecast based on sort of status quo assumptions on revenue and expenditure, given certain underlying economic and policy assumptions about economic growth, population growth and expenses in various areas. On the other hand, you might want to present a range of forecasts, both expenditure and revenue, based on policy changes of the government.

This is something that the staff is beginning the work on right now, as we start the effort of getting this consultation document prepared for the fall work of the standing committee of the Legislature, which will be charged with going out and consulting the people of British Columbia about budget 2001.

[J. Cashore in the chair.]

R. Thorpe: The reason I'm asking the questions of the minister is . . . . "Present a fiscal forecast," but when you look at major economic and policy assumptions, I have no idea what policy assumption, or assumptions, this government is going to lay forward. I would think that if they were going to lay some policy assumptions out there for consideration -- and indeed serious consultation -- they would want to put some kind of financial parameters around those discussions. Therefore I'd ask the minister to give some clarification on that issue. Is that his intent at this point in time?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think I was listening carefully. With respect, I'm not quite sure what your question was, hon. member -- what issues you think the consultation paper should address.

R. Thorpe: It's going to be the minister's consultation paper, actually; it's not going to be mine. Our turn will come. As a friend of mine said: "Perhaps there will be a wedding on our side of the street." Some people are predicting that there will be.

With respect, it says here that there are going to be policy assumptions. I would think that those various policy assumptions . . . . If you want meaningful consideration and meaningful consultation, you're going to have to lay those out for people, and you're going to have to cost them. I guess that is my question. Will those policy considerations be laid out, costed, both in the short term and the longer term -- operating and capital?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member for clarifying his intent. The answer is yes. I think one of the things we can look to, as the direction government intends to move, is what we have done in both quarterly reports since the fall of 1999 and in Budget 2000. That is for both revenues and expenditures. We have indicated for each of them the assumptions underlying those estimates and the risks to those estimates. That's the direction we want to move in both in giving the forecasts -- economic and fiscal -- and also in presenting the underlying assumptions and risks.

[1455]

R. Thorpe: With respect to 2(2)(b), " . . . indicate the key issues that the minister considers need to be addressed in the next budget," how are you going to establish those key issues? Is that just going to be an internal identification? Or are you going to be seeking a wide range of consultation on identifying the key issues?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is a government document. The consideration in preparation of the consultation paper will be largely internal to government. Once the paper is prepared, then of course it goes out for much broader consultation with British Columbians through an all-party committee of this Legislature. I assume that that committee will hear a wide range of views on both the issues that the paper identifies and, I suspect, on many other issues as well.

R. Thorpe: With respect to 22(c), could the minister share with us his views and his expectations at this point in time on how he believes the public from all parts of the province of British Columbia are going to be able to provide their views on these issues?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me try to be as inclusive as I can. First of all, and I think most importantly, there will be the work of the consultation by the select standing committee. It will be established as all committees of the House are, with an appropriate budget and mandate to meet outside of session and within session. It can conduct consultations as it considers appropriate.

I would expect that as has been the case in other jurisdictions that have adopted this -- there aren't very many of them, but there are a couple -- they would hold hearings on Budget 2001, both in the capital and in other centres around the province, and seek formal presentations from individual citizens or groups representing a wide range of views on both how to enhance economic activity in the province and the fiscal choices that government has before as it prepares the next budget.

I don't think it stops there. I would hope that we can also provide individual citizens with opportunities to present their views either directly to the Minister of Finance, as has been done this year, or to the select standing committee through all other means of communications, whether it's letters, whether it's faxes or whether it's e-mail. As we do this year, I can assume we can ask for responses through the Net by putting it on the Web. We did receive a significant number of responses

[ Page 16381 ]

through that vehicle this year. I think we should cast the net as broadly as possible and seek the input of both individual citizens and groups in as wide a variety of means as possible. The work of the legislative committee, the standing committee, will be key to that effort.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

R. Thorpe: With respect to

section 3, I wish to move the amendment with respect to 3(2) standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 3 (2), to delete the words in strikeout and to add the words in boldface:

(2) Not later than December 31 in the year, the select standing committee to which the budget consultation paper is referred must conduct consultations

as it considers appropriate and make public a report on the results of those consultations. Every effort must be made to ensure the public of British Columbia has the opportunity to be heard by the committee. ]

The intent of this is to put in that every effort be made to ensure that the public of British Columbia has the opportunity to be heard by the committee. I am sure the government is going to accept this amendment, based on the previous answer of the minister and his intent in hearing from all British Columbians. So I move that amendment.

[1500]

On the amendment.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I regret that on this one, I am going to have to disappoint you. I believe that the act as it is drafted does indeed provide the committee to do precisely what the amendment would propose. As I have talked about both the intent of how the legislation has been drafted and the specific words . . . .

It says very clearly that the standing committee can meet and conduct its business as it sees fit. It can conduct consultation as it considers appropriate. It must make a public report on the results. It has the full scope and range of a committee of the Legislature. I think it will have, as its primary purpose, precisely this sort of consultation. Frankly I find the amendment a repetition of what's already embodied in the legislation.

R. Thorpe: Here we are at

section 3 of a bill entitled Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. You know, hon. Chair . . . . I'd better not say that yet.

One of the reasons that many of the members on this side of the House spoke of, that they would support this bill in second reading, was if the commonsense amendments were put forward and accepted. Quite frankly, I'd like some clarification from the minister. I want to know how, by adding the words that "every effort must be made to ensure the public of British Columbia has the opportunity to be heard by this committee," this is an amendment that this government cannot accept in a bill entitled Budget Transparency and Accountability Act? I just want some further clarification.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I have stated my reasons. I believe that the intent of the act is clear, that this

section is clear. I have spoken of the efforts that were made in the fall of 1999 to do consultation -- admittedly not through a select standing committee; we did not have the ability to do that intersessionally -- to try to provide as many means as possible for the public of B.C. to respond to the consultation document issued last fall.

In the fall of 2000 the consultation document will be far more comprehensive, and as we've discussed, it will include fiscal forecasts and economic forecasts as well as the assumptions underlying them. There are a variety of ways in which the public can respond. The legislative committee is part of that -- I think a key part of that. The legislative committee has the ability, as the member knows, to conduct its consultations as it considers appropriate. Its whole purpose in being is to let British Columbians have their say on the issues affecting the budgets of the province.

I think the intent of the amendment is fine. I do not think it is necessary . . . . The principles are well embodied in the powers of legislators, committees and the principles of this act.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister says that the government didn't have the opportunity to engage in a more public consultation through the legislative committee because of time constraints; the government wasn't able to. That's only half accurate. The fact of the matter is that government has always had the opportunity to consult, to use the standing committees as a method to consult with people across the province about budget priorities, budget choices.

Repeatedly, year after year, a variety of Ministers of Finance have risen on budget day and talked about how the budgets reflect the choices of British Columbians, without ever having gone out and asked the public in any real, meaningful way what their choices were. There was never any sort of broad debate and discussion about priorities, about choices. In fact, many times, I would argue, there probably wasn't much debate within the government caucus about what those priorities would be.

[1505]

So the government has had opportunities over the years to do this, and that's really the underlying concern that we have with the legislation. I don't want to repeat the second reading debate, but I want to highlight it. This is first real amendment that I think is trying to be part of the change -- let me put it that way -- that the government is trying to do here. That is that repeatedly over the years, the government has brought in legislation that required the government to do something.

And the government has either ignored that legislation or has found a way around its own legislation, or has amended regulations or created regulations that permitted it to get around the legislation. Or it has broken the legislation and come back after the fact and amended it, to make legal what the government had already done -- which was, at the time it did it, illegal.

The problem that I see, and the reason why I think the amendment is a good one, is that the

section as it now reads is a permissive section. It says that the government will give to the standing committee the opportunity to do these things; they shall go do these things. It says that they conduct consultations as it considers appropriate.

I understand that that's often the way issues are referred to standing committees, although I might say that they're often a little more prescriptive than this. We usually give them

[ Page 16382 ]

very clear direction on what they can do. But we also give them the power to move from place to place, to meet from place to place, to travel and advertise if they feel necessary. We generally give them the option to determine whether or not that's something the committee wants to do.

The reason why I think it's important to put in the amendment is because it directs the committee a little more and requires the committee to go beyond the minimum that they may do. And what it's trying to do is say to that committee, from the Legislature: "We expect you to do more than just meet and discuss these things. We expect you to make every effort to engage people from all parts of the province in this discussion."

We're not saying how they have to do that, but we're requiring them to take that into consideration when they sit down and meet and discuss their business plan. The fact that it's there flags, for the committee members, that they have an obligation of broad consultation. They're not just required to discuss, etc., take in letters; they're supposed to go and make every effort to draw people into this. It's a very active, proactive type of process.

The very fact that the amendment's there indicates that the charge to the committee is different from the other charges that the committees get -- that it's not just left up to them. The Legislature is directing them to really be aggressive and be assertive at that consultation process, to engage people. And I think that's important, because first of all, committees don't always do what the House thinks they're going to do when they charge them. That's one.

The other example, the other point, is that oftentimes the committee doing what it thinks appropriate is the wish of the majority. There have been times . . . . There's a very recent one where the Public Accounts Committee, which by statute has the auditor general's report referred to the Public Accounts Committee, was examining the fast ferry issue. The Public Accounts Committee was in the process of going through that when a government majority shut down the debate of that committee after having already agreed to a list of witnesses.

I guess the concern that I have as a member of the opposition is that with this section, as it reads right now, the committee could consider a whole range of things appropriate. They could say, "Well, we had this discussion with people last year. We spent $30,000 travelling" -- or whatever it is -- "and we've had these discussions. The government already knows what it wants to do. Nothing much has changed in the last year. So I don't think we need to do that. Let's just see what people are saying out there, maybe put some ads in the paper and ask them if they want to send us some submissions, and then we'll put them in a pile and issue a report."

That's my concern, because when it gets uncomfortable for a government . . . . When the budget's going well and people have confidence in it, there's not a lot of complaint. I'm sure that the legislative committee would be glad to go out and talk to people, because people are saying nice things to them. It's when they have to go out and talk to people who are angry and upset with what the government's done or is doing that government members of a committee are more likely to not wish to do that travel and that engagement and drawing in of people.

[1510]

The amendment that's been put forward by my colleague is designed to put a red sticker on that reference, which goes to that committee and says: "Your job isn't like every other committee. Your job is a little beyond that. It's not a matter of whether or not you feel you're up to doing some travel or consultation; you have to make every effort to do those things." That's why I think it's more prescriptive, more directive, and it's deliberately trying to do that. It's not an oversight. That's exactly what it's trying to do, for the reasons that my colleague and I have mentioned.

The minister may choose not to support the amendment; that's his prerogative. I think that it's a constructive amendment. It's the kind of thing that helps to create the sense in the public that they're part of this legislation, that we really are sincere when we say we want to hear from them. It's not like the government has made up its mind already. The government's going to go out and listen to people. They're making every effort to hear what they have to say, and that we take it seriously.

Without that, I think this legislation stands to be interpreted extremely narrowly by a current or future committee that gets this referral, when they really have no interest or desire to go out and actively hear what people are saying, because they already suspect they may not like what they hear.

Hon. P. Ramsey: With all respect, I'm not sure that the amendment would in any way enhance the mandate of the committee.

I will say this. Earlier this week during second reading the member and several others, I think, made -- as I said at the time -- the appropriate comment that words on transparency and accountability had to be matched with actions. In closing second reading, I laid out what this government and I as Minister of Finance had sought to do in that regard since announcing in September -- having assumed this portfolio some five days -- and that we intended to adopt and adhere to the recommendations of the Enns report which this act embodies.

The work of the committee will indeed by judged on how well it does reach out to the people of B.C. The work of the committee is not . . . . This doesn't enable the work of this committee. This act makes it mandatory that the committee must conduct consultations.

The member is correct in that . . . . And I've enjoyed the discussion on what those consultations might entail. My view, as I've expressed it, is that it should be as broad as possible. It should include as many mechanisms for communications as possible.

In drafting it, we did have some discussion about how mandatory specific activities should be. It was felt by the legislative drafters that they shouldn't go much further than they have in infringing on the prerogatives of the House in establishing the work of standing committees.

I have provided the Government House Leader with a copy of a draft motion to establish this standing committee, and if it is of use to him, I'm quite willing to consult further with him on what we might incorporate into those instructions to the standing committee to capture what I think both of us want to see, which is that the consultation carried out by this committee is as complete as possible.

Hon. Speaker, I don't remember; I'm not sure they've seen this. Actually, it's not in this House or in this work; it was the work we were doing in another committee looking to reform the way this chamber operated.

[ Page 16383 ]

The House Leader is looking puzzled. I will ensure that he has another copy of that proposed House order as soon as possible.

[1515]

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't recall it. It was in another context, so the minister may well have sent it to me, and it may be in a different file, which I will try and access. But if not, if I don't have it, I would like to see a copy of it, and I'd be glad to discuss that with the minister at that time.

The Legislature does charge committees through motion. But there's also a good deal of legislation that gives mandates to committees to do a whole range of things. The searching and hiring of legislative officers is one. There are other statutes that require standing committees to examine legislation. The Freedom of Information Act is one where there's a pretty detailed process they need to go through. There are other statutes that I'm familiar with that do similar things. So, you know, when the Legislature votes on this

section of the bill, as the House, it's making that decision too. I understand the principle of not trying to restrict committees, but as I said, I don't think this restricts the committee. It prescribes an effort that needs to be made by the committee. I think that that's important.

Having spent the time I've spent here, I've seen committees that work, and I've seen committees that don't work. I've seen committees that are actually designed to do, intended to do and end up doing good work -- very constructive work that's very helpful. I've also seen committees that are used by government to deal with an issue that the government really doesn't want to deal with. The committees languish and flop around like a fish out of water for months or years on end, never actually accomplishing what the intent is that they were supposed to do. I'd be glad to give the minister a couple of examples of that if he wishes.

One committee, I think, that had a good intention but in practice hasn't worked terribly well is the Forests Committee's review of the business plan for Forest Renewal B.C., which seems to work far less effectively than people had intended. That's an example of a decision that was made by government around accountability at the time and which the government quickly became very uncomfortable with. And as a result, they have blocked the work of that committee repeatedly over the years. It really hasn't done much that I would say . . . . Let me put it this way: it hasn't done what it was intended to do. I think anybody who's worked with that committee might agree.

So there are plenty of examples. I expect that if the government was sincere about accountability, etc., that may well be one piece of legislation where the House may want to be more prescriptive or in motion, assigning the duty to that standing committee -- the duty of reviewing the FRBC business plan.

There are a whole range of ways committees do and don't work in this House. I would think that on an issue as important as this is -- an issue that, for political reasons, has become critical to the government's attempt to rehabilitate itself with the public -- the minister would be interested in ensuring that it is very clear what the mandate of that committee is, so that the committee can't go around and find other ways to fulfil the technical nature of its assignment relative to the legislation but put the minimum amount of effort into it.

I see nothing in that amendment that would cause harm to the committee. I see nothing in that amendment that would degrade the

section or the legislation. I see nothing in there that could cause harm in any way, shape or form. I can't imagine a risk that's created by that amendment.

However, what I can imagine, what I can see, and what I can foresee is that with an amendment like that, the committee would have a much clearer mandate given to it in legislation. It would be required to do its work, whether it was comfortable doing that work or not. That's the intent. Over the years, it's been pretty clear to me that there is great enthusiasm by government members for committees that they have an agenda in. There is far less enthusiasm for committees that are required to be struck by mandate when the government doesn't want them to be struck. I expect that that's exactly what will happen with this

section in this next cycle, and I am very concerned about that.

[1520]

I must say that of all the issues that are brought forward in this legislation, the work of that committee is one that is crucial to making the public feel that this process is going to work. The minister can talk about how the government has brought in performance plans and its desire to be timely on annual reports. But the reality is that we just had, a couple of weeks ago, the new Attorney General table an annual report for the Ministry of Attorney General from the 1997 fiscal year. So there are some things that the government has done in an attempt to live within the spirit of the Enns report.

There are many things that they have yet to do, and there are a multitude of things that they continue to do which I think send a contradictory message to the public.

The idea of this amendment is to make it clear to the public that government and the Legislature as a whole is committing -- not just as the government and the Legislature see fit -- to make every effort to talk to people right across this province about this and not just to set it up so it suits the politicians but to set it up so the politicians have to listen to the public. That's the intent of the amendment. I hope that the government, the minister, thinks about that, because I think it's a constructive amendment, and there is no risk to government by having that amendment pass.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think we must agree to disagree on this one. I will commit, as I said earlier, to consulting with the House Leader, or whomever he wishes to designate, on the procedures that will be embodied in the House order establishing the select standing committee.

R. Thorpe: I'm amazed. I think the member for North Coast says from time to time that he's perplexed. I think I'm getting perplexed here. We certainly don't have the resources of the government, but we did, through our small resources, take the opportunity to consult with some British Columbians on this bill. Many of our amendments are the result of talking to British Columbians.

As I'm sure you're aware, hon. Chair, there are three professional accounting associations in British Columbia. One of them said to us that

section 3 does not specifically mention input from the public as recommended in the Enns report. In fact,

section 3(2) states: " . . . conduct consultations as it considers appropriate . . . . " They go on to say: "This does not require the public to provide input and in fact suggests that the government could arbitrarily decide that the public input is not necessary." And then it ends with a big "Why?"

[ Page 16384 ]

I would like, on behalf of this group, some clarification on why this government, which is about transparency and accountability, all of a sudden now does not want to . . . . The basic thrust here is to make every effort. Now, surely, hon. Chair, a government that is trying to say -- I won't say they're on your side -- that they're listening would want to make every effort, because it's the taxpayers' money that's being spent here. It's the taxpayers' money that has to be accounted for.

Why, when we're getting professional input, would this government not want to listen? If we can't get over this hurdle, we're going to be on this bill for a long time. Why are they trying to block . . . that they would make every effort to listen to the public of British Columbia?

[1525]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I've given my reasons. We'll probably continue to disagree on this amendment. I will again commit to ensuring, through the instructions that we give the select standing committee -- and I invite the member to work with me on those instructions -- that we have the procedures in place that meet the intent of the legislation for open, constructive dialogue with the people of the province on the budget of British Columbia.

R. Thorpe: I do have the privilege to be the Chair of one of the legislative committees of this House. I've seen twice -- twice in the last eight months -- how this government has used its majority to shut down public input, public consultation, into trying to get the facts. I believe it said in the throne speech: " . . . the facts, all the facts and nothing but the facts." And I believe when he talked to this bill in this House, the Premier of British Columbia said: " . . . the facts, all the facts and nothing but the facts."

And here we are talking about inputs, making every effort possible to listen to British Columbians, and this minister is saying no. He says in his excuse that it's because the legislative committees will work. Well, the people of British Columbia know that that has not been the case. They know it with the fudge-it budget auditor general's report, because the government closed it down.

Then if that wasn't shocking enough, there comes the auditor general's report on the fast ferries. Now, I believe all members of this House knew that that report had the possibility to be a little bit controversial. So what did we do?

As the Chair, I talked to the independent member for Peace River South, who serves on the committee; the official opposition House Leader, who serves on the committee; and the NDP member for Comox Valley, who is the Deputy Chair of the committee. I asked all of those members to please submit a list of individuals that they would like called before this committee as witnesses, to give independent input, seeking to hear from British Columbians about the fast ferry fiasco. I got those. It was all agreed to. All of the parties agreed to it -- most importantly, the government.

Well, hon. Chair, you've been around here and served this House very well over the years. I think you can recall what happened. If we didn't just start calling the witnesses . . . . And the now Deputy Premier came into that House, into that committee, and orchestrated the government's side -- using its majority in that committee -- to stop the hearings, to close the hearings down, to take the axe, to chop the head off the public so that the facts couldn't get on the table.

If that's not bad enough, when that happened, the now Premier, who was running for leadership of his party, said: "No, that shouldn't happen. The public should have the right to be heard, to get the facts on the table." In the well-chronicled leadership of the NDP Party and the events of that, after he became the Premier, all of a sudden the song on the radio had changed. He now agreed with the Deputy Premier.

An Hon. Member: Two-step.

R. Thorpe: Well, I don't know if it was a two-step, but I certainly tell you, they shuffled the decks. They denied British Columbians exactly what they had promised. Quite frankly, that is the concern here. This minister tells us: "Trust us." The minister was here for a few of the speeches on second reading. I think he knows that the problem is that British Columbians don't trust him -- not him personally, of course, but his government.

[1530]

Not only did we get input from professional accounting associations of British Columbia, we also had input from another large organization that has a mandate across this country and across each province to listen to taxpayers, to hear taxpayers and to represent taxpayers. And they are saying exactly the same thing.

Their fear, which they put in a letter to me, is now almost being confirmed: the minister, here on

section 3 of this bill, Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, is now going to take the guillotine to the public of British Columbia even before they have the opportunity to show up. He's going to leave it in the hands of his non-partisan colleague members, who are going to have the majority of that committee. And you and I know who's going to write the music to the song. It's going to be the minister and his colleagues.

Professional accountants associations, Taxpayers Federation . . . . Hon. Chair, I'm shocked that the minister would laugh at those organizations that represent hard-working taxpaying British Columbians, that he would start to laugh at them when he says his intent is to consult with all British Columbians. I'm shocked. I mean, this is not a laughing, joking matter.

I want this minister to stand up in this House now and tell hard-working taxpaying British Columbians why he does not believe that every effort should be made to ensure that they have the opportunity to have their voices heard before a committee of this Legislature which is going to, we were told, solicit the views of all British Columbians. I want to hear the answer to that.

Hon. P. Ramsey: It is amazing. I thought we had gotten done with that sort of grandstanding in second reading. Apparently the member wishes to continue, in which case we shall continue.

It is amazing to me that this Liberal opposition, in the face of a bill here and a provision of that bill -- for the first time in this province's history, it becomes the second province in the country to actually move to an all-party committee of the Legislature as a means for consulting on the budget -- would adopt this tone. This is a good bill; this is a good provision of

[ Page 16385 ]

the bill. And I have every confidence that the hon. members of this assembly will do their job under this act: consult broadly with British Columbians.

I have spoken at length, both about the mechanisms that I believe they should and will use and that the Ministry of Finance intends to use and about my willingness to consult with members of the opposition and to make sure that the committee does have the procedures in place to carry out its responsibilities under the act. We are moving forward with listening to British Columbians and their concerns about the budget.

G. Farrell-Collins: I always find it fascinating when, after nine years of incompetent, inept financial management by this government, the ministers have the gall to stand up in this House and pat themselves on the back for doing what they should have done nine years ago. I also find it interesting that they're so proud of having to do this,

whereas if they had even complied with some of these basic principles as government -- you don't need to put it in legislation; the government could have done these things over the years -- we wouldn't be at a stage right now where we have $36 billion worth of accumulated debt, where we're the only province in the country that hasn't balanced its budget in recent memory -- nor are we likely to in the next number of years. It also

has some of the highest tax rates in certain taxes in Canada and some in North America.

[1535]

I don't think -- maybe the minister can correct me if I'm wrong -- the last nine years have been a real success story financially and fiscally for the government. He may think so, but I don't think there are many people in the province who would think so.

I know he may want to congratulate himself on doing what, quite frankly, we've been asking the government to do for eight years. I think the first time the truth-in-budget legislation was introduced in this House . . . . It was maybe eight years, maybe less, but it's certainly been over six since we brought that before the House. We've been asking the government to do it. It was prior to the last election, where the truth wasn't told to the public about the fiscal state of the province.

Perhaps we can set the indignation aside that the opposition's a little bit suspicious about the government's real intent to do this at the end of a nine-year mandate. Maybe the minister can be tolerant of our suspicion, given the government's record over the last number of years. And perhaps he can be tolerant of the suspicion of the general public when they read this legislation. He can perhaps be tolerant of the suspicion of the various accounting organizations across the country who commented on this legislation and are a little suspicious. So put up with us for a little bit; we've put up with you for nine years. Put up with us for a few hours as we have this debate.

An Hon. Member: Or days.

G. Farrell-Collins: Or days, perhaps, as my colleague reminds him.

It's not like the record isn't on our side, particularly on the standing committee stuff. My colleague highlighted very clearly two instances where the government used its majority to shut down a debate and an analysis of government's fiscal errors that the public really wanted to have a say in.

I mean, those are two issues the public was pretty cranked up about: the disappearing balanced budgets in the 1995 and 1996 fiscal years -- right around the time of an election, which was convenient -- and the fast ferry inquiry that Public Accounts was doing surrounding the auditor general's report, which it's their statutory mandate to engage in. Both of those are very recent; they're within the last number of months. Certainly I think both of them are since Mr. Enns's report came out and certainly since the Minister of Finance took his position as Minister of Finance.

He tells us about the good things the government has done about preparing performance plans and trying to do consultation, bringing forward this legislation and living within the spirit of the Enns report. But he doesn't tell us about the stuff the government has been doing that has been directly contrary to the intent of the Enns report. I think my colleague raised those two issues with the Public Accounts Committee as very good examples. The minister cannot deny that that happened; he cannot deny those facts.

He cannot deny the fact that the Premier said one thing at the time that the government members shut down the Public Accounts Committee's inquiries into the fast ferry issue. The Premier at that time said he didn't think that was fair, that the public had a right to be involved, had a right to give input and had a right to know what happened. Promptly on becoming the leader of the party and the Premier of the province, he changed his tune. That was only in February; that was three or four months ago.

So the minister can be a little tolerant of our suspicion. He's right: some of the actions the government has engaged in, in the last little while have been in the right direction. If his arm's tired from patting himself on the back, I'll pat him on the back for him. But there are a whole bunch of actions that the government has also done which I think have been a slap in the face to the public. There have been some public comments on that as well. So pardon us, and pardon the public if they're suspicious.

I think the amendment is a very constructive amendment. It's moderate. It sets a goal of performance for the committee that it must engage the public. As I say, the public is suspicious about the government's intention on budget transparency. The amendment is designed to say to the public: "We hear you. We've learned from our mistakes -- some over the last nine years, some in the last few months with what happened in the Public Accounts Committee around fast ferries and the budget inquiry. We understand that you weren't happy with that.

Therefore in this legislation we're going to charge this committee with making every effort to consult with British Columbians about their intentions, their goals, their vision for what British Columbia's fiscal future should be, where their tax dollars should be spent, the types of taxes that should be raised and what the government's management plan is."

[1540]

I think we've made our case. I think the minister is making a mistake in not accepting this very mild amendment that, I think, really does conform more closely with what Mr. Enns was intending in his report. I can only suspect that the reasons the government isn't doing it are the reasons that we've talked about. There is no other reason not to support that type of an amendment. The minister, I guess, has made his decision clear.

[ Page 16386 ]

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

[1545]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 22

Whittred

Hansen

C. Clark

Farrell-Collins

de Jong

Plant

Neufeld

Coell

Chong

Sanders

Jarvis

Anderson

Nettleton

Weisgerber

McKinnon

J. Wilson

Symons

Thorpe

Krueger

J. Reid

Stephens

Hogg

NAYS -- 35

Evans

Doyle

McGregor

Sawicki

Kwan

Lali

Hammell

Bowbrick

Brewin

Boone

Orcherton

Calendino

Zirnhelt

Randall

Robertson

Sihota

Cashore

Conroy

Smallwood

Miller

MacPhail

Dosanjh

Petter

Lovick

Priddy

Ramsey

G. Wilson

Farnworth

Waddell

Gillespie

Streifel

Walsh

Kasper

G. Clark

Goodacre

Section 3 approved on division.

section 4.

[1550]

R. Thorpe: I wish to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper with respect to this section:

[SECTION 4, to add a sub-section 7 as follows:

(7) The minister may receive nominations from the public of British Columbia for appointment to the Council as referred to in 4 (2).]

On the amendment.

R. Thorpe: This amendment, again, at the request of people that we've consulted with . . . . They believe that the minister should receive nominations from the public of British Columbia at large for appointment. Whether they're selected or not is not the issue. They believe that the minister should receive nominations from the public of British Columbia for the council referred to in subsection (2) of this section. I'd appreciate hearing the minister's comments on that.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm quite willing to have suggestions for who might sit on this panel. This council actually, of course, has been in existence through legislation for . . . . I'm trying to remember whether it was '99 or '98 when the Economic Forecast Council was established. I think the record on seeking quality people to sit on this council is good. Every year I receive a number of suggestions for people who should sit on it. I try to make sure that we have a nice mix of both expertise and geography.

Here are the people that are currently on it, just for the information of the chamber. The last one, in January of this year, was moderated by Rod Dobell from the University of Victoria.

The members were Paul Darby from the Conference Board of Canada; Carl Sonnen from Informetrica Ltd.; Teresa Courchene from the Toronto-Dominion Bank; Alister Smith from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce; John McCallum from the Royal Bank; Tim O'Neill from the Bank of Montreal; Mary Webb from Scotiabank; Jock Finlayson from the Business Council of British Columbia; Dave Park from the Vancouver Board of Trade; George Pedersson of G.A. Pedersson and Associates; Ernie Stokes of Stokes Economic Consulting; John de Wolf, CCG Consulting; William Tharp of M.

Murenbeeld and Associates; Ken Peacock of the Credit Union Central of British Columbia; Dale Orr, WEFA Canada; John Helliwell from the University of British Columbia; Michael Goldberg from the University of British Columbia; and Paul Bowles, University of Northern British Columbia.

I believe this is an excellent group. I believe that they have served the province well in their work this year, and I'm sure their successors will in the future. I do not believe that this amendment is necessary to ensure that we have a quality panel. I will say to the House and for the record that I am quite willing to receive suggestions for membership from members opposite or others.

R. Thorpe: The minister said -- I believe he said, hon. Chair -- that people were appointed, selected under this legislation. What legislation is that?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It was the financial . . . . The Economic Forecast Council was established by legislation, by an amendment to the Financial Administration Act in 1999, so staff advise me. Oh, and by the way, I should take the opportunity to introduce to the chamber Mr. Murray Crowther, who's the director of special projects in the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations.

G. Farrell-Collins: Just a procedural question, then: if this council already exists, what

section of the Financial Administration Act are we amending, then? Or are we just going to duplicate it somewhere else?

[1555]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff are ensuring we get the right reference number. The idea was to pull this function from the Financial Administration Act into this bill, because it made sense to have it included in the provisions on transparency and accountability and the response to the Enns report. It was to be pulled into this bill, and the

section of the Financial Administration Act which had contained it was then to be repealed. So it would be incorporated into this legislation. We'll have staff give us the reference number in the Financial Administration Act.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm just looking at the sections of this bill we're dealing with today, which are the other end of that process, I guess. The sections that I see where it could be are 4, 5, 3, 10, 11 and 11.1. It's probably

section 11.1, if it's 1999, because it sounds like a recent amendment after . . . . It may have been a miscellaneous statutes bill or part of it, but it could be

section 11.1. I'll try and find it. Unfortunately, we don't appear to have a copy of last year's statutes in the chamber, but we'll try and find them.

But I want to comment a little bit on the desire for this amendment by my colleague, the member from Penticton.

[ Page 16387 ]

Again, what I think it's trying to do is send a message to the public that they're part of this. The budget's theirs; it's their money; they pay the taxes. They rely on the services that government provides. They should have a say in how that's done other than once every four or five years when they elect a representative.

The public is no longer comfortable, like it was perhaps 50 or 60 years ago, having an election once every four or five years and sending people off to Victoria or Ottawa, and hoping that they'll do the right thing and that they aren't required to have any other say in it. The public wants to be more involved in an ongoing basis; I think that's been clear. Partially, I think that's because the public is more active, more attuned, perhaps, to this issue. But I think it's also a result of the fact that times are changing.

As I said earlier, we've had a pretty bad stretch of government here for the last decade and a half, I would say. The public's trust in government is substantially lower, I think, than it was earlier on in the last decade or so, particularly here in British Columbia.

So I think that in designing this legislation, the government should be making efforts to say to the public, "You have a right to participate in this process; you have a right to be involved. We want to hear what you have to say. Wherever possible, we want to talk to you. Wherever possible, if you've got some good ideas, please tell us about them; please let us hear them" -- and in this case, in this section: "If you've got someone that you think would be very good on this Economic Forecast Council, please talk to us; tell us who that is."

It's part of the message that government -- and particularly this government, I would think -- would want to send to the public. I have no quarrel with the people that the minister listed. I think they're all outstanding individuals; I know many of them. Over the years I have spoken to many of them on this very issue, and I'm sure the minister has come to know them as well. They're all very good people.

But I do think the public should have some say in that. British Columbians -- Canadians, but British Columbians in particular -- are no longer comfortable just deferring to their elites to pick the right people to do these sorts of jobs. I think there is some merit in sending a message to the public: "Please come and be involved in this process. Tell us who you think is good; tell us who you'd like on here, and we'd be glad to consider it."

He's right: it's not something the minister can't already do with the legislation that's there. But it's part of the message of opening up this budget process, being more accountable to the public, making them realize and sending a message to them that it's their budget, that it's their process, that it's their tax dollars and that it's their programs. I think that kind of an amendment . . . .

Again, I'll say it: there's no risk to the minister; there's no risk to the legislation. It's not like the minister's going to get home tonight and go: "Oh no. We passed that amendment to

section 4, and now look at what that's going to mean I have to do. Or it won't work." I think it's a positive message to the public asking them to be involved. Certainly nothing in the current six subsections that are there precludes this from happening. Nothing in the amendment that's added here to subsection (7) in any way harms the previous six. I think that if the minister's interested in sending that message, this is the kind of amendment he would want to consider, so that the public does feel invited.

If he has managed to find out which

section that is, I'd be thrilled to hear.

[1600]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I have discovered which

section of the Financial Administration Act it is; it's

section 11(2). Now, what is interesting is that the consequential amendment deleting the Financial Administration Act

section was inadvertently dropped from the BTAA. There is an amendment to the act standing in my name on the order paper, which amends it; I think it's

section 33. So Mr. Crowther and I are slightly bemused, because the bill notes have it clearly specified that that was the section, and we are changing it.

I have listened to the members' concerns about this amendment that they are proposing. I will say this. I will make a distinction between the work of this forecasting council and its advice to government and the advice of citizenry and interest groups on budget. This

section very clearly says that we are appointing these 12 people and selecting them "for their knowledge of the economy of British Columbia and their expertise in economic analysis and forecasting." It's a very specific set of expertise that we are seeking in this.

Having said that, and recognizing that the proposed subsection, in any nominations from the public, would have to meet those criteria and that sort of expertise as well as not being an employee of a government reporting entity, I am prepared to accept the amendment that the opposition has put forward.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, thank you to the minister. I think we're making some progress. I was going to make him a deal that I'd support his amendment if he'd support mine. I'll still support his amendment, given that he supported mine, even though I hadn't made the offer. So we can, I guess, move on to the next section.

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

section 5.

R. Thorpe: With respect to subsection (1), it says here: "The main estimates for a fiscal year must be prepared in accordance with this

section and with the accounting policies as established by Treasury Board." Could you just explain how Treasury Board goes through the process of establishing its accounting policies?

[1605]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Treasury Board and government have established accounting policies. From time to time staff bring forward issues that they think will require changes to those policies; they are considered by Treasury Board, and changes are made or not.

R. Thorpe: Who currently sits on Treasury Board and considers these possible accounting policies?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The membership of Treasury Board is a public record; the member can get it. It's members of cabinet. I could recite them if the member wishes.

[ Page 16388 ]

R. Thorpe: Yes, please.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Okay. It's me as Chair; the Minister of Labour; the Attorney General; the Minister of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers; the Minister of Transportation and Highways; the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Youth; the Minister for Children and Families; and -- I think I'm forgetting someone -- the Minister of Municipal Affairs. If I got to eight, that's the right number.

R. Thorpe: Apparently the Chair of Treasury Board doesn't have to be able to count.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Not and speak at the same time.

R. Thorpe: Oh yeah, that'd be doing two things. Excuse me. Sorry -- how foolish of me.

So we've got ministers of the Crown deciding on what the accounting policies are going to be for the government of British Columbia. Why are we not prepared in British Columbia to accept -- or appear to accept, I should say -- generally accepted accounting principles as the policies for running the books of British Columbia?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I was wondering when he was actually going to get to the question, since he has got any significant number of amendments on the order paper that deal precisely with this issue. We do accept the public accounting standards board and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants as the benchmark for public accounting. We also think it is important that the accounting policies of the province be set by government.

What we have chosen to do in this act, and I think it is the correct approach, is to say that where we are aware of a difference in accounting policies of Treasury Board from generally accepted accounting principles for senior government in Canada, we must disclose any material at variance from those policies. We have chosen to do this because at times there are matters of difference between auditor generals right across the country and those public generally accepted accounting principles.

The other thing that is clear is that this is a shifting target, as generally accepted accounting principles are evolving right across the country. So we have chosen to take the approach in this act of saying that we surely reference generally accepted accounting principles for senior governments in Canada as one of the benchmarks. We reserve government's right to set its own accounting policies. We accept also the responsibility to disclose any variance of those policies from generally accepted accounting principles. We have done so in the current budget that is before this House.

Earlier we had a discussion about the schools, universities, colleges and health sector. As the member knows, there are a variety of views of it. I read to him the part of the estimates book that reveals and discloses transparently where government policy, in its

summary entity -- which we've already debated -- differs from the adoption of the PSAB recommendation on

summary accounts. That is one example where we have deliberately chosen another

summary entity, one that does not include the subsector, and said: "This is the basis on which we are going to be reporting and budgeting in this province." It does differ from what generally accepted accounting principles and PSAB say should be the ideal entity.

We have chosen this, and we have revealed and disclosed its difference from that general principle. We think that is the appropriate way both to recognize the benchmark of generally accepted accounting principles and to be transparent about where government policies differ from those principles.

[1610]

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today are approximately 48 students from Lord Kelvin Elementary School in New Westminster, joined by a couple of teachers and a couple of parents. I'd ask all of my colleagues in the House here to join me in making them welcome today.

R. Thorpe: Interesting: some of the language in

section 5(

e) is the "generally accepted accounting principles for senior governments in Canada." Could the minister say why he picked the words "senior governments of Canada"?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff advise me that drafters chose this wording to differentiate this set of accounting principles from GAAP, the generally accepted accounting principles for the private sector, and, I should add, from the rules that apply to municipalities, which I understand differ again from those for senior government.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Yes, I thought that's what you . . . . So does that mean, then, we're going to pick the ones we want to be comparable with -- as opposed to the ones that are on full accrual and capitalization, generally accepted accounting principles? So are we going to mirror ourselves against the ones that aren't following GAAP? Is that our intent?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not quite sure what the member means. We said, "Here are the generally accepted accounting principles for senior governments," which is code, I guess, for PSAB, the public accounting standards board, and the standards they set for senior governments. That's the benchmark here. Where we differ from them in our accounting principles, we are committed by this legislation to disclose fully -- where we have chosen a different set of accounting principles. I think this is the best way both to set a benchmark and to disclose any variance from it.

R. Thorpe: Well, again, I thought one of the purposes . . . . Of course, the government didn't consult with me what their intention was in this bill. But if I listened carefully

[ Page 16389 ]

to some of their speakers, I think they were trying to tell British Columbians that perhaps they were going to try to do things a little bit differently than in the last nine years. I thought that was their intent, because it says: "Budget Transparency and Accountability Act."

Now, again, for the folks out there who pay the bills . . . . They understand the words "generally accepted accounting principles." They may not understand all the details. As the minister and I would both admit, we don't understand all of the details. But we understand the concept. That's what British Columbians say: "Generally accepted accounting principles." But now what we're saying here is: "We're going to do that except where we don't want to do that. And we'll be nice enough that we'll tell you where we don't do it."

But my point here is . . . . Senior governments across Canada have committed and are committed to moving. The direction, the destination, has been identified. Some are going a little slower; some are going a little faster. But generally, people know where they're going. And I'm sure that the minister and especially the minister's staff are aware that there's a special task force at CICA dealing with this subject as we speak, and they expect to have a report out in the coming months.

I think it's all heading to the generally accepted and PSAB accounting standards. That's where it's going. So again, if we're trying here to tell British Columbians and to show British Columbians that we want to reconnect -- give confidence that we're doing things in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles -- why have we chosen not to do that?

[1615]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll explain again with two examples. I said very clearly that our goal here is to accept that benchmark of PSAB and the work of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. We recognize, as the member says, that at times this is a shifting target, and governments adapt to it as they go along.

I've already referenced one significant area where we differ from PSAB. We do not include in our

summary entity the SUCH sector of schools, universities, colleges and hospitals. We said, when the Enns report came out, that we recognized that as a recommendation. We recognized PSAB. We are not prepared to move there. We said that we needed . . . . And I think members accept that there's a fair bit of consultation to be done with those independent entities in our province before we move there. That's a difference from the way we keep the books -- Treasury Board accounting policies -- and PSAB.

So what we've done . . . . So what do you do? Do you simply ignore it and say: "Well, here's ours." And somebody else, the auditor general or somebody else will comment and say: "Well, you got it wrong" or "You say you're living by PSAB, but you're not." We've chosen to say: "We accept the benchmark, but for other reasons we have chosen in this province not to include that sector in this entity. That's one.

I'll give the member another example, something of which, I must confess, he probably knows more than I -- prepaid capital advances. And I'll read again from the estimates accounting policies:

"Prepaid capital advances are provided to school districts, post-secondary institutions, health organizations and other specified government organizations to fund capital asset acquisitions. The province has an ongoing claim to these assets and, accordingly, capitalizes the advances and amortizes them over the useful life of the underlying capital assets. PSAB" -- on generally accepted accounting principles -- "recommends that governments fully expense these advances in the year they are disbursed."

Our policy differs. Guess what. "The auditor general of British Columbia concurs with government's accounting for prepaid capital advances." So to pretend there's one standard across the country that everybody adheres to, that even every auditor general accepts, is simply contrary to fact.

So what we have chosen to do is say: "We understand the benchmark. We recognize that there are a variety of views across the country and among the auditing community and among the auditor general community about that benchmark." So what we will commit to do -- appropriately, I believe -- is say: "There's the benchmark; here's government policy. Where they differ, we have a responsibility in law to disclose the variance from it." That, I believe, meets the test of both adhering to policies and disclosing fully where you're differing from your benchmark.

[1620]

R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise if these words and this position have been reviewed with the auditor general and what the auditor general has said about this, if in fact consultation took place?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff has advised that they did not discuss, in advance, these provisions with the auditor general. They brought these forward. They have had informal discussions with both previous and current auditors general on these and many other issues.

R. Thorpe: I'm sorry, hon. Chair. I was just distracted there for a second. I wonder if the minister could repeat that about the consultations with the auditor general.

Hon. P. Ramsey: During the times the Enns commission report came out and we were preparing this legislation, we did not consult formally with the auditor general on these matters. Staff have had many chances to review the contents of this act with the auditor general's office.

R. Thorpe: Based on this bill, as we move forward then -- the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act -- can the minister advise the House whether he believes the annual financial statements will be qualified by following these accounting principles?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I am loath to predict the future. We have a new auditor general, as the member knows, and I know he's working well with Public Accounts. We have had a qualification in the past because of the non-inclusion of the SUCH sector. I imagine that is an issue that the current auditor will wish to take up with members of Treasury Board staff as we move forward.

R. Thorpe: So I guess we have not, then, met with the new auditor general on this bill and talked about a possibility of a working understanding on whether these statements prepared in this manner would be qualified or not. Is that

[ Page 16390 ]

correct? Or did he say he would not qualify them, or did he say he would qualify them? Or did he say he reserved opinion?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The auditor general, of course, has the responsibility of reviewing government books and accounting policies, and he will make his independent decision. That is his role and his right. I have had the opportunity to discuss informally with the new auditor general . . . . I've met him twice, actually -- once at the retirement function for Mr. Morfitt, the outgoing auditor general, and more recently I had what I would call an initial courtesy meeting with the auditor in the last couple of weeks to discuss his role and his relationship with government.

R. Thorpe: The official opposition . . . . Outside professional accounting associations in British Columbia have told us . . . . We feel that generally accepted accounting principles for government accounting policies established by the public accounting standards board and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants should be followed. We know that there are some changes; we know CICA and other things are changing all the time. But we believe, as I believe professional accounting organizations do, that we have to set a standard and that we have to move towards that -- and whatever that entails. We talk about being leading edge.

Therefore I would like to move the amendment for

section 5 standing in my name in the order paper.

[SECTION 5 (1), to delete the words in strikeout and to substitute therefor the words in underline:

(1) The main estimates for a fiscal year must be prepared in accordance with this

section and with the

accounting policies as established by Treasury Board generally accepted accounting principles for government accounting policies as established by the Public Accounting Standards Board and the Canadian Institute of Chartered

Accountants. ]

[1625]

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

G. Farrell-Collins: You could call

section 6 the fixed budget day section. It's the

section that restricts some of the freedom that government has around the dates upon which they would introduce a budget.

There are two parts to it. The first part says that the minister has to present the main estimates for the fiscal year and the budget at the same time and that it should be introduced to the House with sufficient time to complete the required six days of debate that exists in our standing orders prior to the end of the fiscal year. That's essentially what the first subsection says.

The second subsection, the other half of the section, is the escape clause section, which allows for a couple of scenarios where the government need not comply with what they're required to do in subsection (1). It says you've got to do it at this time unless one of these things happens: (

a) a general election is underway or recently completed, (

b) a new Premier has taken office after February 15 in the fiscal year, or (

c) a federal budget has been introduced after February 15 that materially changes or has a significant impact on B.C.'s budget. In that case, and I find this interesting, you can actually introduce the budget at another date.

The subsection actually says you can introduce the main estimates at a later date. It doesn't say that you have to also introduce the budget at a later date -- just the main estimates. I don't know if that's a problem that the minister may want to look at, but he can look at the technicality of whether that's a problem and tell me one way or the other. I suspect it might be.

More importantly, I'd like to discuss for a few minutes, while he determines that, the requirement, really, for the three escape hatches. I admit that there is some logic to (a), (

b) and (

c) there. They're not illogical. I'm not convinced they're required, though, and this is the reason. I can't recall, in my years of watching politics in British Columbia, when there was an election in March. Perhaps the member can advise me -- or his colleague who sits beside him, who is somewhat of a political historian, I think, could advise me -- when the last provincial election was that happened in March or was underway in March, in the last two weeks of March. I don't think it has ever happened. Certainly in the modern era I don't think it has ever happened. I don't think (

a) is required, just by practice.

And for (b), that the new Premier has taken office, well, as we've seen, it doesn't seem to matter whether there's a new Premier or not. The budget process moves along. I don't think that . . . . Well, maybe he has some insight that he wants to tell us, wants to share with us. But it appears to me that if a new Premier happens to come in right around that period of time, perhaps there can be some changes done then. Perhaps if there are some major changes that are required, the public is still entitled to see a budget. If the new Premier wants to amend that as the year progresses, he or she may certainly do that.

Then on the third one, the federal budget, again I think there's some logic to that. I understand that if there were a major change in what the federal government was providing to the province in transfers, either up or down -- and I mean a major change -- or if there were significant changes to the tax system such that it would have a significant impact on the revenues of the province, there may be need to amend the budget. Or in this case, even while it's in progress: the budget process is in place, the federal budget comes out and everyone goes: "Gee. Now we've got to go back and fix all this stuff." I understand that.

[1630]

But again, I still don't think that it's necessary to just stop the whole budget process at that point. I think you can come to the public with what you've got. As those amendments are worked through, they can come up in here -- if there's a change in Health, for example. Health often is debated in estimates towards the end of the spring session. Certainly, if there were to be changes in that vote, that can happen very easily with an amendment on the floor of the House by the Minister of Health.

There is certainly a provision for changes. In many cases, the tax changes that come in the form of legislation don't arrive here till June or aren't debated until June, and amendments could be put on the order paper to deal with that. So

[ Page 16391 ]

I think that in all of those cases, yes, it's more convenient, perhaps, for government to be able to just stop the process and say: "Well, we're not going to bring the budget in right now. We'll bring it in later."

On the latter one,

section 6(2)(c), the federal budget one, I haven't seen too many cases -- since I've been here, anyway -- where the federal government has had such a significant impact on the budget that it needed to be halted and rewritten. I can never recall a case where a minister has moved an amendment to their estimates vote to change the dollar figure. I don't recall that ever happening. I also don't recall any change to the Budget Measures Implementation Act as a result of the federal budget or to tax changes -- the Income Tax Act or the other tax acts -- as a result of a federal budget in the time I've been here.

I'm sure that in previous years, back whenever, it did happen. But the federal budget has pretty much regularly come in, in about the middle of February for the last decade or couple of decades. It has been pretty regular. It's not all over the place the way it used to be. I just don't know that these are necessary anymore. There are other solutions to solve any of those problem scenarios which I raised, and they are very simple solutions. The minister comes in, moves an amendment to the motion for their vote. That's debated and passed, and the estimates move forward.

And with any legislation that's pending on the order paper, the minister responsible -- most cases, the Minister of Finance -- can put amendments on the order paper and tweak that accordingly.

I think the public has a right to know what the budget is for the year coming up, and I think they have a right to know when they're going to know that. If things happen and the world changes and unfolds differently, I think the government certainly has it within its powers to amend that in a very simple way as the debate goes forward. It's rare that we're ever . . . . Since I've been here, we haven't been out of here before the end of June in the spring session, I don't think.

Under the standing order changes that sit on the order paper right now, we'd be out by the end of May -- certainly plenty of time for those sorts of issues to be sorted out. Certainly if there was a change in leadership, a new Premier sworn in, essentially, after February 15 and before March 15 . . . . March 15 is about when the budget would have to come in anyway, because there wouldn't be a new Premier. Even if there was a leadership process in place, there would not be a new Premier prior to

section 1 kicking in. So the budget would have to be introduced anyway, even if we were in the middle of a leadership selection process. Under this legislation, the minister would have to bring in the budget, under subsection (1).

So there's really a window of a month or so there where it could create a problem. But even in that case, those issues can be dealt with before the end of the fiscal year.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister says: "I wish . . . . " I haven't done the minister's job like he had to do in the last eight months. I sympathize somewhat with him, but at the same time, I don't think that that's a sympathy that needs to be there, because it's all about discipline. It's about discipline within the government caucus and the party, and direction.

Certainly any of those changes -- a federal budget, an election -- I just don't think are going to happen in that one-month window. And the federal budget changes are things that can be amended as the session progresses. I don't think any of those are necessary. I think it makes it more convenient for the government, but I don't think it's required. They can bring in the budget. If they need to make changes, they can make changes. They can explain why, and it moves through; it's not a huge problem.

I do believe that the public has a right to know when the budget's going to come in. They have a right to expect to know what the next fiscal year holds for them. Individuals and businesses have a right to know what their taxes are going to be from year to year. All too often, if this scenario were to be in place, they'd end up with a budget in April or May -- or, heaven knows, perhaps later -- and then have retroactive legislation come in. It messes up their books, and they've got to deal with all of that. I think the government should try as much as possible to live within the spirit of the first part of the

section and not provide the escape clauses at the end.

[1635]

I have an amendment which stands in my name on the order paper which I would like to move. I'd like to read it into the record, because it's a fairly simple amendment. It essentially deletes everything that's there now and just simplifies it all. It says:

[SECTION 6, to delete sub-sections (1) and (2) of

Section 6 and to substitute therefor the following:

6 The minister must present the budget and main estimates for the upcoming fiscal year to the Legislative Assembly no later than March 15th of each year.]

On the amendment.

G. Farrell-Collins: It just simplifies the legislation, closes those loopholes and requires some discipline on government and the political party that's in government to be mindful of their obligation to the people of the province to deliver a budget on time with some reasonableness to it. And if there are extenuating circumstances, use the procedures that are currently in place to solve those. It doesn't fix it on March 15, because March 15 might be a Sunday in some years. It requires it to be done no later than March 15. That gives some time; it gives the public some predictability.

They know that within that window -- very tight, about a week or so -- they're going to see the budget, and they can plan for it accordingly.

I think it would be a nice change; it would give some security and some certainty. And we wouldn't have the problems which we've had in the past with governments that are nearing the end of their mandate trying to play around with the budget and make it their reason for election. I think that happened in 1996. We came into the Legislature, I think, in April -- about a month late. It was the very end of April; it was the second-last day of April, I believe. We came into the Legislature; the budget was thrown on the table. The opposition didn't even have a chance to respond to the budget in the House. That's how tight up against the election writ-drop decision of the Premier we were put.

The budget was thrown on the table; the public didn't have a chance to analyse it. I suspect that if that budget had been introduced no later than March 15 and the government chose to call an election at the end of April or beginning of May, which they did, in that intervening period, the fact that

[ Page 16392 ]

neither of those budgets were actually balanced may have gotten out to the public. And the public may -- or may not -- have made a different choice on how they would cast their ballot. So that was a perfect and classic example of how this legislation can be used to manipulate the budgetary process to the political aims of the government in power. The budget doesn't belong to the government; the budget belongs to the people -- the people who are paying for it and the people who rely upon those services.

That's the reason for the amendment. I think it's clean, it's simple and it's clear. It does not remove the various methods and procedures that are currently available to the government to make amendments to the budget if extenuating circumstances arise at a later date.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I want to assure the member opposite that this

section has been the topic of considerable debate within the ministry and with the people who are helping me put this act together, as we tried to figure out how to adhere to what I think is the principle that the member outlined. The principle is that there should be adequate . . . . Well, first there should be predictability on the dates when budgets are coming down, and there should be sufficient time between the tabling of a budget in estimates and the start of a new fiscal year for this Legislative Assembly to at least complete its work of adhering to the standing orders and completing eight sessions -- six days of debate on the budget.

With respect, I have to disagree with the proposed amendment made by the Opposition House Leader. I do it for two reasons. First of all, let's look at the actual date issue. The Enns panel recommended that the annual budget be introduced by the third Tuesday in March each year, unless that is during an election campaign or less than 30 days after a new government is sworn in, in which case the budget must be introduced as soon as possible. That was the recommendation of the Enns panel.

[1640]

The difficulty with that is that the third Tuesday could be as late as March 21. If you then have spring break and you decide not to sit, all of a sudden you're out of time to do the appropriate standing orders debate before the start of the new fiscal year. So we looked at that and said: "Their intent is dead-on, but we're not sure they really understood how the standing orders of the House work to actually get the throne speech and budget speech debates done before a new fiscal year starts." They qualified this by saying, you know . . . .

There are a couple of outs that they incorporated during an election or when a new government -- arguably a new Premier and his new cabinet -- is sworn in.

I want to deal first with the date issue; then I'll go on to the qualifications, Enns and ours. So, then, we said: "Okay; shall we pick, then, a fixed date -- February 15 or whatever?" Yeah, we looked at that. Here's the difficulty and why the proposed legislation is actually more restrictive on government than the proposed amendment from the opposition. We now have in front of this House a proposal for a new timetable for the Legislature. It says we take off the week that has the fourth Tuesday of the month in it.

The fourth Tuesday could fall as early as March 24, which means we'd be taking off the week of the 24th through the 28th. Then we'd have the one day at the end of the month, the 31st, when we'd actually be back in session. Counting backward from that, then, the week of the 17th to the 21st would be the next working week. If I correctly understand the school calendar, and I think I do, there's an excellent chance that that is spring break. I back up through a weekend -- the 15th and 16th -- and I come to the 14th; it is a Friday. The new calendar says we don't sit there.

You introduce a budget on the 13th, and you have a grand total of two days of debate before the end of the month -- unacceptable. It does not fit the new calendar that we are proposing for this House.

Recognizing that there may be legislative reform in process and recognizing that the principle is to allow sufficient time for debate before the end of the fiscal year, we have chosen the approach that says: "Such that the budget debate can reasonably be anticipated to be completed in accordance with the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly, eight sittings, six days before the start of the new fiscal year." That's the reason. With respect, the opposition's amendment could, in some years, actually curtail budget debate to as little as two days. I think, therefore, we ought to stick with the current proposal.

Second, on

section 6(2), I listened to the Opposition House Leader with interest. First of all, let me say this: the Enns panel said, in their own way, that you should include subsections (2)(

a) and (2)(b). Now, if you have a general election underway or recently completed, or if you have a new government, a new Premier, that's taken office in the previous month, they said 30 days. That's essentially the Enns report's recommendation on this. We think they are sensible. I'll speak to the last one and then go back.

[1645]

The third issue was the federal budget. It's one, actually, that staff raised with us as we worked our way through this, and they said it has happened in the past. Mel Couvelier, for example, said he had to delay a budget because of some significant changes that had been made in, I think, federal revenues to the province of British Columbia some time ago. More recent practice has been that the federal government consults with senior finance officials at least somewhat in advance of their federal budget. So the number of "surprises" seems to be diminishing.

But there is no guarantee that that will be the case. Therefore if two things occur -- one, the federal government presents a budget after the middle of February, and two, there's a material change in the fiscal forecast for the government of B.C. reporting entity for the next fiscal year as a result; both things have to apply -- then the Minister of Finance can state that it's not practicable. We'll have to delay the introduction of the budget for a day or three or a week.

Now, here's the part that I . . . . I listened with some interest to the Opposition House Leader. He says he hasn't been through the process of budget preparation as Minister of Finance. I've only gone through it once. But I want to assure him and the House that the timetable we were on to introduce this budget by March 27, given we had a new Premier and a new cabinet as of February 20, was exceedingly challenging. The idea that you can do that and then have a budget that's presented . . . . It is simply logistically impossible.

In the very early days of the current Premier's time in office, it was my duty to meet with him -- I think, the day or the day after he'd been sworn in -- and advise him of the timetable for completing budget preparation -- how much of his time and of cabinet's time I'd require to get that work done and the timetable for actually getting it introduced. It was his

[ Page 16393 ]

desire to push that as far forward in February as possible to meet the spirit of the Enns legislation. I was saying: "Yeah, get the debate done before the end of the fiscal." Given the decision that we were not going to sit during spring break, that proved to be practically -- and I mean in terms of getting practical work done -- impossible.

A budget is more than estimates. It is all the background work that needs to be done. It is working through on all the material and the decisions made by senior folks in government, with Premiers, who the Finance minister works very closely with on revenue measures -- and there are significant revenue measures in this budget -- and with cabinet, talking about expenses and how their departments are going to deal with them. It is far more, particularly in the era that we're moving into of performance plans and government strategic plans.

There's just more than can be done, if you have a new cabinet and a new Premier after the middle of February, to get it tabled in time to complete budget debate before the start of the new fiscal year.

I listen with interest to the Opposition House Leader. With respect, I think he has underestimated the practical difficulties of having an election, a new government or a federal budget after a particular date. And our choice in subsection (2), actually, was: do you put in some sort of general clause that says you have an unanticipated event that can cause budget delay; or do you narrow them down and say: "We can only conceive of three."? We chose the stance of saying: "We can only conceive of three circumstances. Here they are."

So with all respect, I must decline to support the amendment proposed by the Opposition House Leader on

section 6.

[1650]

R. Thorpe: I listened very carefully to the minister, and like my colleague from Vancouver-Little Mountain, I have not had the privilege -- perhaps, listening to the minister, it's is not that great of a privilege -- to go through a budget process. I have gone through budget processes in major corporations, but I'm sure it's different. I'm sure it will have its own trials and tribulations.

I guess what my colleague . . . . I know that the minister agreed with some of his points and some of his observations, as I agree, hon. Chair, with some of the minister's comments and observations here. But I think what we on this side of the House are trying to say is that the overall responsibility of this House, whoever the government is, is to the people of British Columbia, and to attempt to create certainty for those folks -- certainty for their businesses and certainty for people who want to come to British Columbia and invest, etc.

That's why, hon. Speaker, in taking into account some of the observations of the ministers about vacations, standing orders, time off -- three here and one off -- and a whole bunch of possibilities, a myriad of possibilities, we said: "No later than March 15 of each year." So you could take in that whole assortment of possibilities and work yourself back; you could do that. It's just the commitment of wanting to give certainty that, by no later than March 15 of each year, there would be a budget tabled.

Those were the points that I thought . . . . Quite frankly, I thought the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain had actually convinced the Minister of Finance to accept this; that is, as I noted, hon. Chair, the minister was nodding, and I thought he was agreeing with my colleague.

I guess the minister is saying no to this amendment. And I just ask the minister to give it one final consideration, because it says: "No later than . . . . " It gives you the time that you need -- or any government needs, for that matter -- to manage the standing orders and manage all of the other things so that British Columbians could have some certainty.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I believe the

section as drafted provides that certainty and indeed provides the time for the House to complete its work. As I explained to the member, the proposal as written would actually require introduction of a budget no later than something like February 15 in particular years of the calendar.

The reality is that the current language is more demanding on government, in terms of advancing the introduction of budget, than the opposition's proposed amendment. That was the point I made in debate. Further, the opposition's amendment would . . . . In those years when you had the fourth week off, the third week was school vacation that you chose to honour, so you could well find yourself with only a day or two -- three sittings or so -- to actually debate budget. That is inadequate, so I support the current language. With all respect to the members opposite, I think we got it right as we worked through this one. I will decline to support the opposition's amendment.

Amendment negatived on division.

[1655]

Section 6 approved on division.

section 7.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I have an amendment to propose to

section 7. I will actually read it for the House. I assure the chamber that this is one which the opposition will have no difficulty in supporting.

Section 7(

e) currently reads: " . . . if the fiscal forecast is different from what that the minister believes . . . . " It should, of course, read: " . . . if the fiscal forecast is different from what the minister believes." It's a typographical error, and I have an amendment to propose to amend the

section to eliminate the typographical error.

An Hon. Member: Just read it again.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Amend

section 7(1)(

e) by deleting "what that" and substituting "what."

Amendment approved.

R. Thorpe: Hon. Speaker, you noticed how cooperative the opposition is on reasonable amendments.

With respect to 7(1)(c), "a report on the advice received from the Economic Forecast Council . . . . " Just for clarification, is that a selective report, or is that a comprehensive report from the Economic Forecast Council?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I would refer the member to the budget reports for Budget 2000. The report is a

summary of a full day's events, but it is a comprehensive

summary of the topics that are covered. If the member looks at the budget document . . . . It includes close to four pages of pretty fine print, covering everything from what they believe are international

[ Page 16394 ]

developments to the Canadian economy, financial markets, domestic outlooks within British Columbia, risks to the outlook and policy discussion. So it's pretty comprehensive. Does it include every word said during a full day? No, but it's quite a comprehensive report.

R. Thorpe: I appreciate what the minister is telling me here. The intent is for it to be as far-ranging as possible, and obviously you can't put every word that takes place in a day in the document.

With respect to 7(2), "The minister must, in the

preamble to the final Supply Bill . . . propose to include a reference to the adjustment statement under subsection (1) (e) . . . . " Just for clarification, is that a fairly detailed explanation?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No, it is not. It is one number. This is the prudence factor that is included in the budget of this year -- $300 million.

Section 7 as amended approved.

section 8.

R. Thorpe: With respect to

section 8, could the minister advise how the number of $50 million was selected?

[1700]

Hon. P. Ramsey: The selection of the $50 million threshold for major capital projects -- which must be presented to the Legislative Assembly at the same time that estimates are presented -- is in some ways an arbitrary number. We looked at the threshold for contingent liabilities in public accounts. We also had some intents behind it. The goal here was to have tab