Hansard -- Volume 20, Number 5 -- Tuesday, June 6, 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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2000

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 5

[ Page 16251 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to make an

introduction on behalf of my colleague the government Whip, the member for

Alberni. Visiting with us in the chamber today is a group of 23 or 24 students

from Alberni District Secondary School, along with their teacher, Mr. Contant.

I'm looking up and saying: "These are supposed to be grade 11 students, and

the ones up here look much too young." So I suspect the group is somewhere

else in the chamber, Mr. Speaker.

I also discern that they would like their presentation to be enti�rement

en fran�ais , which is not a bad idea either. I'd just ask my colleagues,

then, to please join me in extending a warm welcome to all of these students

from Alberni District Secondary School.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce a guest

from our Canadian neighbour to the north, who is in the chamber with us. Please

join me in welcoming Hon. Stephen Kakfwi, Premier of the Northwest Territories

and the minister responsible for intergovernmental affairs and many other

things. During his time here, the Premier and I will be meeting to sign an MOU

for cooperation and development between our two jurisdictions on issues of

common concern such as economic development.

Accompanying the Premier we have in the gallery Doug Doan, assistant deputy

minister of resources, wildlife and economic development, and Lynda Sorensen,

the chief of staff for Premier Kakfwi. Could the House please make them all

welcome.

[1410]

Hon. C. Evans: Joining us today from the B.C. Wine Institute is Ian

Tostenson, the chair, and Megan Moyle, the marketing coordinator. I met with the

board earlier. All members are invited to the Laurel Point Inn tonight at 6

o'clock to enjoy our most pleasant evening with any group that ever comes to

visit us. Will the House please make them welcome.

J. Reid: I have a few guests in the gallery today. One is Ruth Salmon

from Duncan, and the other is my husband. I ask that the House please make them

very welcome.

R. Thorpe: On behalf of the official opposition, we would also like to

welcome the officials of the British Columbia Wine Institute, the growers, the

vintners, the producers of world-class wines, my good friend Ian Tostenson and

all of the people associated with the British Columbia grape and wine industry.

Welcome to Victoria. We hope all of their meetings today produce fruit that will

produce a great vintage in the year 2001.

B. Barisoff: Today I'd like to welcome 50 grades 6 and 7 students and

five adults and their teacher, Mr. Martin, from John A. Hutton Elementary School

in my riding. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, having introduced a guest from a

jurisdiction to our north, I'm pleased to introduce a guest from a jurisdiction

farther south. Would the House please help us in welcoming Guadalupe Albert, the

newly appointed consul-general of Mexico in Vancouver. She is making her first

official calls to Victoria, and I very much look forward to meeting with her

this afternoon. Could the House please join us in making her welcome.

Hon. I. Waddell: I'd like to add my welcome to Premier Kakfwi. We

worked together in Yellowknife in 1975 on the Berger inquiry. He was 23 then.

Guess how old I was.

An Hon. Member: Forty-seven.

Hon. I. Waddell: No, I was 42. Anyway, we were against the pipeline;

now we're for it. [Laughter.]

Hon. Speaker, also visiting the House today is Mr. Parmesh Bhatt from Tokyo.

Mr. Bhatt, the House will remember, organized that wonderful wrestling tour last

year, the Sumo Basho, when the Sumo wrestlers -- a few of them were a little

bigger than me -- came here. Accompanying Mr. Bhatt is his associate Terry

Wakasa. Also with them is Mr. Barry Rempel of Canadian Airlines International.

Mr. Rempel is based in Calgary. Would the House please make them very welcome.

J. van Dongen: Visiting today from Abbotsford is a constituent, Ellen

Silbernagel. I ask the House to please make her welcome.

T. Stevenson: In the House today are 35 grade 6 students from the

Fernwood Elementary School in Bothell, Washington. They're accompanied by Ms.

Cortez, their teacher. I hope all members will make them welcome.

L. Boone: It's a pleasure today -- and I think this is something that

all members here will join me in doing -- to welcome back our member for Skeena,

who has been long away. We're anxious to have you back with us, friend. And I'm

sure that the member for Alberni is watching diligently. We certainly would like

to welcome him back and wish him well and get him back here. I think this is a

really desperate way for the member for Alberni to get leave, but we want him

back here amidst us. And we're certainly glad to have our member for Skeena here

with us.

[1415]

Hon. J. Doyle: Thank you for that wonderful round of applause.

In the gallery today I have two visitors, Jack and Vera Lappin. They live in

Mill Bay in the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca's riding. But more importantly,

they were born in the same little land that I was -- back in Ireland -- some

years ago. Actually, Jack is 86, and Vera, his wife, is about 39 or thereabouts.

Jack is well known as an advocate of many issues -- a bit of a rebel -- and I

had lunch with him today. I'd like you to make them welcome.

M. Sihota: In the gallery today is a newly elected member of the

Colwood council, an individual known to both myself and the member for Malahat-Juan

de Fuca. Would all members please welcome Gordie Logan to the chamber today.

K. Krueger: I'd like to welcome to the House a friend of mine from

Bowser, Keith Reid. His wife is an MLA.

[ Page 16252 ]

Introduction of Bills

FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2000

Hon. P. Ramsey presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a

bill intituled Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 2000.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first

time now.

Motion approved.

[1420]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Bill 18 enacts tax cuts contained in Budget 2000. It

also enacts the recommendations of the Deloitte Consulting report entitled

"Capital Management Process Review for the Government of British

Columbia," which contained a number of recommendations on improving the

management of capital projects in the province. Budget 2000 brought tax relief

both for individuals and for British Columbia business.

The major tax reduction in this bill is the British Columbia manufacturing

and processing tax credit. This new 3 percent tax credit will reduce the cost of

new machinery, equipment and buildings to be used in manufacturing and

processing in British Columbia. The credit will encourage investment and help

B.C. businesses meet the demands of a changing economy.

The Corporation Capital Tax Act is amended to provide new rules for foreign

bank branches, in recognition of the 1999 federal Bank Act amendments that will

now allow foreign banks to operate in Canada through branches.

The Horse Racing Tax Act is amended to improve the future economic viability

of the horse racing industry of British Columbia. It requires the payment to the

British Columbia Horse Racing Commission of the net revenue received by

government from tax collected under this act.

The Financial Administration Act is amended as the first step in government

implementing the recommendations contained in Deloitte Consulting's independent

review of capital management practices in B.C. The amendments are the

legislative foundation to enable the government to build upon our existing

initiatives and implement a best-practices management framework.

The Financial Information Act is amended to clarify that capital

expenditure-related information can be requested from Crown corporations and

that the Minister of Finance has the authority to appoint an auditor if the

information requested is not forthcoming.

Hon. Speaker, I will elaborate more fully on these measures during second

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

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 18 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

DRAAYERS FOSTER CARE CASE

G. Campbell: Everyone in this House is committed to the well-being of

children in the province's care; everyone in this House believes we should put

the interests of children first. Yesterday the Premier said that if it was in

the best interests of the Draayer children to return home, then that's what

should happen. The answer to the Premier's question has already been given by

the Children's Commission tribunal: it is in the best interests of those

children to be returned to their home right away. My question to the Premier is

simply this: how can he justify any further delay in allowing those girls to go

home?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I've been watching the questions and answers in this

House on this issue with a great deal of pain, and that is not because of the

politics. It is because people must understand and the opposition must

understand that these are decisions made by social workers, by people on the

front lines, without any political interference whatsoever. They have

legislation to follow. So let me make the first point. The first point is: these

are not political decisions made by ministers.

Secondly, the minister has no legal authority whatsoever to interfere in the

due process at this time. Thirdly, I said yesterday, and I repeat: if, at the

end of the day, the determination appropriately made by the appropriate

authorities is that it is in the best interests of the children to be returned

to the Draayers, so they should be at the earliest possible.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition with a

supplementary question.

G. Campbell: Well, hon. Speaker, it's been half a year since those

little girls were taken from their home. The Children's Commission tribunal is

in no way political. They have been very clear: it is in the best interests of

those children to be home. Will the Premier not today say that it is important

for those kids to be home and let the girls go home now?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I think it's appropriate for members of

the opposition and members of the government side to realize that part of the

due process now is that those recommendations from the panel are to be reviewed

by the superintendent, Ross Dawson, who will then decide this issue. That

decision would be made within seven days, I have been told. Now, if I were to

follow the wishes of the hon. opposition leader, I would be acting absolutely

inappropriately.

L. Reid: According to the Ministry for Children and Families' own

practice standards: "If the director believes that the children are unable

to express their views, the director is obligated to consult with persons who

know the children well -- friends, school officials, physicians."

Not only were these children not consulted, but you didn't follow your own

guidelines and consult the people closest to the girls. Will the Minister for

Children and Families tell us why her officials apparently breached their own

guidelines and why people closest to the girls were not consulted?

[ Page 16253 ]

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I will at this stage not get into any of the

particular details of the events that have led up to the tribunal's response and

the tribunal's recommendations of last week. What I will say, as has been said

before, is that the director of child protection is working on making that

response now, as it is his authority so to do. He will be, I know, working

quickly and cooperatively with the Children's Commission and will be making a

decision in the best interests of the children. And we know the date of that:

June 12 -- less than a week.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond East has a supplemental

question.

L. Reid: The Children's Commission tribunal spent months on this

review -- absolutely months. This has been the single most exhaustive,

comprehensive review and investigation ever conducted. The Minister for Children

and Families is essentially ignoring the tribunal's findings, because the girls

are not at home. Will the minister tell us why we even have these exhaustive,

extensive reviews if indeed the recommendations are not going to be acted upon

immediately?

[1425]

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I want to, in response, say first of all:

congratulations and my compliments to the tribunal. They have indeed done

excellent work; they have produced an exhaustive report, which is a very

thoughtful report and of great interest. I am very concerned about the way in

which occasionally, it seems, the responses to this have been somewhat

overstated. I want to say that the legislation on which the tribunal was based

was one of significant support in this House, and the tribunal process is part

of that legislation -- a very important part of it. It is there as progressive .

. . . It is there for protection; it's not there for politics. It's not

there to be political. It's to keep that away from the children.

BUDGET 2000

ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN

G. Farrell-Collins: If the ministry had followed its guidelines and

its practices six months ago, none of this would have happened.

Speaker, on a different matter, I have a question for the Premier. Today the

Premier gave a speech in debate on the Budget Transparency and Accountability

Act, and he said: "Only by living up to the letter of this new law can we

restore British Columbians' confidence in the budget numbers . . . let

me say this: I am committed to financial accountability and fiscal

accountability on the part of the government."

Well, while he was making that speech, I was reading a memo from John Heaney

to the Ministry of Finance, which shows that the government is doing just the

opposite. Last January in a press release, Treasury Board announced fiscal

constraint directives that banned new discretionary contracts. However, in an

effort to get around this provision, Mr. Heaney, the Premier's communications

guru, dreamed up a way for the Ministry of Finance to circumvent this rule and

grant an untendered contract for communications work on this transparent budget.

I quote from the memo for the Premier's information:

"Fiscal measures currently in place constrain the ministry's ability to

enter into such a contract in time to prepare materials for the budget. It's our

recommendation that your communications director work with the Ministries of

Health and Education to develop an integrated communications plan. If this is

acceptable to you, payment for the strategic finance component of the plan will

be billed through the Ministry of Education and journal-vouchered back to the

ministry."

Can the Premier tell us . . . ? At a time when he's putting

together a budget that he claims is transparent and open, his bureaucrats are

going behind the scenes, working with the Ministry of Finance to circumvent

those very regulations.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member for his question. The Budget 2000

document contains a great deal of information that's important both to

individuals and to businesses in British Columbia. We are looking at -- and have

done this year, and we've done it in the past -- a modest advertising campaign

to inform British Columbians of what's going on. Far from wasting money, this

initiative enabled us . . . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: Members, order, please.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations does

not have an agency of record for advertising measures. Rather than going out and

tendering a new contract, incurring the expense of that, doing all those steps,

it was thought to be both efficient and effective to use an agency that has a

proven record of doing communications for the government. And I believe it was

also cost-effective to the people of British Columbia.

The total advertising budget for Budget 2000 was $190,000 -- the lowest in

many years. I'm very pleased with the work that has been done by the agency. I'm

very pleased that the people of British Columbia received this information.

G. Farrell-Collins: I remind the Premier that Mr. Heaney reports to

him. Mr. Heaney was the one structuring and planning the communications strategy

for this government around their new, open, transparent budget. This memo says:

"Early in February, B.C. communications division discussed the possibility

of Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations communications tendering a

contract for the creative and production work on Budget 2000. As you are aware,

[Finance] does not have an agency of record, and fiscal measures currently in

place constrain the ministry's ability to enter into such a contract . . .

. "

[1430]

So instead of following the fiscal constraints, instead of doing this

properly, they go around behind the scenes, bill the Ministry of Education and

journal-voucher it back. That's not transparent. That's not open, and the

Premier should stand up and be accountable for that.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think what the opposition is really objecting to is

the fact that we spent a small amount of money and informed British Columbians

about the facts that were contained in Budget 2000. Now, I must say, maybe the

opposi-

[ Page 16254 ]

tion doesn't want the people of the province to understand that we increased

Health spending in this budget by 7 percent. Maybe they don't want the people of

the province to know that Education spending went up by over 4.5 percent in this

budget. Maybe they don't want the people of the province to know where their tax

dollars came from and where they were spent. The advertising that we did, at a

minimum cost to the taxpayer, revealed in detail -- and, frankly, in a very

factual and, I would say, transparent way -- where the money came from, where it

went and what benefit they got from the taxes they paid to this province.

M. de Jong: Well, here it is -- the February 1 press announcement

where the government announced the details of its restraint package, including

this declaration: "New discretionary contracts are prohibited." So how

do you explain the fact that only a few weeks later, the NDP were taking steps

to skirt their own new regulations? Why would they risk the accusations of

hypocrisy and deception that would surely follow if, three weeks into his term

as Premier, the NDP were again caught breaking their own rules? Maybe it had

something to do with who got the contract.

Can the Finance minister confirm that the reason the government concocted

this accounting shell game was because the NDP didn't want anybody to know that

they were again skirting their own rules in favour of their old friends at Now

Communications? That's who got the contract.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member has read accurately from the memo from

Treasury Board on restraint measures. Deputy ministers across government were

instructed to restrain discretionary expenditures. With respect to budget

advertising, the ministry determined it was essential to communicate our

priorities around revenue, around taxation, around expenditures, and we sought

to do that.

Hon. Speaker, I know they don't want the people of the province to know

what's in Budget 2000. I understand that when they look at this document -- just

the facts about the taxation, the facts about expenditure -- they don't want

these to be revealed.

Maybe they don't want the people of the province to know that if you're a

family of four in British Columbia earning $55,000, if you add up all the taxes

-- whether it's land or income -- you pay the second-lowest taxes of any

province in Canada. And I'm sure they don't want their supporters to know that

contrary to their rhetoric, if you're a single individual earning $80,000, you

pay -- wait for it -- the second-lowest taxes in Canada as well.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Matsqui has a supplemental question.

M. de Jong: What British Columbians want to know is why this NDP

government can't live within their own rules for even two weeks. I don't know.

Maybe it's just a coincidence that Now Communications was heavily involved in

the Premier's leadership campaign. Maybe it's just a coincidence. In fact, I

think it was Now Communications that registered the Premier's leadership web

site even before he entered the race. Maybe that's just a coincidence.

[1435]

The question for the Premier -- the question that only the Premier can answer

-- is: why was his office lobbying the Finance ministry on behalf of his friends

at Now Communications so that those guys could get a contract that skirted the

rules that the NDP had just announced two or three weeks earlier?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain will come to

order, please.

Members, the question period time is over. I will ask the Minister of Finance

to give a very short answer.

Hon. P. Ramsey: As I said earlier, we do not have an agency of record;

Education and Health do. It was felt very appropriate to ask them to lead on

getting this work done. As far as communications in Budget 2000, I would point

out to the members opposite that this was felt to be entirely satisfactory. The

Deputy Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, in another document that I

know the members got FOI'd, says exactly this. This is nothing out of the

ordinary, in spite of what they wish to make of it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Reports from Committees

R. Thorpe: I have the honour to present the second report of the

Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the fourth session of the

thirty-sixth parliament, entitled "Protecting Drinking-Water Sources."

Hon. Speaker, I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

R. Thorpe: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules

to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

R. Thorpe: I move that the report be adopted.

This report describes the work conducted by the Public Accounts Committee

with respect to the protection of drinking water sources in our province and the

high priority that British Columbians place on this issue.

Accordingly, the committee supports the 26 recommendations made by the

auditor general in his March 1999 report on this topic. The recommendations of

the auditor general will be reviewed and reported on every six months to the

Public Accounts.

In light of recent events in our province and other parts of Canada, there

can be no doubt as to the importance of this issue. Water is our most precious

natural resource, and safe

[ Page 16255 ]

drinking water is crucial to the health of our society. It is imperative that

we all remain focused and disciplined in working on the recommendations in this

report.

With this report, the committee endeavours to advance the efforts of

protecting drinking water sources in our province. I trust that all members will

read this very important report.

I appreciate this opportunity to move the adoption of the committee's report,

and as always, I would like to thank all the members of the committee for their

contribution and commitment to this report.

E. Gillespie: I'm pleased to rise this afternoon in support of the

motion to adopt the committee's report on the protection of drinking water

sources. This report endorses the earlier work of the auditor general in

examining the safety of provincial drinking water, particularly in smaller

communities around our province.

In many regions, water sources are threatened by activities related to human

settlement, including logging, mining, outdoor recreation, agriculture and

transportation. The report also acknowledges progress made by the many agencies

of government which have had a part to play in the protection of drinking water

sources.

The committee's report also makes an important recommendation encouraging the

Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Ministry of Health to examine

the need for MTBE testing in groundwater sources.

Hon. Speaker, safe drinking water sources are essential to the well-being of

all British Columbians. As legislators, we have a responsibility to take a

leadership role on this vital issue. I encourage all members of this House and

British Columbians throughout the province to read the committee's report and to

read the auditor general's report and to support the recommendations aimed at

protecting and improving our drinking water sources.

[1440]

J. Weisgerber: I just want to add to the report how pleased I am with

the decision of the Public Accounts Committee to ask for testing for MTBE in

drinking water around this province. It's an issue that's emerging. It's an

issue that's being addressed in California; it's being addressed by the Clinton

administration at the federal level in the United States.

The recent spill at the Chevron refinery in Burnaby of about 800 barrels of

primarily MTBE, along with the discovery of a massive underground storage tank

leakage in Salmo, which contaminated soil and groundwater in that community, I

think point to how relevant this issue is today and how important the protection

of drinking water from fuel-additive contaminants is in our province.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Lovick: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the

information of members, we shall continue to debate the estimates of the

Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security. In this chamber, I call

continued debate on Bill 2, second reading.

BUDGET TRANSPARENCY AND

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

(second reading continued)

M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, it's certainly a pleasure for me to rise and

debate this piece of legislation. I find myself reflecting on the comments of

the members opposite about this legislation and, of course, the opportunity that

they've taken during the course of this debate to consistently and regularly

criticize this administration for its handling of fiscal resources. I thought it

might be appropriate to rise in debate and talk a little bit about the steps

that we've been taking as a government to achieve better public awareness of the

expenditure of dollars by our government, and also talk a little bit about the

application of those dollars by this government and to talk about the

differences between how we would approach those matters and how the members

opposite approach those matters.

Let me say this: throughout the course of the debate, the members opposite

have been making the argument that somehow this government has been less than

truthful in the allocation of the fiscal resources that are provided to

government through the revenues, be it from the taxpayer or from our resources

in the province. Simply put, that's just not true whatsoever. In fact, I take

some issue with the portrayal by members opposite, often in shrill tones, that

somehow this government has been lying to people of the province about the state

of its finances.

First of all, the opposition conveniently ignores the checks that are in

place, be it the auditor general, be it the Committee on Public Accounts, which

is chaired by a member of the opposition, or be it the work of the comptroller

general, who also plays a role in examining the expenditures of government

dollars. Certainly on that basis there have been plenty of checks in place, let

alone, of course, the role that the opposition has to play in terms of

scrutinizing expenditures.

The Speaker: The member for Richmond Centre is rising on a point of

order.

D. Symons: Hon. Speaker, you may not have been paying attention, but

the member opposite referred to the opposition as lying, and that is totally

incorrect. I wish him to withdraw that remark.

The Speaker: Member, the Chair has been listening very carefully, and

I heard nothing disorderly. The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin continues.

[1445]

M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'm sure that the member over

there trembles a bit, hon. Speaker, because maybe once in a while it's

appropriate to put them on the defensive about some of the accusations that they

hurl to this side of the House in terms of our management of the fiscal

resources. The member has had his opportunity to talk, and if he can just listen

to me for a moment, he might learn something for a change. I say, of course,

kindly, to the member for Kamloops-North Thompson that the member for

Kamloops-North Thompson and the members opposite want to have it just their way.

They want to believe that they are correct in the accusations that they hurl

opposite towards this administration.

[ Page 16256 ]

Perhaps we deal up front with the way in which this administration has

handled the application of fiscal resources, be it from resource revenue or

straight from the taxpayer in its accounting. As I was saying . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members! Members will have an opportunity to join in the

debate.

M. Sihota: I know, hon. Speaker, that the members have difficulty .

. . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Shuswap . . . .

M. Sihota: I know that the members opposite have great difficulty

containing themselves when they're put on the defensive. So I will allow them to

exhale some of their bile right now and then add that onto my time as I speak.

An Hon. Member: Take all the time you want, Moe.

M. Sihota: Well, the member opposite should know he's going to be

spending a long time on that side of the chamber, because come the next

election, he'll come to find just how ineffective the articulation of their

argument has been and, really, the degree to which they in their own shrillness

have . . . .

An Hon. Member: It's going to be impossible to talk to you guys; it'll

be impossible, Moe. We can't talk to you.

The Speaker: Member, would you take your seat for a moment.

M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Members, I'm not going to allow debate to continue in

this way. I will caution members individually and name the members if necessary.

I would ask that all members take their opportunity for debate when it comes up

and allow the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin to continue with the debate.

M. Sihota: It amazes me how the members opposite wish to engage in

that kind of behaviour and don't show appropriate respect to the decorum in this

chamber.

Interjections.

M. Sihota: Oh, there they go again.

Through public accounts there has been a process to evaluate the expenditures

of government. Through the estimates process there have been opportunities to

evaluate the expenditures of government. Through the process in here, after a

budget is brought forward and we have to deal with issues relating to warrants

and expenditures, there is an opportunity for the opposition to stand up and

questions for government to be held accountable. Through the opportunities

afforded them through question period, there are opportunities then for them to

ask us about accountability in terms of expenditures of dollars. Through the

offices of the comptroller general, there are processes in place to examine the

expenditures of taxpayers' dollars by this government.

Time and time again, when there have been fiscal transactions made by this

government that the members opposite have challenged, we have consistently

stepped forward and provided the evidence and the data so the public can make

their own evaluations about what we've . . . .

Interjections.

M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, for a change, I want the members opposite to

listen not to their own rhetoric but to the history of what's transpired in this

chamber in terms of checks and balances that are in place. I know that they want

to pretend that there isn't the kind of watchful eye that there is on this side

of the House towards those dollars.

In furtherance of our desire to ensure that there is full public knowledge

and clarity about the expenditure of dollars by government, we have brought

forward this transparency legislation. Unlike anywhere else in the country,

unlike previous right-wing governments -- which I've seen, in my time in this

House -- who have been unwilling to bring forward that kind of legislation .

. . . Unlike jurisdictions elsewhere in the country, some of their

right-wing sort of cousins in Alberta or Ontario, we have provided leadership

legislation in this bill to make sure that accountability, which is an evolving

concept, continues to be respected in our parliamentary system.

Interjections.

M. Sihota: You know, for all of their heckling, for all of their

criticism, I know this: they will vote for this bill because they know it's the

right thing for government to do, and we've done it. They don't like it, but

that's what's happening.

[1450]

As I listen to the debate, it's amazing how they take the opportunity to

criticize the government from time to time, to criticize us . . . .

Interjections.

M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I'll give the members . . . . Let

me continue to allow them the opportunity to heckle a bit more. If they've

exhausted themselves . . . .

You know, it hurts. I tell you that what this bill will expose is not just

the approach that we're taking towards transparency, but also the decisions that

we've made as a government to support certain expenditures which they opposite

will oppose. Take, for example . . . .

Interjections.

M. Sihota: Oh, yeah. They're quick to talk about fast ferries, but I

never hear them standing up in this chamber and saying: "Well, what about

the expenditures on advanced education?" I never hear them standing up in

this chamber and congratulating the government for freezing tuition fees. I

never hear them standing up on that side of the House and saying: "It is

remarkable that this administration has taken this province from the

second-worst participation rate in post-secondary education to the

second-highest participation rate." Is that not a measure of what government

should be doing?

[ Page 16257 ]

I don't hear them ever standing in this chamber and talking about social

outcomes -- measuring government, of course, in terms of their fiscal bottom

lines. But what about the social bottom lines? I never hear them applauding

government for the steps that we've taken to ensure that more young people in

British Columbia have access to post-secondary training and skills training that

equips them to meet the needs of the economy tomorrow. I never hear them

standing up and saying: "Good on this government for achieving that social

outcome of equipping our young people with more spaces, better educators and a

higher level of participation in the post-secondary education system." I

never hear those opposite saying: "Good on this government for the

expenditures that they're making, historic as they are, in health care."

You know, just recently, Maclean's magazine issued a report on the

state of health care in this country. I know they don't want to hear this, but Maclean's .

. . .

Interjections.

M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker. I know they don't want to hear this, but Maclean's .

. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Members . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Peace River North and the member for West

Vancouver-Garibaldi will come to order.

M. Sihota: I know they get excited when I speak, and I can't . .

. . You know, I can understand that. They don't want to hear the fact

that another way to measure the success of a government is what we've been able

to accomplish as an administration in terms of health care. Maclean's

magazine last week looked at different communities of different sizes across the

country and said: "Where in Canada are the best health care services

provided?"

Number one was the communities of North Vancouver and West Vancouver, here in

British Columbia. Number three was the city of Victoria, right where we live.

For cities of their own size, Nanaimo was rated as one of the highest -- I think

the third-highest in their category. We have the lowest rate of breast cancer

anywhere in the world right here in British Columbia. We have more expenditures

per capita in research and development on the biotech side here in British

Columbia than anywhere else in this country.

The point I'm making is that we as a government have been making investments

in people, and the outcomes and the benefits of those investments are now coming

home and becoming evident to British Columbians. In the case of health care, the

best health care system in this country, bar none, is right here in British

Columbia. The best health care system in the world, bar none, is right here in

Canada. Therefore, hon. Speaker, I say to you that the best health care system

anywhere in the world is found right here in British Columbia.

Those members opposite would take umbrage with this government for making the

kinds of commitments that we've made on health care. You now see in the

transparency legislation the depth of our commitment to health care -- a

commitment that they don't have, a commitment that they don't want to talk about

and a commitment which will cause them to lose the next election campaign. If

you listen to the members opposite, Neanderthal as they are in some of their

economic thinking, they take the view that when this province was hit by the

Asian flu, we ought not to have made the kind of tax expenditures we made to

reshape the economy here in British Columbia.

[1455]

We as a government made changes in terms of the high-tech taxes to ensure

that we had a thriving high-tech industry here in British Columbia. Just read

yesterday's newspaper, let alone the galaxy of reports that have come out over

the course of the last year, talking about the high-tech sector here in British

Columbia, the fastest-growing of any part of Canada.

If they had their way, we would have never brought forward the knowledge

development fund, the $100 million in expenditures which will clearly be evident

in the budget transparency bill. They have never supported us making those kinds

of investments in high-tech to attract those industries here to British

Columbia. It is not without passing for us on this side to be able to note that

we have growth in high-tech -- on the computer side, biotech and environmental

industries -- that is second to none anywhere else in North America.

We're making those kinds of expenditures. What this bill will demonstrate

through this debate is that we support those expenditures. They don't. They know

now, which is evidenced by their silence on the other side of the House, that

we're right in terms of recrafting the economy in this province, and they're

dead wrong.

Take a look at what we've been able to do in the area of film. Again, as the

budget transparency legislation will demonstrate, we brought forward a series of

tax credits to ensure that we were competitive with Ontario and with California

so that we continue to get our share of the film industry. They know and we know

that that sector is flourishing here in British Columbia because of the tax

credit regime that we brought forward.

I never hear them, through the course of this debate, stand up and criticize

this government for all those initiatives. In fact, I would challenge any one of

them opposite -- particularly the House Leader opposite -- to stand up in this

Legislature and congratulate this government once and for all for the work that

we've done in the high-tech, film and tourism sectors.

T. Nebbeling: Taking credit for somebody else's work.

M. Sihota: Taking credit. The members opposite are quick to criticize

government when things don't work. The member opposite, from Whistler, heckles

from that far distant corner. But it's audible -- right?

Interjections.

M. Sihota: I know that gives them an opportunity, but I would suggest

that they take advantage of it later on, when they get a chance to speak.

He heckles from that far corner, but look: he was the first to stand up in

this chamber, as Forests critic, for his party and

[ Page 16258 ]

criticize us for not making the forest industry more competitive here in

British Columbia. We made $600 million in cuts -- provided stumpage-rate

reductions to that industry. And look now. That industry has returned to a level

of prosperity and profitability in this province. The members opposite don't

want to acknowledge what I've had to say. All I ask them to do is take a look at

the annual reports filed by the leading forest industries in this province. They

will see for themselves that there's a turnaround. There's a turnaround at every

major company in this province, be it Interfor, be it Doman's. Heck, it's even

occurring at Skeena Cellulose. I never hear them talking about that anymore, now

that pulp prices have returned to record levels.

And the member opposite used to criticize us for not doing enough for mining

in this province. Look, hon. Speaker, we've brought forward a royalty structure

that brought about a new regime in this province in terms of changing the tax

structures so that we were more competitive with the province of Alberta. What

happened? Exploration went down in the province of Alberta; it went up 40

percent in British Columbia. The beneficiaries particularly were the members

from the northeast corner of the province, where we are seeing unemployment

levels of 3 to 4 percent because of the kind of work on exploration and drilling

that's occurring in this province.

[1500]

What the members opposite don't want to talk about is all of the good that's

happening in British Columbia: an economy that's recovering; a health care

sector that is better than any other level of service provided anywhere else in

the province; an education sector that is attracting the best and the brightest

from our province and providing them with opportunities to meet the challenges

of tomorrow; a government committed to social values, providing things that the

members opposite loathe -- for example, the provision of social housing for

people that need it.

I know the members opposite . . . . I look at the critic there,

criticizing us for making those kinds of investments so all people who need

housing can have it. They would cut and slash those provisions. There was the

announcement yesterday in terms of child care, providing child care in schools

at $7 a day, which the members opposite criticized only two months ago, saying

we were wrong to do that. Now, of course, they're a little silent because they

realize the appeal that that policy has for working families in this province.

Then of course, above all, there's our commitment to the environment. Again,

members opposite -- being the party that wants mining in our parks and wants us

to reduce our environmental regulations as they relate to automobiles -- have

never been able to buy into the 12 percent standards that we've established for

parks and setbacks.

All told there is a tremendous amount of good happening in this province.

There is a tremendous legacy that all of us on this side of the House are

enormously proud of, one which has been added to by this legislation, one which

we're quite happy to take forward in the upcoming election campaign, and one

which will ensure that those members now silent opposite will remain silent and

opposite and members on this side of the chamber will remain once again in

power, taking this province to a new and higher level of prosperity. Enjoy the

ride, members opposite.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Metchosin continues.

M. Sihota: Sorry, hon. Speaker. I would like to take this opportunity

to seek leave for an introduction.

Leave granted.

Interjection.

M. Sihota: Actually, that's not a bad point.

If I may, we are very privileged in this chamber -- I've just been passed a

note saying that this delegation has arrived -- to have with us a truly

remarkable individual who has demonstrated that you can be a passionate

environmentalist and also a prosperous entrepreneur. He is a very successful

individual by the name of Rakesh Backishi from India, who is involved in the

environmental industry sector in that jurisdiction in providing wind power and

solar power and is the leader, as such, in terms of providing that.

His accomplishments have been recognized, as such, by the government of

India. He is the youngest person, because of these kinds of accomplishments,

ever to be knighted in that country, recognizing the work that he has done.

He's here to take a look at other opportunities in terms of the generation of

non-conventional energy power. I know he's meeting with a number of our

ministers and some of our Crown corporations. He is joined here today by his

three children and his wife Seema, together with a friend, my good colleague

from Burnaby-Edmonds, Merrill Gordon, who I believe is here, and Mr. and Mrs.

Avtar Bains.

We are very fortunate to have established the kinds of linkages that we have

with Mr. Backishi, who as a member of the Indo-Canadian Chamber of Commerce in

India, was the first to greet former Premier Harcourt when he made his first and

only trade mission trip to India.

So would all members please join me in giving a warm welcome to Mr. Backishi

and his delegation.

E. Gillespie: It gives me great pleasure to follow the member for

Esquimalt-Metchosin and the kind of remarks that he has made about the desire of

this government to be able to tell the story of the initiatives taken by

government to improve both life and living conditions for all British

Columbians. Some of the changes that have been put forward in the Budget

Transparency and Accountability Act will enable us to do just that.

Last night I sat and listened to the beginning of the debate on this bill and

was interested by the question posed by the member for Richmond-Steveston,

speculating about what problem this legislation addresses. If there is

legislation, it must be addressing a particular problem or seek to make a

particular kind of change. Why is there a need to create new rules around our

budget processes? And my reading of this bill is that the major change is the

public nature of budget preparation process, ensuring that members of the public

have the opportunity to be well informed and to participate in the pre-budget

preparation.

[1505]

British Columbians are not well served by the over-the-top rhetoric about the

state of the economy in British Columbia. That kind of rhetoric is with us

consistently in this House. British Columbians are not well served by

[ Page 16259 ]

the over-the-top rhetoric about financial assumptions built into budget

processes, about projected revenues and expenditures.

British Columbians are well served by clear and understandable, verifiable

information about the state of our provincial economy and a budget process which

includes long-term goals and performance plans. This legislation will assist in

the process of renewing confidence in our economy, in our budget processes and

in the ability of government to meet the expectations of the public.

As Deputy Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, I welcome this legislation.

This legislation follows recommendations over the years from the auditor general

and specifically the recommendations of the Enns committee. This legislation --

Bill 2, Budget Transparency and Accountability Act -- is directly addressing the

root causes of the budgeting, financial reporting and project planning

weaknesses of the past.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, this act was introduced along with this year's

budget. At that time, the Minister of Finance noted that it's a sweeping change

in the way government and the Legislature deals with public finances -- not only

this government and this Legislature, but indeed all governments and

Legislatures in Canada. It reflects and implements virtually all of the

recommendations of the independent budget process review panel -- that is, the

Enns panel -- to which I referred earlier.

I'd like to comment on just a few of those measures. The government will be

required by law to move from a one-year planning cycle to a three- to five-year

planning and budgeting horizon. This requires us to consider not only our

longer-term goals but also a longer-term view of the economy in developing

multi-year budget targets.

The new law also opens the book on all major capital projects, fully

disclosing their objectives, business case performance targets and, each and

every year, the current and anticipated cost to the taxpayer. This legislation

also provides for a budget consultation process, which includes a new

legislative committee of this House.

I believe that everyone will appreciate the act's requirement of more

disclosure around special warrants. Our government has committed to using

supplementary estimates rather than special warrants wherever possible. Although

that commitment is not a part of the act, it's one which we are making to ensure

fair and open debate should our government require additional funding before the

fiscal year-end.

The act sets a firm

schedule for the budget process and for financial

reporting throughout the year. Under this act we intend to be not only

forthright but timely in telling British Columbians what we are doing and how it

relates to our estimates and to our strategic progress.

This legislation takes us on a

summary accounts basis, one which both our

comptroller general and auditor general appreciate and one which we discuss at

length in the Public Accounts Committee -- one bottom line for all ministries

and Crowns.

Finally, I'd like to say that the aim of the act is to give British

Columbians the facts in a format that is clear and understandable to the lay

reader.

We are not simply waiting for this act to become law, as those in this House

will recognize. We began the implementation of the recommendations of the Enns

committee in the process of preparing for this year's budget and will continue

to implement along the way as we prepare for next year's budget. Hon. Speaker,

that concludes my remarks on this bill.

[1510]

S. Hawkins: It's a pleasure to stand up and enter the debate on the

Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. I've listened with interest over the

last couple of days to speakers who have gotten up on both sides of the House.

It's interesting how history can be rewritten. I mean, all of a sudden what I'm

hearing is that the NDP government is the government of accountability and

transparency. Gosh, after nine years, they're bringing in

an act that's going to

make it legal, by law, that the government has to be accountable and has to be

transparent in their financial reporting.

Well, gee, you know, I thought, by a matter of rule, that was what government

was supposed to do with people's money, with the taxpayers' money. In fact,

that's what my constituents thought they were supposed to get when they elect a

responsible, accountable and transparent government. Obviously that's not what

we've been getting for the last nine years, hon. Speaker.

Accountability -- and I looked it up, just so I knew what the government was

hoping to do in this act -- is the state of being responsible or answerable. And

you know, I just listened to the comments of the member from Esquimalt. He went

over a whole bunch of different measures that the opposition, that the public,

that members in the House -- all members in the House and members of the public

-- have in trying to get answers from the government. He said we had the

estimates process. He said we had public accounts. We have question period. We

have the office of the auditor general. All of these different places are places

where we have the opportunity to question the government's expenditure.

But you know what? We have the opportunity to question it, but they don't

have the obligation to answer it. And they certainly don't have the obligation

to answer it truthfully. We know that there was some . . . . Well,

my constituents would say that there was perhaps some fiddling with numbers. I

believe the Premier of the day did call it a little bit of wriggle room around

the '96-97 budgets, to the point where one of my constituents, who doesn't live

in the constituency anymore, has the government and members of the government in

court, saying that there was a certain amount of dishonesty around reporting of

so-called balanced budgets. They would like to have the results of the election

re-evaluated, because they didn't feel that the voters were getting the straight

goods from the government around those budgets.

So we do have the opportunity to stand here and question the government in

various different forms, but unfortunately, we don't always get the answers.

I think one of the most evident case studies is that of fast ferries. The

fast ferries program was supposed to come in on budget at around $210 million.

It's $460 million and counting in cost overruns, and that is absolutely

incredible. In spite of the critics, in spite of the public, in spite of the

opposition critic standing in this House year after year trying to question the

government on the expenditures, on the cost overruns . . . . Were

they on budget? Did they know what was going on? We were told year after year

that they were on budget, that the government was on top of things.

[ Page 16260 ]

Now, this year they've had to stand up and admit that they didn't have a clue

what was going on, that the ferries were built at a cost that was double -- and

more -- what was expected at the time they were going forward. Was there a

business plan? I don't know. The critic tried to get a business plan, and we

still don't have that plan. Now we're finding that the government is having to

sell them off at a loss to British Columbians. It's just an incredible shame. We

did have the opportunity -- we took that opportunity -- to question the

government, but we didn't get the answers.

Another one is the convention centre. We the taxpayers have spent $73 million

on plans for a convention centre in Vancouver, and we just saw the government

again in this budget write off $73 million of taxpayer money on a centre that

had absolutely no business plan. And there's nothing to show for it -- nothing

to show for it.

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: Except for debt, as the member says. There's only debt to

show for it. So again, was the government being accountable? We asked for the

business plans the last couple of years in those estimates. They were asked for

in question period; they were asked for in the various forums that the member

for Esquimalt-Metchosin mentioned. But if the government doesn't give you the

answers, if they don't come clean . . . . We can ask the questions

-- the questions have all been asked -- but if the government doesn't come

clean, then the public is left holding the bag, aren't they? The public's left

in the dark, and they're left holding the bag.

[1515]

You know, when I look at this bill, I have to wonder . . . budget

transparency and accountability from a government that hasn't been transparent

and hasn't been accountable for the nine years previous? It makes me wonder. I

don't like to be cynical. I know my constituents are, because they ask me all

the time: "Can we really believe what these guys are saying?"

Transparency. The definition of transparency is: evident, obvious, easily

seen through, free from affectation or disguise, easily seen through attempted

disguise. Well, you know, that brings to mind . . . . Do you

remember the jobs and timber accord? Do you remember that? I remember the

Premier standing up -- you know, a big flashy show and photo op done up north in

a forest-dependent community -- and saying that their jobs and timber accord was

going to bring 21,000 new jobs to the forest. I believe that was 1997. Do you

know what we've got today? Today we've got fewer jobs in the forest than the day

the Premier announced that.

We didn't see the workers, the forestry executives and the government coming

together on this. What we saw again was a government making an announcement with

absolutely no plan, with very little cooperation or consultation with the

industry on whether this was actually doable. Again, it was just a total sham.

What we've seen in the last few years is forest communities, these

resource-dependent communities, hit hard year after year. Instead of 21,000 new

jobs in the forest, I think we've seen about 15,000 jobs gone from the forest.

That really hurts families.

So again, I wonder about the transparency of the announcements, the

transparency of the programs and the transparency of the government coming clean

on some of the announcements that they make.

Getting back to the budget . . . . The budgets of '96-97. I think

a lot of the change in financial reporting, a lot of the estimates process --

when the government's planning their budget -- came about because the auditor

general and the government were asked to look at the way they prepare their

budgets. Certainly with the negative news and public perception that the

government got from the public, the government had to take some action on what

they were doing.

You know, when I was looking back at the '96-97 budgets -- and just looking

back at some of the debates . . . . I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you

remember what they said about Forest Renewal B.C. Do you remember that? The

'96-97 budget was supposedly balanced. And at the time, I believe, the Finance

ministry bureaucrats -- inside the ministry, staff -- were telling the

government that it was impossible to balance the budget, that that wasn't

doable. In fact, there were memos being sent . . . . Again, it comes

to transparency and accountability. The minister and the government were not

listening to the ministry staff, and they were not listening to the best advice

of the people that prepare the budget.

I believe they were told at the time that the economy was in the tank, that

the budget couldn't be balanced and that the revenues were a lot lower than were

expected, than what was being estimated by the minister. I believe the auditor

general, in his review, said that there was a whole heaping lot of optimism

added to revenues in that budget.

But during the past few years we found out -- and we certainly debated that

in this House -- that part of the way the government, at that time, was going to

balance the budget was to raid the FRBC account. I remember heated debates in

this chamber about how that was absolutely impossible. They weren't going to do .

. . . How could we accuse them of doing it, you know?

[1520]

Going back to debates . . . . Gee, as far back as 1994 when FRBC

was first set up, the Minister of Energy, Mines was on record as saying:

"There won't be a politician next week, next month, next year or 20 years

from now who will dare to put their hands into that pocket of money." He's

referring to FRBC. "It's taking the silviculture money -- at least that

portion we can put into intensive silviculture -- away from the vagaries of

politics. We're doing a favour to the forest communities by doing that."

Then the Minister of Transportation and Highways, back in 1994 when FRBC was

being set up and debated, said: " . . . the money will not go

into general revenue and no greedy ministers -- it doesn't matter what party or

government they may represent -- will be able to dip their fingers into the

pot."

Well, you know what, hon. Speaker? Oh, gosh. They were planning to dip into

that pot. We actually have testimony from court documents in May that had the

-minister of the day, Minister Elizabeth Cull, on the stand. She was asked about

FRBC and about raiding that account. She says: "A decision was made in

terms of political options that Forest Renewal B.C. would be one of the sources

of revenue that was open to me, should it be required."

Wow! The questioner said: "And who made that decision?" And she

said: "That decision was made by the Premier." And they said: "So

[the Premier] made the decision that Forest Renewal would be open to you if the

forecast didn't pan out?" And Cull says: "I sought assurances from [the

Premier] on a number of contingency options, and that was

[ Page 16261 ]

one of the options that he assured me would be available." She goes on

to say: "I also knew that at the end of the day, because I was committed to

my fiscal target, that there was access to Forest Renewal B.C. money."

That's her testimony in court under oath, hon. Speaker. In the House here

they told us they weren't going to raid that account. In court the minister --

under oath -- has a different statement.

Well, then the Premier of the day, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, gets on

the stand, and he's questioned. Here's what he says in reference to what

Minister Cull said in court. "Didn't you tell her," the questioner

says, "that she could go to forest revenue?" He says: "No."

He's asked, "Forest Renewal?" and replies, "No. Absolutely not,

actually." And again he denies it. "Did you not tell her that . .

. she could have access to the Forest Renewal funds?" And he says:

"No."

Well, who do you believe over there, hon. Speaker? Even under oath, they've

got different stories. It makes me wonder -- they put

an act like this into

place -- whether they actually . . . . Well, I don't know if it's

important whether they actually believe -- they're going to follow it; I guess

it's important whether we actually believe or the public actually believes, or

if the public has the trust in this government to actually do the right thing.

It is a step in the right direction. We're not saying it isn't. In fact, it's

very close to some of the principles that we have put forward in this House year

after year. The Leader of the Opposition has stood in this House and tabled

legislation, truth-in-budgeting legislation, year after year. Had they followed

the principles in that legislation, we might not be in the trouble we are today.

Nine years of deficit financing, nine years where they've doubled the provincial

debt, nine years where they've been hit with scandal after scandal after

scandal. I could go on.

Look, we just had the school crisis a few weeks ago -- just, I believe, about

a month ago -- where we had kids out of school for a week. And during that week,

wouldn't you know it, what surfaces? A secret accord with CUPE. A $500,000 --

half-a-million-dollar -- secret accord with CUPE to offset the cost of

negotiations. Well, how transparent is that? You know, secret accords here,

there and every . . . . We don't know what's buried where.

It gives us no confidence that what they say and what they do in this House

is actually what's going to happen. Here's the government, on the first day of

session with the budget bills, tabling the Budget Transparency and

Accountability Act, and on the other hand, in some dark back room somewhere,

they're signing secret deals with the unions -- for half a million dollars. They

don't admit it until the documents surface, and then they try and write it off

in some other way -- spin it another way. That isn't what accountability and

transparency are all about. So again, it's troubling that in one sense, they are

moving in the right direction as far as tabling a bill like this in the House.

But unfortunately, the people don't believe that they're actually going to be

able to do what they say they're going to do.

[1525]

There are a number of problems in this bill. The opposition will be tabling a

number of amendments and putting forward suggestions to address the deficiencies

in the bill and to plug some of the very obvious loopholes. There are regulatory

powers that are granted to the minister in this bill that create significant

loopholes for the government with respect to whole ministries and Crown

corporations and capital projects. The opposition will attempt to stem that

power of the minister and make sure that the minister is following generally

accepted accounting principles and make sure that Crown corporations and other

ministries actually have some controls on them as far as their spending

responsibilities and powers.

I believe that in the throne speech, if I recall correctly -- and it's been a

couple of months -- the Premier spoke about setting a budget date. When we look

in this bill, the bill doesn't set a budget date. So again, there's some room to

make sure that the government keeps that promise, because what the bill does is

give the government quite a bit of leeway in deciding when that day will

actually be. Some of the amendments that we put forward will, hopefully, try and

stick in a date that is reasonable for the budget, so that British Columbians

know in advance when a budget day will actually be, and there will be time for

planning and time for debate around that.

I think what's really troubling in this bill is that it doesn't ban the use

of special warrants. Special warrants are documents that give the cabinet

basically free rein to spend money outside of session and outside of debate in

this Legislature.

Over the last number of years, when the members on the government side of the

House sat on the opposition side, they criticized special warrants. They were

absolutely opposed to special warrants. They have had greater spending on

special warrants than any of the governments prior to their being elected. Every

year we see the special warrant spending going up and up under the NDP. Again, I

think we had a debate on this. I thought there was an understanding from the

members opposite that special warrants would only be used in extenuating

circumstances, where costs were unforeseen. And if the Legislature could be

convened to debate that public expenditure, that would happen first before

special warrant use. But that is not addressed in this bill. It does not ban

special warrants. That means we could leave this House, and the government would

have free rein to do as much spending as possible. That isn't acceptable either.

There were promises made and promises broken when we talked about

accountability. It brings to mind . . . . Again, just in the last

several years I remember how the government promised municipal grants. I believe

it was $800 million in municipal grant funding that they cut without

consultation with communities. It caused a huge amount of difficulty for

communities across the province, and for the programs they were responsible for

and that they were funding for their communities. When the municipalities came

to the government and asked for an accounting of that, they got absolutely no

sympathy, no response, no consultation. At the end of the day the taxpayer paid

for the government's mistake, because they ended up absorbing those costs at the

local government level.

[1530]

There has been so much waste in the last few years with this government and

their spending. I've heard many, many examples mentioned on this side of the

House: the convention centre, the fast ferries, the fixed-wage policy, the

billion-dollar subsidies to businesses, including Skeena Cellulose. I mean, the

member for Esquimalt-Metchosin mentions it. It's a mill

[ Page 16262 ]

that, unfortunately, when it's not making money we can't sell, and now that

it is making money, it's difficult to sell. The taxpayers are still stuck with

an investment that's looming there.

Lawsuits. The government has been going through one lawsuit after another. I

think the one that was significant in the last few months was Carrier Lumber.

Again, there were allegations of cover-up, mismanagement, the government not

being forthright with Carrier Lumber, and this resulted in a lawsuit. The

government lost. Now the taxpayers are on the hook for $100 million and

counting. There was a problem with accountability and transparency around that.

Nine years of mismanagement; sloppy bookkeeping; poor planning; missed

targets; missed goals; missed opportunities; mistakes; boondoggles; megaprojects;

reckless spending; lack of leadership; crumbling economy, I guess; lack of

vision, lack of planning . . . . The government got caught with

fudge-it budgets. We stand in the House. We ask for business plans. We ask for

their performance measures, and we get little back in the way of response.

I think the public has had it. The government knew that they had to move

toward making it look like they were going to do something about it, and I think

this is the best they could come up with. The opposition is going to table

amendments, and hopefully, the government will give them the consideration that

they're due. Hopefully, we will be able to improve the bill.

I don't think that it will fix the problem, because I think the problem is

inherent on that side of the House in the way that those members think and the

way that they do business. I always believe that past performance indicates

future behaviour, and it gives me no confidence, as a matter of fact, that the

behaviour towards accountability and believability and transparency is going to

improve over there. The past events, some of which I have mentioned, don't

convince me that the government is going to change. But this is a step in the

right direction, and hopefully, some of the amendments will help the government

get on track. Those are my comments.

C. Clark: Well, you know, this Bill 2 is the attempt by the government .

. . . I think we can call it the "Gee, we're really sorry; we won't

do it again; just let us try and fix the problem" bill. Ask yourself this:

is there anyone in British Columbia who really believes that this government is

sorry for what they did? Is there anyone in British Columbia who believes that

this government is sorry -- after nine years of trying to pull the wool over the

voters' eyes, after nine years of fiddling budgets, after nine years of covering

up what's really going on in government, after nine years of taking the voters

to be na�ve, people who couldn't be trusted with the truth? Is there anyone in

British Columbia who believes that this group of people is sorry for what

they've done after nine years of doing it -- nine long years? Every year has

been the same. Now suddenly we've come to an impasse where, gee, they're really,

really sorry.

You know, all those things that happened in the past -- they're sorry about

that. But you know what they'll say. They'll say, oh, they're not just sorry,

but it wasn't them that did it. It was the old government that did it. It was

the other guys that did it. What other guys? There are no other guys. It's all

the same people.

Twenty-seven of the current MLAs that sit on the government side of the House

were present for the briefings when the Finance ministry informed the NDP caucus

that there was going to be a budget deficit. And those same 27 people still went

out to the public, went out on the hustings -- despite the knowledge that they

had, despite knowing from a Treasury Board briefing that the truth was different

from that -- and they stood on the hustings, and they told people that indeed

the budget was balanced.

Twenty-seven members on that side of the House today were there at that

briefing, when they knew that a budget deficit was looming. Do you think that

any one of them thought that it might be important to communicate that to the

people they were seeking to represent? Not one. And 15 of those members that

were there at that briefing have now been promoted to cabinet. It's disgraceful,

hon. Speaker.

[1535]

And where was the Premier who brought forward this bold new policy for a bold

new government? Well, he was on Treasury Board. He was sitting there at the

Treasury Board table okaying the decisions. Not only was he there at the

Treasury Board okaying the decisions, but he was privy to every memo that came

forward from the Finance department warning that there was going to be a budget

deficit. Nonetheless, this very same Premier, who today is so committed to

openness, transparency and accountability, went out on the hustings like all the

rest of his colleagues and said: "Oh, guess what. There is no problem. The

budgets of British Columbia are balanced. We're in fine fiscal shape."

Never once did this Premier -- who today claims to be so committed to

balanced budget legislation, who today claims to be so committed to openness and

transparency -- think to go the voters that he was seeking to represent and tell

them the information that he was privy to, to let them know that maybe the

warnings he'd had, all the memos he'd seen, all the evidence that was there

before him, pointed to an entirely different conclusion than the conclusion that

his leader at the time was drawing for the public. Never once did he decide that

he wanted to make things transparent then -- oh, no -- because it didn't serve

his electoral purposes then.

If the public had known that this government hadn't really balanced its

budget, they would never, ever have returned them back into office. The only

reason that this government did get re-elected was because they told the public

the budget was balanced. So this current Premier never saw it in his interests

to tell the public what he knew or to make sure that they were also privy to the

warnings that he'd heard so that they were also privy to the information the

Finance ministry had. It didn't serve his electoral purposes to do so. He knew

he might not get elected in a tight riding if that had happened.

So in those days, it didn't serve his interests to be in support of

transparency and openness in government. But today the Premier's suddenly seen

the light. And he's decided that it's important that the public have

transparency and accountability and that there be openness in the government's

budgets. Well, guess what. We're on the eve of another election. Guess what.

Maybe the voters have a right to be cynical when they look at this Premier and

say that perhaps this legislation is only intended as a cynical attempt to try

and convince the public that they've changed, as opposed to actually doing

something that would mean real change. This Premier is again, just like he did

last time, trotting out another cynical ploy from a government that's absolutely

desperate to try and redeem itself in some way with the voters of British

Columbia.

[ Page 16263 ]

But you know what, hon. Speaker? I don't think the voters are going to go for

it again. I don't think for a second that this Premier is capable of pulling the

wool over the voters' eyes and convincing them that somehow he is different,

that this government is new, that none of these people knew what was going on,

that all the baggage can be packed up in a little box with the name Glen Clark

written on it and delivered to someone's door.

The Speaker: Order, member. I just caution the member on the use of

her words.

C. Clark: I recognize the Speaker's caution. As opposed to mentioning

the member's name, I should have said "the member for Vancouver-Kingsway,"

because that's where this government intends to try and deliver all that garbage

from the past -- pack it up and leave it at the doorstep of the member for

Vancouver-Kingsway, like no one on that side of the House was ever there, like

no one on that side of the House knew what was going on. No one was privy to the

information that was coming forward, to the memos, to the phone calls, to all

the discussions that were happening, to all the dire warnings that were

happening, that were coming forward from our very hard-working and conscientious

bureaucrats.

They want voters to believe that they're entirely different. Well, hon.

Speaker, I have a little more respect for the voters of British Columbia than

that. I don't think for a second that the voters are going to believe that this

government is new, that they're changed or, most of all, that they're sorry --

that they're sorry after nine years of doing this, that suddenly they've changed

their behaviour and deserve another chance. I don't think so. There isn't a

voter in British Columbia who'd believe that, coming from these guys.

[1540]

Look what they've put us through. First it was the fudge-it budget. And then

it was the convention centre fiasco. We've had the Skeena Cellulose fiasco.

We've had the Carrier Lumber decision, where a court found that the government

deliberately conspired to break a contract with a private sector company, and

when the Premier testified, the judge said that he didn't prefer the Premier's

testimony. That's a pretty nice way for a judge to put things. You know, judges

put things perhaps a little bit more politely that some other members might --

than certainly I might.

This government has a long, long history of deceiving the public -- telling

the public one thing when, indeed, it's doing another. Let's look at what

happened today, for example. Look at what was exposed about this government

today. On the very same day that the Premier got up and made his speech about

how it was important that we have transparency and openness in government, we

find out that the one of the deputy ministers in the government is conspiring to

make sure that the government is able to avoid meeting its very own guidelines

on government contracting. And not only is it conspiring to violate its own

guidelines on government contracting -- it's doing it in such a way that they

can make sure that the contract is awarded untendered -- on the very same day

that this Premier stood up and made his speech about transparency.

What a cynical bunch. It is unbelievable that they can continue to stand up

in this House and ask for the voters to believe them after what they've done --

year after year, day after day. You know, it wasn't long ago that this

legislation was brought in. And even today -- even today -- we discover that the

Premier isn't meeting his commitments. The Premier can't even live up to the

commitments he made a month ago.

Why would the voters for one second believe that this government is serious

about fixing the problems? Why would they believe that this government is

serious about fixing the problems when they look at this bill? Put the

government's entire history aside. Put aside all the scandals, put aside all the

hypocrisy and put aside all the cynical manipulations. Let's just look at the

bill for what it is. What's in it? Does it ban special warrants?

This is a government that, when it stood on this side of the House, raged on

and on about how they wouldn't allow a dime without debate, how it was wrong for

the government to use special warrants. They were adamant. They were determined

that there would be no responsible government that would use special warrants in

British Columbia again. Then the minute they're elected to office, they start

using special warrants. Not did they just start using them, but they started

using them more than any previous government in history.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

Not only did they do what they said they weren't going to do, but they do it

more than anybody else did. Not only do they change their view the minute after

the election about what should be happening, not only do they go from saying,

"We don't want special warrants," to wanting special warrants, but

they start using them all the time.

Then when they have the opportunity to finally change it, to really live up

to their word, do they do it? No. Do they ban special warrants? No. Here's the

opportunity. It could have been right here in this bill, the opportunity for

this government to live up to its word for once -- just for once, for this

government to do what it said it was going to do. You know the member from

Powell River fits in perfectly on that side of the House, because he did exactly

the same thing. The day he changed sides, he changed every principle he'd ever

said he had. Guess what. He fits in perfectly in this cabinet.

[1545]

So what else is in the bill? Does it force the government to live up to

generally accepted accounting principles like everyone else in British Columbia

has to do? The kind of principles that Revenue Canada expects its taxpayers to

live up to, that everyone who is running a small business or a large business or

a medium-sized business has to live up to? The kind of principles that are put

in place so that anybody can open up your books and see what it means, so that

anybody can have a look in and compare it to what was going on the year before

or what's going on the business next to you, or to find out whether you're

living up to your obligations? That's what those principles are there for.

Does this bill require the government to live up to those generally accepted

accounting principles? No, it doesn't. It certainly could. How hard could that

be? How hard could it be for government to ask itself to live up to the same

standards that it requires of its citizens? What's the matter with that? What's

the matter with government setting the same rules for itself that everybody else

has to live by? What's the matter with government that sets an example and does

things right for a change?

[ Page 16264 ]

A government that's prepared to live by rules that are set down in advance,

that doesn't always change the goal posts whenever they don't fit its needs --

what's the matter with that? Well, we can surmise from the fact that it's not

included in this bill that this government certainly does think there's

something wrong with that. They certainly do think there might be a problem with

the fact that they might have to live up to a set of accounting principles that

would be the same year after year, because it might limit the government's

ability to fiddle with the books.

It might limit the government's ability to be able to pull one over on the

public in another election. It might limit their ability to be able to make

things look better than they are or to tell the public that their money is going

somewhere when it's really going somewhere else. What other reason could there

possibly be that they wouldn't include generally accepted accounting principles

in this bill? This was their opportunity, and they failed miserably.

But you know, the worst thing about this bill is the fact that if the

government did again what they did last time, you couldn't even take it to

court. The Offence Act doesn't even apply to this bill. The government is making

it impossible for anyone to go after them if they don't keep their word. Now,

how accountable is that?

Real accountability starts with some incentives and some disincentives. When

you take the disincentives out of the system, what limits are there on

government's desire to try to live within the rules? You know, until this

government builds some real accountability into these kinds of bills, it's not

going to be very meaningful to the public. The Offence Act should apply in this

bill. There should be generally accepted accounting principles that apply in

this bill, and special warrants should be banned in this bill.

That's what the official opposition has been saying year after year after

year. Yet every time that the Leader of the Official Opposition has presented

his balanced-budget and truth-in-budgeting legislation to this House, never once

has the government acted on that. And now when they finally introduce their own

pale, pathetic imitation of the opposition's bill, it doesn't even include the

teeth that it needs to hold the government to account.

So I can predict this, hon. Speaker. This government can stand here, and they

can try to convince the public that they're sorry. They can try to convince the

public that they fixed the problem. They can try to convince the public that

they'll never do it again. But you know what? They're not going to get very far.

The fact is: they're not sorry, they haven't fixed the problem, and they will do

it again.

And better than allowing this House to vote on this bill, the better thing

that could happen . . . . Don't just ask the opposition for its

verdict on this bill or its verdict on the trustworthiness of this government or

its verdict on this government's record in public office. Don't ask this House

for that with a vote on the bill. Call an election and ask the public their

verdict. Let the public issue their verdict on this government. Let the public

issue their verdict on this government's ability to tell the truth, this

government's willingness to be honest and upfront and accountable with them.

Call an election and let the public issue its verdict. I can predict today that

this government, in that context, will fail.

[1550]

J. Cashore: It's a great honour to be able to stand up and support

this very significant and historic legislation. It's unfortunate that we hear a

certain amount of rhetoric with regard to the voices that are coming out of the

opposition on this legislation. If you listen to the sound and the fury, you get

the impression that they're opposed to it. If you listen to the words they're

saying, you find out that they're in favour of it and that they think it's a

significant and important step.

I would point out that the member who spoke just previous to the member for

Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain had stated that the bill should have banned the use

of special warrants. I would just point out that perhaps there's some confusion

there, when you consider that the Leader of the Opposition's balanced-budget

act, M201, allows for the use of special warrants. There's an example there,

again, of the sound and the fury and of the rhetoric and the poor research that

goes into much of the critique that's coming forward from the official

opposition.

Taking the words that were actually said by the opposition, which are words

that basically support the concept, I just want to add my voice to say that this

is a very timely introduction. It strengthens commitment to making sure that in

carrying out our financial responsibility, we're open, honest and transparent.

That certainly is something that is expected by and deserved by the public --

the people who pay the taxes.

This act calls for transparency in financial reporting. It calls for prudence

in budgeting, and it directly addresses the root causes of budgeting, financial

reporting and project planning weaknesses. It is comprehensive. It is proactive,

effective and accountable. And it is all of those in addressing the priorities

of our citizens.

The Minister of Finance has said, at the time of introduction, that it is a

sweeping change in the way government and the Legislature deal with public

finances. In doing so, it reflects and implements the recommendations of the

independent budget process review panel. In carrying out those recommendations,

it requires, by law, to move to a three- to five-year planning and budgeting

horizon from the current one-year framework. Therefore, government must consider

not only long-term goals but also the long-term view of the economy in

establishing multi-year budget targets.

This legislation opens the books on all major capital projects. Their

objectives must be clearly stated. There must be a well-documented business

case. There must be very clear performance objectives. And it must indicate what

the project will cost the taxpayer. No longer will Crown corporations decide,

apart from government, the direction of governance of major capital projects.

They will have to clearly define their business case prior to the project

proceeding. Ministries and Crowns must prepare performance plans and clearly

define strategic priorities and performance measures.

There must be more disclosure around special warrants. There will be a firm

schedule regarding budget process for financial reporting throughout the year.

And looking at this year's budget, I think it is . . . . Given the

comments that we have seen in the media and coming from the public, the

budgeting process for this year's budget actually was carried out as if the

legislation was already in place. I think that that demonstrates the good faith

with which this government has proceeded.

[1555]

The fact is that this is good legislation. In essence, apart from some

indication that there may be amendments, the opposition supports the thrust of

this legislation and sees it as

[ Page 16265 ]

appropriate. I believe that this is one of those occasions when all members

of the Legislature should stand together in bringing forward an initiative that

results in good government -- so that we can all be proud to say we served in

this Legislature during the time that it was brought forward.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I am delighted to join with my colleagues in the

chamber to rise and speak in favour of the Budget Transparency and

Accountability Act. I was really wanting to speak to this issue and then saw

that my name was on the list. So I am very pleased to be here and well-prepared

for this debate as well.

It is groundbreaking legislation. There are many of us that have been waiting

for years for this Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. This legislation

contains so many nuggets of essential ingredients for bringing about the

accountability that taxpayers want and deserve.

And it's a non-partisan issue. I would suggest, as my colleagues have, that

this isn't a non-partisan issue; this is a bi-partisan issue. I guess, actually,

that we only have bi-partisans now that we have the member for Peace River North

declaring in favour of the Liberals. So bi-partisan is the way that we should

go. It's too bad that there isn't another party which he could actually join

before he retires; that would set the maximum number of parties that any member

has belonged to. Anyway, congratulations to him, and we'll be able to be joining

together in a bi-partisan way in favour of this Budget Transparency and

Accountability Act.

Yes, it was introduced this year in order to bring about a new, modern

budgeting and financial reporting process for a new government in British

Columbia. The act does reflect the recommendations of the independent budget

review panel. I actually, when I was Minister of Finance, appointed the Enns

panel, headed up by the eminent Douglas Enns.

This legislation is now going to make B.C. a leader amongst all Canadian

provinces in providing the public with open and transparent financial reporting.

People from across Canada will now turn to British Columbia and say . . . .

You know what? The legislators in P.E.I. will say: "We want that law that's

now in British Columbia." They'll be saying it in Alberta; they'll be

saying it in Ontario: "Give us . . . . " The public will

rise up and say: "We want that legislation on openness and transparency in

accountability for budget-making. We want the British Columbia law." And I

think that's wonderful news.

What does the act do? Let's talk in a very factual, calm way about what the

legislation actually achieves here. It requires more disclosure around special

warrants, something that the opposition . . . . Whether it was when

the New Democrats were in opposition or the Liberals were in opposition, every

opposition party has called for more disclosure around special warrants, and now

this legislation is delivering that.

Our government has actually committed to using supplementary estimates rather

than special warrants. That means that there's going to be open debate. I'm

hoping that the level of debate in this chamber will rise to that challenge,

that now that we're going to have supplementary estimates, the debate will be

well informed, let's say -- that's the kindest way -- and that the opposition

could be prepared in those.

The fact that we have given our commitment to basing the supplementary

estimates on mid-year forecasts . . . . The accuracy of those

forecasts, as everybody in this chamber knows, will be critical -- absolutely

critical.

Now, the act doesn't specify the consequences for not achieving performance

goals . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just a second; this is a very important point.

Performance-based goals are extremely important, as we all know. The release of

performance measures will likely create a public expectation of performance that

will make the government and all of our ministries and Crown corporations more

accountable. The fact that those performance measures are out there, that the

public knows them and understands them, will put that critical pressure on

government to deliver on goals that are achievable and transparent.

[1600]

The financial results of Crown corporations are now included in the bottom

line, something that the Liberal opposition has been calling for -- that the

summary accounts actually become the one set of books by which it's determined

whether there be a surplus or deficit in the government. I know that this will

make many public commentators -- pundits -- very happy that we've done that, and

I think that's good news. That means that Crowns will actually be subject to

more public scrutiny, and they'll be more involved in government planning,

budgeting and reporting processes.

Of course, those who have studied the history of Crown corporations know that

that was the intent of the setting up of Crown corporations -- to make all of

that, to make the whole nature, the wide spectrum, of government, work well for

the citizens of British Columbia.

In the area of planning, our government will move to a three- to five-year

planning and budgeting horizon, from the current one-year framework. Again, it's

good news -- a five-year plan. It's excellent news for the taxpayers. It's a

unique concept, I would say -- a five-year plan.

The government's strategic plan, which includes a medium-term fiscal plan,

will be key to this change, absolutely key. The government's strategic plan and

performance plans of individual ministries and Crown corporations will require

clearly defined strategic priorities and performance measures.

I noted that when the Minister of Finance tabled the strategic plans for the

ministries and for the Crown corporations, the Liberal opposition was not

celebrating. They should have been celebrating this breakthrough. The member for

Richmond Centre has been calling for this in a very concerted way, a very

enthusiastic way -- that these performance plans should be tabled. I know that

the Liberal opposition, because of their natural affinity to the business

community, wanted to call them "business plans," but they're much more

than business plans. They include the business operations; they include the

outcome goals of the ministries; they include the social goals of the various

ministries and Crown corporations -- much more fulsome than business plans. But

I congratulate the member for Richmond Centre for bringing this to the attention

of us year after year.

We truly should celebrate that this year, the year of 2000 under the new

government, the performance plans of all government entities were tabled in this

Legislature. I think the process of estimates is much better informed by these

plans.

There will be three-year performance plans that will logically lead to

three-year budget targets and will logically lead

[ Page 16266 ]

to balanced-budget legislation. It's a well-thought-out plan that the public

can seek comfort in. In setting those longer-term targets, the government will

have to decide whether it's managing the economic cycle by reacting to annual

revenue swings or to economic trends by riding out revenue swings. All of these

we will be exploring thoroughly, not only in this legislation but in the coming

balanced-budget legislation as well.

Proponents of major Crown and government capital projects -- and we define

major as being greater than $50 million -- will have to clearly define their

objectives, their costs, their benefits and the risks before their project is

announced.

I'd like to say that this breakthrough legislation is truly a tribute to the

executive council of the government of British Columbia.

Let me just address, if I may . . . . I know it's been a very

thoughtful debate around this. The Liberal opposition has really broken out of

what is usually their traditional box of everybody repeating the same mantra,

and they've really gone into a wide-ranging discussion around this matter. I'd

like to take the opportunity to respond to some of the questions that they've

raised, if I may.

For instance, "Why introduce . . . ? " the Liberal

opposition says. It's a funny question for them to ask; it's a little bit

cheeky. They say: "Why introduce this legislation now?" Do they think

something's going to occur soon, or whatever? Would the alternative to that be

don't introduce it? I was wondering whether that was the alternative. But I take

their question seriously. I take their question absolutely to heart and in the

very sincere fashion that they're asking that question. So let me reply, if I

may.

[1605]

We do recognize that there have been problems and challenges that we had to

overcome with regard to the process. This legislation is a commitment to meet

those challenges and ensure that the government's finances are open, honest and

transparent. This legislation ensures that we incorporate greater transparency

into our financial reporting and greater prudence in our budgeting. But I must

say that the budgets of '99-2000 and 2000-01 were extremely prudent budgets and

have proven to be thus, as well, in the analysis by the commentators, by the

economists, by the financial analysts.

Anyway, this act actually allows government to directly address the root

causes of the budgeting, financial reporting and project planning weaknesses of

the past. It builds a budget model that is one of the most accountable and

transparent in Canada.

Then the opposition, I think, tried to say that the legislation was flawed. I

was listening to their commentary, and I got a sense that some of them may have

anxieties that the legislation may be flawed. They hinted that the legislation

fails to ban the use of special warrants, that the legislation fails to set a

specific date by which a budget must be presented and that the legislation

doesn't require government to be bound by generally accepted accounting

principles. If I may answer those questions -- I don't want to take away from

the Minister of Finance in the

summary -- why don't we try to give comfort to

the opposition regarding these -- what may be seen as -- red herrings. But I

think, actually, they were sincere in raising these concerns.

So first of all, special warrants. Well, government has accepted the general

intent of the Enns recommendations -- in fact has met the intent of the Enns

recommendations around special warrants. The Enns team didn't preclude the use

of warrants, and unfortunately, warrants were unavoidable given the current

circumstances that occurred in the year 2000. But what Enns did recommend was

increased disclosure of the circumstances leading up to warrants, and we've

complied with that recommendation. Well, to implement this principle, rather

than using the specific deadline proposed by the Enns report, our government has

decided to link the deadline to the six days required under British Columbia

standing orders -- time required for the budget debate -- during which the

budget will be given considerable scrutiny. So we actually built upon the Enns

recommendation and combined it with the rules that operate this Legislature and

have come up with a very good solution. I would say one in openness and

transparency around the budget date; it's easily figured out but meets the needs

of the flexibility of the rules of the Legislature as well.

Now, what about generally accepted accounting principles? Well, we do accept

this recommendation in principle, hon. Speaker. The Budget Transparency and

Accountability Act requires that the estimates and public accounts be prepared

in accordance with the government's accounting policies, and that we include a

summary of those policies and disclose any material variance from the generally

accepted accounting principles for senior governments. What more could we do,

hon. Speaker?

I know that the Minister of Finance and his officials work on a regular basis

with the auditor general to resolve issues around what reservations he may have

around accounting practices. This is an ongoing process in any jurisdiction in

Canada. But what this legislation does -- once again, groundbreaking legislation

-- is incorporates that process into

an act. It's unprecedented, hon. Speaker.

[1610]

So I must say, in the year 2000 -- having had a very personal interest in

budgeting in this province, about changes that occur under different

leaderships, seeing that we're in a new government with a new leader now -- that

this act is a major breakthrough. Really, I expect -- after we get through the

positioning of this session -- that all members of the Legislature will be

taking this legislation out, talking to the working people of British Columbia,

talking to the people who want to invest in British Columbia, talking to the

business community, talking to our own constituencies and saying: "This is

good news for British Columbia."

G. Farrell-Collins: It's hard to tell how to take that last

presentation, whether it was designed to be humorous or whether it was designed

to be a parody of herself -- I'm not sure. But given the position that that

member has held over the last nine years, and given that she herself was

Minister of Finance for two -- or more, I think, actually -- budgets where there

was a significant deficit, it is hard to take and to try to comprehend the

speech given by the minister. Either she was joking or she just really wasn't

sincere with the comments that she made. When you see the record of the

government, when you see the record of the minister, almost every single point

that she made is just absolutely ridiculous and hypocritical, given the

historical context.

The government, I've heard members stand up . . . . First of all,

yesterday there were three members who wanted to speak to this piece of

legislation, and now there seem to be a

[ Page 16267 ]

bunch of them that are clamouring to speak to this legislation. I find it

enthusing and exciting to see the new-found support for this legislation. I must

say I enjoyed the little three-and-a-half-minute ditty that the Premier gave us

on this piece of legislation today. Given the context of it, I found it

fascinating as well.

This is a bill that is designed, in principle, to force the government to

tell the public the truth about how they keep the books. That's the concept

behind it; that's the principle behind it. It's a little hard to take when

members of the NDP stand up in this House and champion this legislation as being

such a wonderful thing and say how proud they are to be part of it. I heard the

member for Coquitlam-Maillardville stand up and say how proud he is to have this

as part of his legacy.

I doubt that when this government is finally ushered out the door by the

public, whenever that may be, the legacy that they will leave in the minds of

the voters of British Columbia is this legislation. The legacy they will leave

in the minds of British Columbia is a $36 billion debt that they've accumulated

over half of in the last nine years -- the term of this government. What they'll

leave for a legacy to the people of British Columbia are the budgets that were

tabled in 1995 and 1996, which the government knew were not accurate. They knew

they weren't balanced, and they tabled them anyway in this House, not once but

twice -- once before the election, and once after the election -- and then tried

to cover that up.

It's a little hard to take some of the comments made by members of the New

Democratic Party in this House when they stand up and talk about what a

wonderful thing this is and how proud they are to be part of it, when one

realizes that since 1996, when the fudge-it budget became known to the rest of

the public -- it was known by the members of the New Democratic caucus -- this

government has fought every step of the way, has fought the findings that the

public became aware of with those budgets in 1996.

The FOI documents that were released because we had asked for them -- about a

foot and a half high . . . . We finally had to fight and scramble,

and we finally had those documents released under the Freedom of Information

Act. Mr. Speaker, the government went in and took out a page -- the key page in

that document. They removed it from the stack of documents and then gave it to

the media and gave it to us and gave it to the public. Luckily, somebody in the

Ministry of Finance had the integrity to forward a copy of the document without

that page missing to a member of the media. If that hadn't happened -- if some

professional civil servant who has some integrity in the Ministry of Finance

hadn't made that document available to the public -- then the government would

have been able to get away with that program. They would have been able to get

away with misleading the people of this province around the 1995 and 1996

budgets.

[1615]

They deliberately covered it up. They deliberately violated the Freedom of

Information Act to try and hide the truth from the people of British Columbia

again. And the only reason the public knew about it is because somebody in the

bureaucracy felt that that just wasn't on.

Mr. Speaker, we've had a court case, a hearing process, that's been going on

now for over four years, almost five years -- no, sorry, it'll be four years

this summer -- where this government has been fighting every step of the way.

They've put so many dilatory motions and roadblocks in front of that court case,

you couldn't believe it. They've refused to testify; they've declined to

testify. They've put every sort of obstacle in front of the court case to make

sure that they wouldn't have to be held accountable for what they did -- the

budget lie that they perpetrated on the people of British Columbia in 1995-1996.

They have done everything to avoid being accountable. They have done

everything to avoid getting caught. They have done everything to avoid being

responsible. They've stood up in this House in righteous indignation and railed

against the opposition for accusing them of misleading the public. They've stood

up in public at events and talked about how they're being railroaded by the

media; how unfair the media's being; how unfair the auditor general's being --

"He's wrong"; how unfair the bureaucrats were who testified against

the government, or put their testimony out there which reflected contrary

information to what the minister and the Premier and other people had to say

about this.

At every step of the way this government has failed to be responsible, has

failed to accept and has failed to be accountable for the budget lie they

perpetrated on the people of this province in 1995 and 1996 -- every single step

of the way. So when I see a Minister of Finance -- a current one or a former

Minister of Finance -- or the multitude of members of this caucus who were there

in 1995 and 1996 and knew the facts stand up in this House and play some

righteous game about this wonderful thing they're bringing to the people of

British Columbia . . . . "Now the budgets are going to be open;

now we're going to tell you the truth. Aren't we wonderful people? Isn't this a

great bipartisan day for the people of British Columbia?" I have a little

bit of trouble taking it. I have a little bit of trouble swallowing that, Mr.

Speaker.

Let's just look at this. I mean, let's say we gave the government the credit.

Let's say we gave them the benefit of the doubt that they really meant this,

that they really had converted on the road to Damascus. The bright light had

shone, and they had decided that this really was the right thing to do, and they

were going to introduce legislation.

Let's look at their record; let's look at their record of other things that

they've promised to do -- some in legislation even. The Deputy Premier, who used

to be the Minister of Finance, and, I think, the Minister of Finance himself

also talked about this new policy of three- and five-year plans, longer planning

cycles, so people can understand what's coming. This government has had

five-year plans every year that it's been in government. Every year they come up

with a three-year plan or a five-year plan for something, whether it's the debt

management plan, the modified debt management plan, the financial management

plan, the modified financial management plan, the five-year fiscal framework,

now the modified five-year fiscal framework. They've had more plans than you can

imagine. Every year it's a new plan.

When they don't hit the targets in the plan, the performance plan or the

agenda, they just move the dartboard. You know, if you're throwing darts and

you're not getting bull's-eyes, the solution normally is to practise and to work

harder. With this government the solution is to just move the dartboard down and

to the left a little bit, so you start hitting some bull's-eyes; and then when

they don't hit that one, they move it again. This target has been moved around

so many times it's hard to tell what they're aiming for anymore. So I've got to

tell you, I don't take a lot of encouragement from the government when I hear

that they're going to have a three-

[ Page 16268 ]

year planning framework, they're going to have a five-year plan, and they're

going to plan for the future to create more certainty.

The plans don't do anything if you don't have a plan to meet the plans, if

you don't intend to actually hit them. You can talk about plans. All the

rhetoric -- put it out there in documents . . . . You can put it in

press releases, you can put it in speeches, you can put it in legislation. It

doesn't count for anything. It doesn't mean a thing if you don't actually do

them. This government hasn't hit the target it's set in nine years -- not one.

[1620]

Let's look at some other examples, though, where the government has actually

put stuff in legislation. We hear the members opposite stand up and tell us that

this is in legislation now; it's the law. They're going to be forced to comply

with it. The public can rest at ease and drift off to sleep again. Let's look at

some other examples.

I think the biggest one that we all know of is Forest Renewal B.C., FRBC.

It's integrally linked with balanced budgets, because we know what happened to

FRBC in the planning of the 1996 budget. It was set up as a little pot of cash

that the government could raid. There was about $500 million in there, which had

built up over a number of years, that was supposed to be used to be put back

into the forest sector in programs that were in addition to the programs the

Ministry of Forests was already providing.

And we know that in 1996 the Minister of Finance, Elizabeth Cull, went to the

Premier of the day, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, and told him that she

didn't think she was going to be able to hit targets that were in the budget. We

know that; she told him that. And he said: "Don't worry about it. There are

some contingencies out there; there are some other ways we can get the money.

FRBC is one them." We know that, because that's what was testified to in

court. And we can only assume they were telling the truth when they were in the

courts.

We know that, despite the fact that this government had brought in

legislation that said . . . . I can quote the member for Yale-Lillooet;

I think he said something to this effect, if I can paraphrase: "No

minister, no politician anytime in the future is ever going to put their grubby

hand into this pot of money; the legislation makes sure of that." Yet

that's exactly what they were planning to do all along, despite what they were

telling us here and despite what they were telling the voters. So, Mr. Speaker,

when I hear the ministers stand up and the backbenchers stand up and talk about

how this legislation is going to force the government to be accountable, I don't

believe it for a second -- not for one second.

The idea of budget accountability, the idea of truth in budgeting and

transparency, is something everybody supports here in principle. The real

question is: does this bill achieve it, at the end of the day, with putting

amendments forward to try and close the major loopholes that still exist in the

bill? At the end of the day, we'll hear whether the government accepts them.

We'll see whether those loopholes are closed, and if they are, we'll continue to

support the bill. If they're not, we won't, because while people support the

principle of transparency, I don't think there's anybody in this province who

believes this government will do that.

The Premier said the other day that there isn't anybody -- there's no one in

this province, not a soul -- who believes that this government is fiscally

accountable. Those are the words of the Premier, and he was right. There is also

no person in the province of British Columbia who believes that this government

has been honest over the last nine years about telling the truth about the

budget, nor that they'll do that in the future. It's a long uphill battle. You

don't get to undo nine years of deception with a one- or two-day debate in the

Legislature. It's going to take a decade or two before anyone ever trusts this

New Democrat government again with the finances of this province.

There was another example. Here's the Election Act, another fundamental piece

of legislation. The Election Act was something like the boundaries reform

commission, something this government was part of and developed. It came through

the Legislature. Part of that provision said, and I believe it was in the second

sitting of the new parliament, that the government was required to appoint an

Electoral Boundaries Commission.

The House met at that time on the first day, the opening day. It was supposed

to be introduced by legislation, the legislation the government agreed with. We

started steamrollering through the first day. I raised the matter with the

Speaker of the day -- the member who is now the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs,

who was the Speaker at the time -- that unless he appointed this commission, he

was about to violate the act. It didn't matter. We went right through it,

steamrollered through it. Then we had to come back a year later and change the

legislation to make it legal for the government to appoint it the next year.

So it doesn't matter what's in the legislation if the government doesn't

believe it. It doesn't matter what's in the legislation if the government isn't

going to follow it, because we know what this government will do. They'll break

the law. They'll break their own laws, and then they'll come back after the fact

and change them. So I don't have a lot of faith. Quite frankly, I have no faith

whatsoever that the government is going obey the provisions that are in this

legislation. I don't believe it for a second.

Here's another example of the government's commitment to fiscal

accountability and reform. In 1995-96 the government promised, a solemn

commitment, to create a Crown corporation standing committee of this Legislature

that would be chaired by a member of the opposition to oversee the Crown

corporations, to examine their business plans, to make sure that they were

complying with the principles of good governance. That happened as a result of

the Hydro scandal. That was the thing that triggered the minister or the Premier

of the day to announce that. Year after year in his estimates, he'd stand up in

the House and say: "Yes, I'm going to do that. It's really important. I'm

going to do that." Year after year he wouldn't.

[1625]

Think of the things that have happened in the Crown corporations over the

term of office of this government. Think what would have happened if we could

have seen them earlier on, if we could have had answers to the questions that

need to be raised. I know that year after year, time after time, the member for

Richmond Centre stood in this House in question period, in estimates debate, in

any venue that was made available to him not just in this House but outside the

House, and told the government that the fast ferry project was off track, that

it wasn't going work. It couldn't possibly be on

[ Page 16269 ]

budget. The members should ask themselves how many times they remember the

member for Richmond Centre standing up and doing that. It must have been a

hundred times.

I remember the minister responsible at the time, the member for North Coast,

standing up in this House and ridiculing the member. I remember the Premier

standing up this House, ridiculing the member and telling him: "Don't you

worry. They're going to work. You're going to have to deal with this. You're

going to have to swallow your words after these ships are out there and

performing. They're the best thing that's ever happened to us. Yeah, they're two

years behind schedule. But they're still on budget. We are sure they're still on

budget." Never once did any single member of that side of the Legislature

stand up and ask a question about them -- not one. Not one member stood up in

this House and asked a question about that.

If the government had kept to its commitment on the Crown Corporations

Committee, the fast ferry issue would have come to that committee. It would have

been discussed, and the questions would have been asked. The minister

responsible wasn't asking the proper questions. Not once did he ask the proper

questions. Not once did the public get the full facts on what was going on at

the fast ferries, and then all of a sudden they pretend they're surprised. It

wasn't their fault; it was somebody's else's fault. We weren't being told the

truth.

Well, you weren't being told the truth because you weren't asking the right

questions. And they weren't providing the opportunity for those questions to be

asked. Every time you were asked the questions, you deflected them. You

ridiculed the questioner. So when the government tells you it's committed to

transparency in budge