2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th 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, November 24, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number 4

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Nelson Leeson

Hon. G. Campbell

C. James

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M205 — Food Safety Amendment (Farm Gate Sales) Act, 2009

N. Simons

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Trish Chung and food security initiatives

B. Ralston

Flood prevention in Fraser Valley

J. Les

Guide-outfitters in northwestern B.C.

D. Donaldson

Youth sports activities and school sports infrastructure

J. Thornthwaite

New Westminster police department

D. Black

World AIDS Day

R. Howard

Oral Questions

Government action on child poverty

C. James

Hon. M. Polak

M. Karagianis

S. Simpson

J. Kwan

Replacement of Olive Devaud Residence

N. Simons

Hon. K. Falcon

Funding for UBC midwifery program

D. Black

Hon. M. Stilwell

A. Dix

Construction contractor rates for truck operators

H. Bains

Hon. S. Bond

Impact of harmonized sales tax on tourism industry

N. Macdonald

Hon. C. Hansen

Petitions

N. Simons

Tabling Documents

Labour Relations Board, annual report, 2008

Petitions

M. Farnworth

D. Black

A. Dix

H. Lali

R. Fleming

N. Simons

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier

Hon. G. Campbell

C. James

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health Services (continued)

A. Dix

Hon. K. Falcon

H. Bains

R. Chouhan

J. Brar

D. Black

N. Macdonald

[ Page 2731 ]

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2009

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Coell: Joining us today in the gallery is a constituent of mine, Randy Wilson. He is the co-founder and partner of the Liquor Plus stores here on Vancouver Island. Would the House please make him welcome.

Tributes

NELSON LEESON

Hon. G. Campbell: I ask that the members of the House join me today in extending our prayers to the family of Nelson Leeson, who is the president of the Nisga'a Lisims Government. He is very seriously ill.

He has been an extraordinary leader in British Columbia, bridging the gaps between the first nations and non–first nations people. He played an instrumental role in advancing the interests of the Nisga'a nation and transforming the relationship between first nations and citizens all over this province. I would hope that the Legislature will send our best wishes to him and our prayers to him and his family.

C. James: Yes, I would echo the Premier's words. He's an extraordinary leader and has been an extraordinary leader for the Nisga'a government. I pass along our thoughts to the family as well.

Introductions by Members

C. James: I have four guests that I'm pleased to introduce today: Mary Desprez, the general manager of the Belfry Theatre; Maureen Bradley, a film-maker and fine arts professor at the University of Victoria; Bill Cowen, who is the curator for the Boucherat Gallery; and Lydia Kasianchuk, who is a board member from the Metchosin International Summer School of the Arts. They're all here to show their support for investments and funding for arts and culture. Would the House please make them very welcome.

D. Black: We have a number of midwifery students from UBC who are with us today in the gallery. I would like to introduce them.

Paula Hartley is the UBC midwifery student government president; Ilana Stanger-Ross, fourth-year student; Laura Willinhganz is a fourth-year student; Lauren McHattie, third year; Liz Morrison, first year; Ashley Porter, second year; Alix Bacon, second-year student; Lyanne Quirt, second-year student; Elisha Manson, a second-year student; and Deb Little is a registered midwife. I would ask the House to make them welcome today.

I also have two other people to introduce, and they are from the UBC Alma Mater Society. Adrienne Smith is the policy adviser for the UBC Alma Mater Society, and Tim Chu is the president. I ask the House to make them welcome, please.

[1335]

Hon. K. Falcon: Joining us in the House today is Susan Knott, who is a board member for the Canadian Society of Intestinal Research. Joining Susan is Gail Attara, the executive director for the CSIR. As November is Inflammatory Bowel Disease Awareness Month, they are in Victoria raising awareness about two diseases — Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. I would ask the House to please make them both welcome.

L. Popham: I rise in the House today to introduce Joey MacDonald, the art director at the University of Victoria Students Society. He's here with a group from ProArt Alliance. My two good friends Doug Much and Fiona Percy are also here. They're from the fine community of Willis Point, which is in Saanich South.

H. Lali: I have the pleasure of introducing to the House three very energetic women from the community of Savona. They are here to support public education. Having known them, when they latch onto something, they don't let go. They see to the finish.

They'll also be meeting with some of the ministers and MLAs on both sides of the House. So when they meet with the ministers, all they have to say is yes, in terms of their demands.

They are from the Save the Schools committee in Savona. They are members of the

PAC there — Adrienne Teague, Julie Reimer and Cara McKelvey. Would the House please give them a warm Victoria welcome.

M. Karagianis: I would like to add some welcomes to other members of ProArt that are here today: Lora McIntosh from the Victoria Jazz Society; Kathy Kay, director of the Victoria Film Festival and a constituent of mine; Dwayne Gordon, member from the Victoria Operatic Society; and musician Phil Hallman. Would you please give them a good welcome.

J. Horgan: I, too, have guests in the gallery today. Joining us is Judy Scott, president of the Metchosin International Summer School of the Arts. She's here with the ProArt Alliance and doing good work, talking to legislators about arts funding and other issues.

[ Page 2732 ]

I am also joined by two more citizens from Sooke, good Juan de Fucans, who have come, after purchasing a lunch at the Sooke rotary, to have lunch here at the Legislature and to see the actions and activities here on the floor. I'm certain that all members will be on their best behaviour and give a warm welcome to Allan and Fiona Poole.

B. Routley: I would like the House to welcome Rebecca Johnson. She's a lighting designer who is here today to show her support for reinvesting in arts, culture and heritage in B.C. She's a constituent from the Cowichan Valley. Will the House please join me in making her very welcome.

Hon. I Chong: Visiting in the gallery today is a constituent of mine, Darryl Mar, who is the executive artistic director of the Victoria Jazz Society. Would the House please make him welcome.

R. Fleming: I have a few introductions to make. With us today in the gallery is Heather Wood, who is a constituent of mine. She is a registered midwife currently practicing in my community. As well, Angela Spencer, who is a recently retired midwife. With her is Jamie Traynor, who is an interested member in the midwife clinics in our region.

Also with us today is a school group. Ms. Selena Jensen as well as 32 grade 11 students from Reynolds Secondary School are here. Many of them are here in the Legislature for the first time, even though they live in Victoria. It won't be their last time, so the House must make them feel welcome so they'll come back time and time again.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M205 — food safety amendment

(Farm gate sales) act, 2009

N. Simons presented a bill intituled Food Safety Amendment (Farm Gate Sales) Act, 2009.

N. Simons: I move this bill be read a first time now.

[1340]

Motion approved.

N. Simons: The Food Safety Amendment (Farm Gate Sales) Act restores the right of farmers to sell the meat they produce to local consumers. Laws and regulations designed to meet international cross-border trade agreements and designed to harmonize the North American food system have threatened the viability of small farms in British Columbia.

Legalizing local and bioregional meat production will help offset the disproportionate amount of greenhouse gas emissions which result from global meat production. Local and bioregional meat production will provide local, quality food; stimulate local economies; and strengthen the safety of our food systems.

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

Bill M205, Food Safety Amendment (Farm Gate Sales) Act, 2009, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

TRISH CHUNG AND

FOOD SECURITY INITIATIVES

B. Ralston: A few weeks ago I attended a community meeting and dinner in the village of 100 Mile House. The people at the Horse Lake Community Farm co-op catered the dinner, and I must say I was very impressed with the event. All of the foods and beverages, with few exceptions, were grown or produced within a hundred miles of 100 Mile, and that's obviously appropriate. While I enjoyed the dinner and the company, that's not why I have risen today.

One of the many hard-working people involved in the dinner was Trish Chung. Miss Chung lives at 57 Mile House and is well known in the Cariboo. She is the food security coordinator and pregnancy support worker for the Cariboo Family Enrichment Centre. She led the work to develop the community garden and the community kitchen, where she teaches interested people how to choose and prepare foods, particularly locally produced foods.

Miss Chung also organized the Good Food Box program that provides and subsidizes the cost of fresh produce for families with young children. She has also offered cooking classes and cooks' training at the youth centre in Dog Creek. In addition, Miss Chung volunteers as a board member for the Horse Lake Community Farm co-op and sits on the board of the B.C. Food Systems Network that promotes food security initiatives.

While I am delighted to recognize Miss Chung in the House today, she's also been recognized by another group: the Vancouver-based Minerva Foundation. This foundation advocates for empowering women and building stronger communities. Miss Chung has been chosen as one of the three women in British Columbia to receive an award for community leadership and excellence at a special dinner in Vancouver in December.

I ask the House to join with me today to recognize Trish Chung for this esteemed award and to acknowledge her contributions to her community.

[ Page 2733 ]

FLOOD PREVENTION IN FRASER VALLEY

J. Les: Over the last several weeks we have been watching with considerable interest as the snow has accumulated on our hills and mountains. This obviously bodes well for ski enthusiasts, but it has some of my constituents thinking ahead to next spring when all of this snow will melt and possibly cause high water and potential flooding on the Fraser.

In the Fraser Valley we have always been acutely aware of the need to ensure that we maintain our dikes and manage the river to ensure that we're protected from flooding and excessive seepage. My constituents were pleased recently when $5 million of infrastructure funding was provided to further improve the dikes in the Chilliwack area. However, dike improvement and maintenance alone are not enough. The river itself needs to be managed.

Every year, on average, about 50,000 truckloads of gravel washes into the Chilliwack reach of the river. Left unaddressed, this inevitably raises the elevation of the river bottom, compromising the dikes and leading to more seepage of surrounding farmlands. In fact, in the Agassiz area, several farmers already have great difficulty farming their land because of this additional seepage, as a result of the elevation of the river bottom already having risen considerably.

Happily, over the last five years, working closely with first nations, engineers, river hydrologists and environmental consultants, an organized and thoughtful gravel removal program has been put in place. On average, 230,000 tonnes of gravel have been removed each year. This does not lessen the gravel accumulation to date, but it certainly helps to keep the seepage and other problems from worsening. Markets for this gravel are not great, but it is slowly being sold into the marketplace.

These gravel removals are done with close environmental monitoring before, during and after work being done. Essentially, no work is being done in the water. Great care is taken to not affect fish habitat adversely. While the Fraser is home to all of the salmon species, only pink salmon spawn in this area, and I'm happy to report that this summer the river was literally teeming with spawning pink salmon.

My constituents are pleased with the work being done to keep their community safe, and I look forward to it continuing in the years ahead.

[1345]

GUIDE-OUTFITTERS IN

NORTHWESTERN B.C.

D. Donaldson: In Stikine we love being out on the land, and we enjoy it in many ways: for recreational purposes, for spiritual purposes and for economic reasons, to name a few — sometimes all at the same time.

For many, it is love of the land that keeps us in Stikine, and then people find ways to support themselves. Some would call it a lifestyle, but it's deeper than that because it involves stewardship and connection to the natural world.

That is why I am very happy to highlight today the Northwest Guide Outfitters Association and their annual general meeting taking place in Smithers this weekend, November 27 and 28.

Make no mistake. Guide-outfitting is an important business in B.C. It generates in the range of $116 million per year, with more than 5,000 hunters visiting our province, leading to thousands of direct local jobs.

It is also a way of life that people are passionate about — a remote, rural way of life. As one guide said to me: "It isn't something you get into to get rich, but it's a good way of living." What it does in Stikine, though, is provide another opportunity for people to make a living in a sustainable manner off the land base and to provide a means for younger people to stay in the area and make money as assistant guides.

Those in the guide-outfitting business are on the ground on a daily basis. They know the health of an ecosystem intimately and their dependence on it. A guiding friend of mine said: "It's a big industry, but any guide knows that if you kill all the animals, you won't have a job."

I know many participating in this sector and the positive contribution they make to educating those from faraway urban centres, often, about the role we all play by being part of the natural world, not apart from it. A guide told me recently about the thrill he got when a hunter client who didn't get an animal phoned him after getting back home to chat about the good time he had and how he will be back again.

That is the nature of this sector and rural areas of the province. I wish the Northwest Guides AGM organizer Michael Young a successful weekend and a good fundraiser on Saturday night.

YOUTH SPORTS ACTIVITIES AND

SCHOOL SPORTS INFRASTRUCTURE

J. Thornthwaite: Education, sport and physical fitness are closely intertwined. In my riding we see this daily, demonstrated on the field of Windsor Secondary School in North Vancouver.

This is why I was so excited to attend an event on November 10 celebrating an over-$3.2-million investment for a new artificial turf and track at Windsor Secondary. This is especially significant for me personally. My son graduated in 2008, my daughter will graduate next year, and my little one will graduate in 2016 from Windsor Secondary. I was part of the PAC for several years as well.

Participation in sport and physical activity is valued and embraced as a way of life in British Columbia.

[ Page 2734 ]

According to Stats Canada, children who participate in organized activities outside of school such as sports, music or clubs tend to have a higher self-esteem, interact better with friends and perform better in school. As well, physical inactivity is a risk factor for many conditions including heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, osteoporosis and some cancers.

As a former dietitian, I know that children especially need physical activity and healthy eating habits for healthy growth and development, and I believe that this has motivated the partnership between the federal, provincial and municipal governments, school boards and industry, the rec commission and sports groups to work together to see this substantial investment take place.

With investments like this, we can continue British Columbia's longstanding tradition of sports excellence, and we can continue to be Canada's most physically active province. Investments like this are not just an investment as a facility for soccer, football, rugby or field hockey, but it's an investment in the future of our children's health.

NEW WESTMINSTER POLICE DEPARTMENT

D. Black: I am pleased to speak about the New Westminster police department, who have a long and proud tradition in my community. A lot has happened since the department was founded in 1873, and New Westminster police continue to serve our residents with integrity and professionalism.

The department is noted for its strong community policing initiatives and for programs such as a domestic violence response team, which has served as a template for similar programs through our province and, indeed, through other parts of Canada. The New Westminster police department also has strong victim assistance services and works closely with individuals and businesses through its community policing programs.

One member of the department who is noted for his community involvement was honoured recently with the Award of Meritorious Service at a ceremony at Government House. Const. Bruce Ballingall has been a street and community police officer for over 30 years. The primary focus of his career has been community policing, although he has also worked in school liaison, patrol and drug squads.

[1350]

While Constable Ballingall has received a number of awards over the years, he continues to give credit back to the volunteers within the city who work on many of the programs which he oversees.

Sir Robert Peel, the founder of modern policing, said: "The police are the public, and the public are the police — the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen, in the interests of community welfare and existence."

I'm pleased that Constable Ballingall's dedicated community service has been recognized with such an important award. I join the residents of New Westminster in thanking all members of our police department who work closely with the public every day to protect our community.

WORLD AIDS DAY

R. Howard: World AIDS Day, established by the World Health Organization in 1988, is observed on December 1 every year. This event provides governments, national AIDS programs, faith groups, community organizations and individuals with a valuable opportunity to raise awareness of the global AIDS epidemic.

According to the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, approximately 11,000 British Columbians are HIV-infected, with close to 450 new cases reported each year. As well, more than 3,200 cases of AIDS have been reported in the province, a third of whom currently live with the disease.

This year the theme of World AIDS Day is "Universal access to human rights." I'm proud to say that in British Columbia we meet this ideal. Our commitment to reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS comes from a recognition that prevention, treatment and care are fundamental human rights. This is why we're working to ensure that British Columbians living with HIV/AIDS receive access to the very best treatment and support available.

A local organization involved in the fight against HIV/AIDS is the Heart of Richmond AIDS Society. They are active in providing support to those in Richmond living with HIV/AIDS and also do great work in raising awareness. Their education program for high school students is just one of their initiatives to raise awareness.

On December 1, I encourage everyone to take some time to become informed about HIV/AIDS, to remember those we have lost and to make a donation to a group such as the Heart of Richmond AIDS Society.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON CHILD POVERTY

C. James: Today we learned that for the sixth year in a row B.C. has the worst child poverty rate in all of Canada — six years in a row. It's a shameful statistic, and it's an issue that demands the government's attention now.

My question is to the Premier. Will he commit today to implement a poverty reduction strategy to help those children and families?

Hon. M. Polak: I know that the issue of child poverty is one that each and every one of us in this House takes very seriously. On our side of the House we've been

[ Page 2735 ]

working continuously to see these numbers decline. In fact, I am pleased that we've seen these numbers decline to the extent that now we have the lowest child poverty rate in British Columbia in almost 20 years.

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

C. James: I'd like to remind the minister and every member of government that these are not statistics; these are children — 156,000 children — living in poverty for six years in a row. I'm certain the minister's words are cold comfort to those children. The children don't live alone in poverty. These are families living in poverty.

Again, my question is to the Premier. Nearly one in five children lives in poverty in British Columbia. When will the Premier put forward a plan to help them?

Hon. M. Polak: Again, our government takes the issue of child poverty very seriously. I would remind the member that six years in a row we have seen the number of children living in poverty in British Columbia decline. In fact, in this last year of the report we have seen the number of children living in poverty decline by 25,000.

[1355]

Those children that the member speaks of need a real plan that involves things like rental assistance, things like child care subsidy, things like eliminating the MSP premiums for their parents, eliminating income tax — things that put hard dollars back into the pockets of those low-income earners so that they have the empowerment to rise to their greatest opportunity. That's what we're doing in British Columbia.

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

C. James: Child poverty is a critical issue facing British Columbia. The minister can play all the numbers games she wants. But six years in a row, the worst child poverty rate in this country here in British Columbia is a shameful statistic.

It's not simply the opposition raising this issue. In the words of the Premier's own Progress Board: "All children, irrespective of their social background, should have an equal chance to succeed in the province." That quote came from 2006, shortly after British Columbia was named number one in child poverty for the third straight year in a row.

It's been six years. Report after report after report has come forward. Children and families living in poverty, and this Premier has failed to meet his own Progress Board standards. Again I ask the Premier: how many more years will it take before we finally see a commitment to address children living in poverty in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Polak: Our commitment is to go far beyond child poverty and address childhood vulnerabilities in every area. That's why our plan includes things like rental assistance. That's why our plan includes the child care subsidy. That's why our plan includes eliminating the MSP premiums. That's why our plan this year alone provides $450 million in housing supports. None of that is considered in the current report by First Call.

M. Karagianis: Well, the government is just not credible on this topic. In the words of Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the Representative for Children and Youth in British Columbia: "I think the alarm bells have been ringing, and they're ringing very loudly. Not only do we have a large number of children living in poverty, but what we have to help them is not enough." Not my words; the words of an independent officer of the Legislature.

My question is to the Premier. Will he heed the warnings of the children's representative and commit to a poverty reduction strategy?

Hon. M. Polak: It would be interesting for the member to know, I'm sure, that you have to go back to 1991 to find a time in the province of British Columbia when child poverty rates were lower. In fact, the reason for that is because in the 1990s child poverty rose, and I'll quote the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which said: "There was an increase in child poverty by any measure in the 1990s."

This government has worked continuously to see those numbers decline, and we have succeeded. In each and every one of those six years mentioned, the child poverty rate in British Columbia has dropped to what is now the lowest rate in almost 20 years in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: For the sixth year in a row British Columbia has the highest child poverty in the entire country — sixth year in a row. Again I'll go back to the words of the independent Representative for Children and Youth, who says: "B.C. needs a proper child poverty plan with real targets and real measures."

Now, Ontario has done it; Manitoba has done it; Quebec has one; Nova Scotia; New Brunswick just passed one. Even the federal government is getting on board but not British Columbia. How shameful is that?

My question again is to the Premier. When will he follow the lead of the children's representative and other provinces in this country and put together a child poverty reduction plan?

[1400]

Hon. M. Polak: Well, not only do we have the lowest rates of child poverty in B.C. in 20 years, but our child poverty rates have declined at a rate double that of the

[ Page 2736 ]

national average. That is because we've taken a holistic approach, including things like rental assistance, child care subsidy, eliminating MSP premiums and eliminating income tax.

This year alone we will invest more than $1 billion in child care, in early childhood development and in services to special needs students. Those are real, tangible benefits for our most vulnerable in British Columbia, and we will continue to see the child poverty rates decline.

S. Simpson: Poor families are poor kids, and for the 156,000 children in B.C. and their families, this government has done less than anybody else in this country to deal with the issue of poverty.

Mr. Speaker, six provinces have adopted poverty reduction strategies. The B.C. Liberals have said no. Everybody in this country knows that affordable family rental housing is needed to reduce poverty. The B.C. Liberals have said no to building that housing. And 55 percent of the families identified in this report have at least one adult working full time, but the B.C. Liberals have said no to increasing the minimum wage — condemning those families to poverty.

Will the Premier commit today to introducing a poverty reduction strategy with targets and timelines for British Columbia?

Hon. M. Polak: Let's talk about affordable housing, which over the last eight years has seen a more-than-$2-billion investment by this government. I can tell you what we've achieved, even according to the First Call report. From 2003 to 2007, the period covered by this report, we've seen the number of children living in poverty drop by 40,000 across British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: This minister should know that this government has done nothing to build affordable family housing in this province. Hon. Speaker, this minister talks….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

S. Simpson: We hear the prattle from the Housing Minister, who has failed British Columbians time and again.

But let's talk about the statistics that this minister talks about. From 1980 to 2001, British Columbia's poverty rates mirrored the national rate. In 2001 they spiked by 20 percent. They have stayed at that rate since then. That's the B.C. Liberal legacy — 20 percent higher than anyplace else in the country.

The children's representative called on the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition to meet with her and bring forward a bipartisan strategy to deal with poverty. My leader accepted that offer, and the Premier refused.

My question is to the Premier. Will he finally reverse himself, show some leadership, meet with the children's representative and the Leader of the Opposition, and bring forward a policy on poverty that British Columbians can be proud of, instead of ashamed of?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Polak: I know that the members opposite don't like to hear that the plan we have in place is working, but here are the facts. We now have the lowest child poverty rate in British Columbia than we've had in almost 20 years.

[1405]

Mr. Speaker, according to the most recent report produced by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, in the year 2006-2007, the last year they kept statistics for, our child poverty rate fell in that one year by 17 percent.

J. Kwan: B.C. children's representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond's response to the poverty report card states: "I think it is really attributable to one thing. We don't have the social policy supports in place to lift those children out of poverty."

My question to the minister and to the Premier is this. Is she wrong, or is it this government that is wrong, and it's time for this government to put forward a coordinated, comprehensive child poverty reduction strategy?

Hon. M. Polak: We have continued year upon year to lift more and more families out of poverty, off of income assistance, into employment. These are real families who want to be able to provide for their needs.

That's why it's so important that in British Columbia we've seen real average disposable income rise to its highest level in 20 years. We've seen the average hourly wage in B.C. rise to a point of $22 an hour, the third-highest in Canada. Due to income tax cuts since 2001, an additional 325,000 low-income British Columbians pay no income tax, which was not the case under that government.

REPLACEMENT OF

OLIVE DEVAUD RESIDENCE

N. Simons: The doctors of Powell River are once again raising alarm bells around the state of the Olive Devaud seniors care facility. In a recent letter to the Minister of Health, they described the facility as a danger to residents

[ Page 2737 ]

and staff. Will the minister do what his government has been promising for years and replace the facility with a new one?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, I met with a couple of regional district directors over that very issue in my office a number of weeks ago. We had a very good discussion. They informed me of the condition of the facility. I do know that it is one of the priority items for Vancouver Coastal to deal with. We actually explored some innovative ways in which that could be brought forward.

I suggested that they definitely should be looking at private sector involvement. I think that's one way we could move the project forward. In fact, one thing we agreed on is that we need to move the planning process and the design process for that forward immediately so we can get moving on Olive Devaud. That's exactly what we're going to do.

N. Simons: A room in the facility was recently closed because of rot in the floor and fears that someone or something would fall through to the level below. The health authority says it has one of the worst ratings in the province and has made it the number one priority for replacement in successive years. It cannot be renovated. Doctors, health professionals, the health authority, the city, the regional district, residents and families all say that a replacement is urgent, because residents and staff are unsafe.

The land is there. The plans are in place. The local government has the money available. When will the minister simply do what's necessary and say that the province is ready to back that plan?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, since 2001 we've invested a record $5 billion in capital right across the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, as you would know and as the member would well know, in terms of seniors housing — the whole continuum of housing, whether it's assisted-living or residential care housing — over 12,000 brand-new or totally renovated and rehabilitated units right across the province.

That does not mean that we've done every single one of them. As we go through, there are new ones that come in. Regretfully, unfortunately, when we got elected in 2001 there was a huge underinvestment that had taken place in the seniors sector. There's no question about that.

We are doing more than catching up. Olive Devaud is on the radar. We're going to work to make sure that project also moves ahead as soon as we can get the appropriate planning and design work done.

[1410]

FUNDING FOR UBC MIDWIFERY PROGRAM

D. Black: My question is for the Minister of Advanced Education. The University of B.C. has the only midwifery program in western Canada. Despite more than a hundred applicants, the program only admits ten new students each year while demand for these birthing professionals is growing. But the program is in a dire funding crunch and may not admit any new students next year.

My question to the Minister of Advanced Education is: will she ensure that UBC gets the funding it needs to continue to train midwives to meet the needs of women and their families in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The UBC midwifery program is part of the government's commitment to educating the skilled health care workforce that British Columbia needs. There have been no funding cuts and no reduction to the funding of this program. Furthermore, the funding is unchanged, and the ministry's expectations are unchanged. This program is funded by the province to the tune of more than $600,000 a year in annual operating costs, and I am confident that UBC will continue to deliver the program as per our agreement.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

D. Black: Midwives practise cost-effective, evidence-based, women-centred maternity care for 10 percent of the province's births every year. The waiting lists for parents-to-be are growing, and any cut to the UBC midwifery program would only make the situation worse, particularly in rural B.C.

Will the Minister of Advanced Education ensure that adequate funding is provided to continue training the midwives of B.C., and will she say today that the funding will be there to ensure that the program takes in new students in the 2010 academic year? Will she make that guarantee today?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The midwifery program is part of our commitment of over $850 million of health-related capital and operating funding spent at B.C.'s public post-secondary institutions by this government since 2001. In 2001 UBC was the successful proponent for the opportunity to provide this program, based on their budget and their program.

Again, I am confident that UBC will continue to provide this program. UBC is having an internal review, which I expect — and I am sure, in fact — is usual practice at any institution, to continually be evaluating the program to see how they can most effectively offer the program to students in British Columbia.

A. Dix: Just a supplementary to the same minister. In 2010-2011 the risk is that there's going to be no students admitted at a time when there's a serious shortage of midwives. So my question to the minister is simple. Will she take the steps necessary to ensure that the UBC program will admit the students in 2010-2011?

[ Page 2738 ]

Hon. M. Stilwell: I reiterate. The province funds this program at greater than $600,000 a year. I am confident that UBC will provide this program as per our agreement. The ministry's expectations are unchanged.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, hon. Speaker, that's no yes. The government says….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: The government says that even though those places in a critical health area, an area where we absolutely need…. You know, I think it speaks volumes. It speaks volumes that the Minister of Health….

[1415]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: It speaks volumes that the Minister of Health and the former Minister of Health are speaking negatively about an outstanding profession in health care. It's a valuable profession in health care, all the more needed with health care funding challenges.

My question to the minister is very simple. My….

Interjection.

A. Dix: Well, listen to the former Minister of Health. Listen to the former Minister of Health go, hon. Speaker. Listen to him go. Listen to him express his contempt for yet another group of health care workers. At least they keep it to one group a day.

My question to the Minister of Advanced Education is simple. There is a risk here to this program. The government has an interest here too, because they're presumably running the health care system. Will she take steps to ensure that students are admitted to this program in the 2010-2011 year?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The midwifery program is unique in western Canada. We've made it clear that this is a priority profession. The funding is unchanged. The ministry's expectations are unchanged.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR

RATES FOR TRUCK OPERATORS

H. Bains: Hundreds of concerned truckers tonight are meeting to decide a course of action needed to bring to the attention of the contractors that the lower than prevailing rates, under the blue book, offered to them are not acceptable.

One estimate suggests that the contractor of the Port Mann/Highway 1 expansion will pocket over $240 million as a windfall profit at the expense of the taxpayers and the workers on that site.

My question to the minister is this. Will the minister ensure that the truckers are paid blue book rates as agreed between the province of British Columbia and the B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association?

Hon. S. Bond: We're certainly aware of these circumstances. We believe that the contractor, Peter Kiewit Sons, is actually an internationally reputable company. This is a discussion between a contractor and its subcontractor. Those discussions are underway, and we expect them to be resolved between the contractor and the subcontractor.

H. Bains: The minister has to understand one thing. When the rates paid to those truckers do not cover the operating cost to operate that truck, what goes? It's the maintenance of that truck, and the road safety of the public is put in jeopardy. Let me remind the minister of some sad realities under this government. The sad reality due to….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

H. Bains: The sad reality of this government's failure to protect the workers in this province. The national average for the roadside inspections: 18.2 percent of trucks failed. In one recent B.C. road check, 41 percent of trucks failed, and they were taken off the road. So it's that serious.

I ask this minister one more time. For road safety and for the safety of the public on the road, will the minister ensure that the contractors live up to the government's own guidelines under the blue book and that truckers working on the project are paid accordingly?

[1420]

Hon. S. Bond: Let's just talk a little bit about our record. In fact, this project alone will mean that there will be 8,000 jobs in British Columbia for British Columbians.

[ Page 2739 ]

For the member opposite to stand on the other side of the House and imply that there are not rigorous safety inspections done and, in fact, that contractors and truckers alike ensure and are responsible for the safety of those vehicles is irresponsible.

Finally, we wouldn't actually be having this discussion about the Port Mann bridge if the member opposite was in charge because, in fact, they didn't even support the building of the Port Mann bridge.

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX

ON TOURISM INDUSTRY

N. Macdonald: Last week this government tinkered with the HST, but I think most British Columbians would agree that a better idea than no HST on an additional $100,000 for a new house would be no HST at all. No HST — that is something that British Columbians could vote for. In fact, I think most British Columbians did vote for that. They did vote for that.

What you're left with is industry after industry trying to deal with this tax. The tourist operators know that the HST is a job killer. I'll just quote from Mr. Porter.

Mr. Porter of Great Canadian Heli-Skiing has written the minister. He's written the Premier. He's written the Minister of Finance, and he says: "The HST will not make our service more competitive. It's going to instead buckle our knees." He goes on to say: "HST, no matter how it is spun" — and everyone knows that this government is a master at spinning; we've seen it again here today — "will be an increase in cost. The HST is going to devastate heli-skiing."

This government, this minister, this Premier campaigned on a promise to not introduce the HST. Why is the minister betraying that promise? Why is he bringing in a job killer of a tax?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think if the member has followed the writings of some of the leading economists in Canada, he will know that this is actually the number one job generator in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: Yesterday we were visited by representatives of the mining industry who said that this is the single most important measure we can do to create jobs in the mining industry.

I would suggest that that member, the member who asked the question, is totally out of touch with the forest sector of which he is the Forests critic, because what the forest industry tells us is that the shift to the harmonized sales tax will actually make a difference in the export price of our lumber of $7 per thousand board feet. That is the difference between international sales and no international sales.

[1425]

I would add, again, to this member in his capacity as Forests critic, that our move to the HST is going to make the difference between mills staying open in his constituency or being forced to close.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

N. Simons: I present a petition with the signatures of over 1,300 people calling for the re-reconfiguration of traffic in the Gibsons area. I present that today.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. Coell: I'm pleased to table the annual report, 2008, of the Labour Relations Board.

Petitions

M. Farnworth: I'm tabling a petition with over a thousand names of people who are opposed to the hated, disgusting, despised, detestable, duplicitous HST.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Reminding the member….

D. Black: I'm pleased to ask for leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

D. Black: I have postcards in a petition format from thousands of UBC students who ask the government to please reduce and reverse the cuts to student aid — from the Alma Mater Society.

A. Dix: I rise to present a petition on behalf of 1,136 British Columbians in support of ambulance paramedics.

I also present a petition from residents of Kamloops and across British Columbia opposed to the government's plan to reorganize and diminish the number of beds at Ponderosa Lodge.

H. Lali: I'll be presenting two petitions. The first one is from my constituency with hundreds of signatures of folks who oppose the introduction of the HST.

The second petition is actually from the residents of Lac La Hache in the constituency of Cariboo-Chilcotin. It's almost 300 names that were gathered by Hazel Parker, who is 80-plus years old. She went door to door collecting hundreds of signatures opposed to the introduction of the HST.

[ Page 2740 ]

R. Fleming: I seek leave to introduce a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

R. Fleming: I would like to table a petition from residents, constituents of mine in Victoria–Swan Lake — hundreds of names — to stop this government's HST tax.

N. Simons: I have a petition signed by approximately 700 people opposing the sinking — purposeful sinking — of the Annapolis warship off the coast in Halkett Bay on Gambier Island. Further details to come.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Health. In this chamber, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Office of the Premier.

[1430-1435]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:40 p.m.

On Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $11,535,000.

Hon. G. Campbell: I am pleased to rise today to introduce the estimates of the Office of the Premier. I'd like to introduce the public service representatives who are with me and thank them for their contributions.

Allan Seckel is the Deputy Minister to the Premier and cabinet secretary. He is also head of the British Columbia public service. Lorne Brownsey is the deputy minister of corporate initiatives and intergovernmental relations. Debbie Fayad is the executive financial officer, and Michelle Leamy is director of executive operations.

As we begin these budget estimates, I'd like to just speak briefly about the challenges that we've had to confront over the last year and the opportunities that we can embrace as we go forward. There's no question that we do live in globally challenging times.

We're facing the single largest economic downturn we have experienced in almost three decades. That has had a significant impact on our revenues in British Columbia, but it has not had an impact on our goals and objectives as a province to ensure that we provide the best quality of life for the people that live here.

We have continuing concern about building a new relationship with first nations that creates opportunities for first nations and aboriginal people in our province, that closes the gaps in health care, in education and in social and economic development.

We continue to strive to be at the forefront of dealing with the challenge of our generation, which is climate change. It will affect not just those of us who live today but those who live tomorrow and decades hence if we are not willing to embrace the challenges that are in front of us and do so with action. Our government has been concerned about pursuing that action and ensuring that we can move ahead.

We've all been challenged by the prospect of the H1N1 pandemic. Again, I think British Columbia's public service, our B.C. Centre for Disease Control, has done an exceptional job of dealing with a very challenging and, in many ways, new situation, I think, for all of us. This has been the largest national immunization program in the history of the country, and British Columbia, once again, and our public service and public health officials are seen for their leadership and the efficacy of the work they do.

I also recognize, as I'm sure all members do, that within a very short period of time, in just 80 days, the eyes of the world will be on us as we host the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. It represents an enormous opportunity for British Columbians to invite the world and to display our character and our spirit as a province, the character of our country as we move forward into the 21st century.

Our goal is obviously to use that as a launching pad into the 21st century, with new green technologies, showing the possibilities that exist for using new wood products to further our environmental agendas, which are shared around the world. I think that all of these initiatives are critical to our economic and social well-being as we move ahead.

With those comments, I am pleased to take any questions with regard to the estimates of the Office of the Premier.

C. James: I thank the Premier for his opening remarks, and I'll just make a few opening remarks and then also move into the questions.

As we all know, these estimates are an opportunity to engage the Premier in a very serious discussion about the opportunities, about the direction that the government's taken, the policy direction, and to be able to have answered questions that the public is asking about the direction that the government's going.

I'm certain it would be no surprise to the Premier that people have grave concerns about the policy direction of his government. British Columbians from all walks of life, in fact, have expressed to me their growing concerns with the credibility of this government, and we'll get into some specific questions around that.

Specific promises that were made over the last number of months that were casually tossed aside have raised

[ Page 2741 ]

huge concern on behalf of the public. This includes promises about the province's financial situation, which, as the Premier has said, is one of the most critical situations facing British Columbians — the economy.

There certainly is a great deal of question around the government's credibility when it comes to changing the tax system, when it comes to plans to cut vital services. Everyone will remember the Premier's commitments around protecting health care and education, and we've certainly seen the results since then. We'll be exploring that and asking some questions around that.

Each of the areas that I'll touch on and each of the promises that have been thrown aside really have, in turn, served to break the bond of trust between the public and this government. These estimates are an opportunity for the Premier to be upfront with the public, to answer some of those very serious questions that they have.

[1445]

I approach this process in the spirit of openness, in the spirit of transparency. I'm sure the Premier will do the same, and I'm very much looking forward to hearing from him on those issues.

I'd like to start with a very important area, and that's the whole area of the deficit and the direction the Premier took during the election campaign. On September 2 the Premier was being questioned about his election claim that the budget deficit would be "$495 million, maximum." In responding to those questions, the Premier revealed for the first time on September 2 that he had been briefed by his deputy minister during the election.

That briefing included comments about the government's weakening revenue and the impact that would have on the budget. Here's a statement that the Premier made under questioning by the opposition: "…I did have conversations with my deputy minister. They were largely with regard to H1N1. In one of those conversations she did raise the subject of the budget. That was in May. She told me that there were revenue pressures."

Now, media reports suggest the briefing regarding the province's weakening revenues occurred on the Thursday before the election, so that's May 7. Could the Premier confirm that was the day he received the briefing from his deputy.

Hon. G. Campbell: I will confirm that I did have a conversation with my deputy in the days prior to the election. Frankly, I had probably two or three conversations — I'm not sure how many — during the election period. They were fundamentally focused on H1N1, as I mentioned.

There was one of those days a few days before the election where, in fact, I was informed that there were revenue pressures. I was also informed that our staff believed those revenue pressures were manageable and that we were going to be able to accomplish the goals we set in the February budget.

C. James: Did the Premier ask for any more information when he was told this information by his deputy?

Hon. G. Campbell: Candidly, it was a passing comment and part of a conversation that was basically consumed by H1N1. I think it's fair to say that there are ups and downs in every budget year, every budget period that we go through.

I often get briefings. I knew that there would be a detailed briefing that would be scheduled for following the election. That has normally been the case, regardless of who's elected. It was not something that I pursued to any extent whatsoever, as to say, "Thank you very much," and that was it.

C. James: This is concerning information that the Premier has just received. This is a week or so before the election. The Premier isn't exactly sure of the date this conversation took place. It's been reported in the media that that was May 7, but the Premier himself says that he isn't quite sure when that occurred. This is very concerning information that has just been passed along to him by his deputy.

Again, my question to the Premier is: did he not feel that it was important to ask questions about what the deputy meant by revenue dropping?

Hon. G. Campbell: The Leader of the Opposition, like myself, was involved in an election campaign at that time. I think that everyone in the spring realized there were challenges with regard to the economy.

Those challenges were starting to be reflected. We'd actually had a relatively good month in terms of employment, but we know that the employment numbers were going down, so I was not surprised that there were pressures. Therefore, when the comment was made that, yes, there are pressures…. I think the comment was made they could be $200 million to $300 million. At that time there was also a sense that we could actually meet our budget targets.

[1450]

To put it in context, a $200 million to $300 million shift in revenue projections is about a 0.5 percent — that's 0.5 percent — challenge.

We meet those challenges on an ongoing basis — have in many budget years — where one component might be offset by others. In fact, I think one of the things that's important is that we have been able to manage those in a way that has allowed us to meet our budget targets. In fact, in 2008-09 this government exceeded its government target in terms of a surplus in spite of the fact there were huge challenges that had to be confronted through the fall of 2008 and the spring of 2009.

So yes, I understood that there were revenue challenges. I also understood that we could actually meet our budget targets that had been set in the February budget,

[ Page 2742 ]

and as has been the case in the past, I had every expectation we would not just meet those expectations but we had an opportunity perhaps to exceed them.

I didn't verbalize that to the deputy. There wasn't a discussion about it. I was just informed there were revenue pressures that our staff felt could be offset by the ongoing management and cost-reduction strategies that we had already put in place as a result of the February budget.

C. James: The Premier says that he didn't share those thoughts with his deputy minister. He unfortunately didn't share those thoughts with the public either.

Now, the Premier says that he didn't verbalize that to his deputy, that he didn't have a discussion, that he simply received the information from his deputy. Yet he says he was confident that measures could be taken and that this could be dealt with.

Could the Premier tell me, then, what he did base that on? If he hadn't had a conversation with his deputy about the details, if he hadn't looked at the kind of revenue pressures that were there, what did the Premier base that information on?

Hon. G. Campbell: My confidence was really based on, as I mentioned, the size of the challenge that we faced, which was 0.5 percent of our revenues at that time. I think it's also important to note that it was really based on our record. It is not unusual to have some volatility in both revenues and expenses as you go through a budget year. This was something that we had known.

We were facing a challenging time. We had been very conservative with our February budget. We had said that we were going to look for $1.9 billion of discretionary spending savings as we went through the budget year. That was something that was going to have to take place, obviously, following the election. But I can tell you that our public servants were working diligently on that throughout. So there were no alarm bells set. It was really, frankly, a statement of information.

You know, the confidence really comes out of the fact that we have managed to manage our fiscal frameworks in British Columbia under this government successfully. We have exceeded our projections in terms of our fiscal management over a number of consecutive years of balanced budgets — eight consecutive budgets, in fact, with significant balanced budgets — and significant surpluses to pay down the debt, and we have typically found ways that we can manage through small variations that take place within the budget.

I think it's also important to note, when you look at the budget frameworks that we have in place, that even the opposition said at the time that they felt our projections for February were prudent and were financially at least worthy of them building their projected budgets out of that. We were all subject to the same discussion that was taking place.

The economies were having a great challenge in front of them. We knew that. But I also knew that we had outperformed our colleagues across the country in the past. We had performed beyond expectations, as I mentioned just a minute ago, in the 2008-09 year while others were facing significant deficits. We actually managed to have a surplus over 40 percent in excess of what we had projected the previous year.

That's what my confidence was based on — a very small variation on the one hand and a record of success and performance on the other.

[1455]

C. James: Everyone knows, including the Premier, that this was an unprecedented year, that this was an unprecedented economic time. In fact, as the Premier said at the start, this was an unprecedented economic time. The kind of global challenges we're facing are unprecedented.

We'd also seen that the forecasters had downgraded their predictions, and we'll get into that discussion a little bit further along, but the Premier had had every indication, going into the election campaign, that in fact revenue was plummeting, that the situation was much worse than the February budget had showed. Yet when the deputy informs the Premier that revenues are falling off….

I'll quote the Premier from a Vaughn Palmer article: "At that time the deputy told me there were financial pressures. She had been informed by the Deputy Minister of Finance that there were measures we could take to allow us to meet our February budget." I just want to get this clear, so I'm clear. The Premier says that he did not ask at all what any of those measures were?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm sure the opposition has had a chance to canvass this during the Finance Ministry's estimates, but let me just go back on a couple of issues. We all recognize that we face global challenges. In fact, we recognized that we faced global challenges in February of 2009 when we introduced our budget.

The forecast panel are independent forecasters we brought together — 12 forecasters brought together. Their average forecast was zero percent economic growth for this year, for 2009. We actually suggested that it would be minus 0.9 percent. That is a fairly significant step in terms of being conservative in terms of what we were looking at for our future. We were clear about that as we put together our budget.

I note that the opposition's budget actually called for 600 million more dollars in revenue coming in. They were basing it on our fundamental budget and, evidently, the world as they saw it at the time. I think what's important to note is that no one is pretending in our government, or I don't think any other government, that they knew exactly what was going to happen with the economy.

[ Page 2743 ]

We tried to be conservative in terms of how we were dealing with it. We were upfront and transparent in terms of how we had to deal with it. As I mentioned earlier, we actually identified in February that it would require us to make some….

I think that through the campaign I pointed out that this was going to require some very difficult decisions. These were difficult decisions that would have to be made, no matter who was in the government, if we were going to maintain the financial credibility that was important.

The importance of that financial credibility, I think, is reflected in the fact that when we have a triple-A credit rating, we save significant dollars for the taxpayers of British Columbia as we move into a major capital program, as we have over the last year.

I think the fact is, again, that the public service was hard at work in terms of finding those discretionary savings. This was a 0.5 percent challenge in terms of the revenue challenge, if you looked at $200 million to $300 million, and it was a revenue challenge that we felt, in view of the experience we've had and in view of the work that was being done, could be met.

Frankly, the discussion wasn't nearly as long as the discussion between the Leader of the Opposition and me. It was much shorter than that, but that was the essence of the discussion.

C. James: Just to remind the Premier that in fact during the election campaign the Premier did not say that difficult decisions would have to be made. He in fact told the public that health care and education would be protected. Those are the fundamental commitments that were made to the people of British Columbia, including the fact that the deficit would be $495 million, maximum, and we'll get into a little more of that discussion as well.

In fact, it was the opposite that was told to the public during the election campaign. The public was led to believe that those numbers were the numbers when the Premier had received information on May 7 that in fact revenue was plummeting.

Just a question around the meetings. The Premier mentioned he had two or three discussions during the election campaign. Previously, it took us until September to get the Premier to admit that he was briefed by his deputy on May 7 or around that date. Now the Premier mentions two or three other discussions during the election. Could the Premier please tell me who those discussions were with and when?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, I want to acknowledge what the Leader of the Opposition said. We did say we would protect health care funding. We did say we would protect education funding. In fact, we increased both.

[1500]

We increased health care funding substantially, and education funding has increased by $84 million. I don't remember the exact amount for health care, but it's in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

I know this. Over the next three years the health care budget is increasing by 19 percent at a time when we're looking at very low economic growth throughout the province. We, in fact, have more than met the commitments we made with regard to health care and education.

In terms of protecting the services and making sure that those services are sustainable, we talked a great deal during the election about sustaining our services for the long term. We talked a great deal throughout the election about the challenges of meeting our service requirements at the same time that we were managing our financial requirements and maintaining a financially prudent stance as a government.

I think it's important to note that with this budget, in fact, there are significant increases of expenditures that are taking place — not just in health care and not just in education — to provide people who require income supports. Obviously, substantial increases in expenditures were required for the forest fire season, which was a record forest fire season this year — budgeted, this time, at over $400 million.

We had additional expenditures that we have recognized and reflected in terms of H1N1 and dealing with the challenges of that public health problem that we have in front of us today.

I think in terms of what we said during the election, we were very clear that we wanted our economy to be in a position where it was stronger as we came out of this economic downturn. We were going to continue to provide support for health care and education. In fact, many of the discretionary expenditures where we were able to actually find savings…. Those savings are directly funding those health care and education services that are so critical.

C. James: I could argue with the Premier around protecting health care and education. I would suggest that if he spent some time talking to teachers and parents and sports groups and arts groups and Special Olympics and children living in poverty that, in fact, there would be a differing opinion.

But I come back to the question I asked the Premier, which was related to how many discussions he had with staff during the election campaign. The Premier refused to acknowledge until September of this year that he had actually had a conversation with his former deputy minister around the budget, that he had actually received information that revenue was plummeting.

He now today has said that he had two or three calls. My question, again, is to the Premier. When were those two or three calls, who were they with, and what subjects were discussed?

[ Page 2744 ]

Hon. G. Campbell: I thought I was clear earlier with regard to those issues. I believe…. I can recall having two discussions with my deputy. It was with my deputy. I think it's important to note that the public service only deals with the members of the cabinet when there are issues of particular import as we go through an election period. The discussions I had with my deputy focused on both H1N1 and the challenges.

I think that it's kind of easy, in some ways, to forget how people felt about H1N1 as it started occurring in the spring. I can tell the Leader of the Opposition and the public that there were many, many parts of government that were directly involved in dealing with the challenges of H1N1.

There was a time during the election where I was requested by the medical health officer to make the point of talking to people about H1N1 and the challenges that we faced with H1N1 and how individual citizens could help. I don't remember the day, but it was done on a day during the election, one morning during the election. I had a briefing prior to that meeting the night before, and I had another conversation with my deputy, who I've mentioned. Those are the two that I recall.

I think that it is important to recognize, again, that when the…. At the tail end of a conversation with regard to H1N1, it was mentioned that there were revenue pressures. Those revenue pressures were between $200 million and $300 million, which is a 0.5 percent change in the revenues that we had.

In the same breath, it was pointed out that our officials had been working very hard on the cost containment strategies we had identified in the budget in February. As a result of that — with the difficult decisions, obviously — we'd be in a position where we could secure the budgets that we had talked about.

[1505]

C. James: I just want to be sure I'm clear, because I've heard the Premier say a couple of different things here. I heard, "Two or three discussions" — whether that includes the discussion on May 7, which he finally admitted to in September, that occurred around the briefing with his deputy on the revenue plummeting.

Again, my question is to the Premier. Just so I'm clear, and I think it's important for the public to know how many conversations the Premier had during the election campaign. Were those conversations with his deputy, as he says, and what was discussed at each of those discussions?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I said earlier, I recall two to three discussions that we had. As I said earlier, those discussions primarily focused on H1N1. There is very restrictive interaction between the senior public service and anybody that's running for office. The members of cabinet — if there is an emergency that comes up, they are informed about that if there's a requirement for government to act.

I can recall that there was a discussion, as I mentioned earlier. The public service was very engaged in trying to deal with the challenges of H1N1. That's, frankly, the primary discussion that I remember having with my deputy as we went through that period of time.

C. James: Did the Premier request those briefings, or did his former deputy?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned, the public service and a deputy's committee were deeply involved in the discussions with regard to H1N1. My recollection is that I was contacted by my deputy, but I can't say that I didn't call her back sometime. I don't recall all those details, to be candid.

I do recall that the conversations were relatively quick. They were, frankly, on what the deputies needed to know. If they needed a direction, they asked. It wasn't very often that I was called — as I mentioned, I think maybe two or three times. But I think the important thing was that this was about trying to meet a public health initiative, and it may have been required that they have some direct political direction.

[1510]

One specific one that I do recall is that I was asked specifically about the acquisition of additional Tamiflu vaccine, which was important, I think. Frankly, the direction was pretty simple. It was: do what we need to do to make sure that we provide the most we can for the public health.

C. James: As the Premier knows, often we receive the Premier's calendar through FOI requests. In the Premier's calendar for the May 7 date — when the Premier says he had the conversation with his deputy where she talked about the falling revenues — there was not any indication of a meeting on that date with his deputy.

So my question would be to the Premier. Are there other times that the deputy is briefing the Premier where it wouldn't be entered into the calendar?

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't recall the calendar for May 7. I don't, frankly, during an election campaign or a non-election campaign, record every telephone conversation I had. You know, I had a conversation. I don't think it was a specifically organized meeting with my deputy. Frankly, I'm not certain of the date. I know it was sometime in that period of time, but I don't recall the date specifically.

C. James: Just to, again, touch on May 7 or the date…. The Premier says he doesn't recall exactly that date. I recognize that it was the middle of an election campaign or getting to the end of an election campaign, but

[ Page 2745 ]

I would imagine that, in fact, it would be even more important to make sure those dates were written down.

We all were running busy schedules. We all had very, very full days and evenings. I can't imagine that it wouldn't be booked into the Premier's

schedule to be able to have a briefing with his deputy.

Just to follow on with that, would the Premier say that briefings on the financial situation in the province were a regular part of his deputy's duties? The briefings on the economy and the fiscal situation of the province were a regular part of his deputy's briefings?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, I think that it's important to note that I did not get regular briefings during the election campaign. I think what's critical in terms of my

schedule is that if there was a requirement for the deputy to discuss with me, she was put through wherever I was in the province at the time. So they were conversations. They weren't detailed briefings.

When we are not in an election campaign, it is not unusual for the deputy to be in attendance with the Minister of Finance if he's giving me a briefing with regard to the finances of the province.

C. James: Did the Premier's chief of staff, Martyn Brown, also sit in or brief the Premier during that May 7 call?

Hon. G. Campbell: No. As I mentioned, it was a phone conversation. The answer is no.

C. James: When the Premier received this information — he received the information on or around May 7, he recalls — that the revenues were in trouble in the province, did the Premier phone his Finance Minister and have discussions about this issue?

Hon. G. Campbell: No.

C. James: Again, I think the public really will be scratching their heads. This is a difficult economic time. These are challenging times in the province. Revenues are plummeting. Forecasters have been downgrading their predictions.

[1515]

The Premier receives information on May 7, or around that date, that tells him that revenues are plummeting in British Columbia, that revenues are falling, and the Premier didn't think it was important to talk to his Finance Minister to get a little more detail about those revenues?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, I have to reiterate that we were looking at a challenge of between $200 million and $300 million. That is about 0.5 percent of the provincial revenues. It's the kind of number that we have managed in the past. It wasn't something that I was particularly concerned about. I believed that it was going to be controllable.

Our staff had said to me that this is manageable. They said the revenues are taking a hit, and it's manageable. I felt confident that we'd be able to go through this period and maintain the budget levels that we set in the February budget.

C. James: Did the Premier talk to any other cabinet ministers about the information that he received on May 7?

Hon. G. Campbell: Not that I recall. As I went through the campaign, I didn't have that much contact with any of our candidates except for when I was in their riding. I was, like I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition was, travelling all over the province of British Columbia. We were, as she mentioned earlier, busy all the time with the campaign.

Again, the information to me was not something that set off anything except for that we were in a challenging economic time. I think the Leader of the Opposition and myself both recognized that as we went through the campaign. We talked about it as we went through the campaign.

I felt we had a budget strategy that was achievable. It did call for the finding of savings of up to $1.9 billion. The opposition, in fact, thought they could find $3.2 billion. It did say: here's what we think our revenues should be. The opposition thought their revenues would be $600 million larger than that.

We're all working with the information that we have available. We went through the campaign. It is important, I think, to note that our staff had been working hard on the restrictive spending regime that we had in place. They were looking for savings. They felt it was a manageable number, and I felt it was manageable.

It did not in any way take away from the challenges that we knew we would face when we introduced the February budget. It actually simply reiterated the fact that we were going to have to make some very difficult decisions, as we went through this very challenging economic time, so we could come out on the other side of this economic downturn as a stronger economy, a more productive and more competitive economy that was able to provide excellent public services in a whole array of service departments across government.

C. James: Just again to quote from the Premier about what he was told on that call with his former deputy: "At the time she told me there were financial pressures. She'd also been informed by the Deputy Minister of Finance there were a number of measures he felt he could take that would allow us to meet our February budget." Could the Premier tell us what those measures were?

[ Page 2746 ]

Hon. G. Campbell: We did not have a detailed discussion about the ways that the deputy minister felt that we could deal with this. It was a general discussion that said that we believe we can meet these challenges.

[1520]

So yes, we did have revenue pressures. I was clear about those. They were about 0.5 percent of our revenues. We did have revenue pressures. We also had management in place and opportunities in place to actually meet those. Many of them were identified in the February budget, and they have been reflected in the September budget — for example, a 24 percent reduction in travel expenditures. That was about $18 million.

I want to be clear. This is what we got in terms of the briefing after the election. This was not something that was part of the conversation that we had. The conversation was very high level and relatively short. It was simply: "We have revenue pressures." I recognized that. "We believe that there are ways we can meet those revenue pressures with savings, and they would be in areas of travel savings, professional services, business and office expenses savings, advertising and publicity savings, and other areas of discretionary spending."

In fact, my recollection was that it was simply: "We believe that we can meet those." The Deputy Minister of Finance felt that he had a number of ways we could do that. We had highlighted those in the budget in February. We've continued with those as we've gone from the February budget on to the September budget.

C. James: I just want to go back to this issue again with the Premier, because it's, in fact, his words that say there were a number of measures that he felt he could take that would allow us to meet the February budget. The Premier says that it was a general conversation, but I ask again. That's a very specific phrase: "A number of measures." What were those measures?

Hon. G. Campbell: I have to reiterate some of the things I've said. It was a short discussion. It was a challenge, but it was a manageable challenge, and it was, frankly, a relatively small amount of money. We had the public sector at work on looking at those areas of discretionary spending that we had identified in the February budget, and that was effectively the extent of the conversation.

As I mentioned earlier, it was a much, much shorter conversation than this discussion. It was based on, I think, what we laid out in February and what had taken place and what our experience was from the past.

C. James: I'm just taking the Premier's words back to him, which were that there were a number of measures. I think it's important that the public understand the kind of information that the Premier was receiving, the kind of information that he didn't share with the public just a few days before the election.

You know, the Premier says in his quote that there were a number of measures he felt he could take. So there must have been some dialogue and some conversation with his deputy for him to be able to make the quote to say that there were a number of measures. So I ask again if the Premier could please tell me: what were those measures?

Hon. G. Campbell: I want to reiterate that this was a short conversation. The measures were identified in February: savings and discretionary spending. A number of areas similar to some of the areas that the opposition identified when they said they thought they could find $3.1 billion in savings — they were travel savings, professional services savings, office and business expenses savings, advertising and publication savings and discretionary grants savings. That's five broad areas that probably in my head I thought about.

[1525]

We did not have a discussion about how much more or whatever. That didn't take place. It was: "We're having a challenge with revenues, about $200 million to $300 million, and we have the management in place so that we think we can handle it."

C. James: The Premier says it included travel savings. Did the deputy, then, mention travel savings to the Premier?

Hon. G. Campbell: The deputy did not articulate a series of savings. She said there were things that we could do that would manage these costs, and that was the extent of the conversation.

Yes, we were having revenue challenges. We felt that they could be managed and that they might require challenging decisions. We knew that in February when we announced that we would have to find $1.9 billion in discretionary spending savings.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

C. James: Again, just so I'm clear, the Premier says that it wasn't a discussion about specifics. The deputy minister had just told the Premier a few days before the election that there were financial pressures in British Columbia, and the Premier says there were a number of measures, but he didn't have a conversation with the deputy about what those measures were? The Premier was just making them up?

Hon. G. Campbell: I want to be very clear about this. Yes, I was told that there was between $200 million and $300 million of revenue challenge that we had. There were a number of measures that could be taken. They had already been identified through the February budget. The staff was hard at work on those. I did not get

[ Page 2747 ]

a detailed briefing on those measures, but it was part of what the overall budget was in February.

Again, I have to reiterate, the conversation was primarily about H1N1. Any conversations that I had in that period of time were primarily about H1N1 and how we dealt with that public health risk.

C. James: Just again for the public, because I think it's important, the Premier received information about falling revenues on around May 7, as he recalls, and just to be clear, the Premier didn't do anything with that information.

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, if I can just reiterate, the conversations were generally about H1N1. There was a brief comment with regard to revenues and the potential to meet the challenge of those revenues. I didn't have a discussion with people about it. I didn't have a discussion with any other members of the staff.

I wasn't in a position where I could follow it through. There are very limited discussions that take place between the public service and those of us who are running for office at the time of an election. I really don't have much more that I can do to try to elucidate this for the Leader of the Opposition. I hope that's clear.

C. James: It appears that the Premier received the information that there were falling revenues, and the Premier didn't ask any questions, didn't ask any specifics, didn't ask for more information, didn't think that that information was important to share with the public and didn't feel that he should share that information or talk about the concerns with the Finance Minister. I think that's concerning and disturbing, I have to say, because of the kind of economic situation we're in and the worries that the public was having.

[1530]

Just another question around that May 7 briefing or the date that the Premier recalls. Was the HST talked about in that call?

Hon. G. Campbell: At the end of a discussion with regard to the H1N1, I was informed, with regard to the revenue pressure, that they were manageable.

I did not discuss that with anyone else. Why didn't I? Because I had confidence in the public service. Their record of performance with this government, I think, has been exceptional. It is recognized by outside agencies — not something that I claim for them. It's something that they have earned when they get a triple-A credit rating and are recognized internationally for the work they have done.

I did have confidence in them. It wouldn't have been appropriate for me to give them any kind of policy direction. It wouldn't have been appropriate to have a detailed, full-blown review. That wouldn't have been appropriate for me; it wouldn't have been appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition.

Finally, with regard to the HST, the answer is: no, that was not discussed at that time.

C. James: Just to the Premier, then: did he not feel it was appropriate to share with the people of British Columbia the concern around falling revenues?

Hon. G. Campbell: I actually did talk with British Columbians about the challenging economic times that we were confronting. I was very clear that the February budget was going to be a difficult budget for us to meet as we went through that.

It identified $1.9 billion of discretionary spending decisions that would have to be made. Again, I would note that we were not nearly as aggressive with that as the opposition was — who claimed, I think, $3.2 billion of discretionary savings. They also thought the revenues would be higher than we did. We were very conservative in those estimates.

I don't think anyone in May — or from April through to May, through the election campaign — didn't believe and didn't recognize we were in challenging economic times.

This is a relatively small amount that was manageable, and the advice…. Frankly, from my perspective it's the kind of thing that takes place in our budgets every year. So yes, we could manage it. I think we have an exceptional public sector that is able to manage those things in a way that's not just helpful but actually that British Columbians benefit from across the province.

C. James: No one disputes the wonderful people we have working in the public service. We have exceptional people who work in the public service and provide support to all of us in British Columbia. This is an issue around the public and what the public had a right to know.

These were difficult economic situations, as the Premier has said. Revenues were plummeting. The Premier had been informed a few days before the election that the revenues were plummeting. Didn't the Premier feel it was important for the public to hear that his $495 million deficit could be at risk?

Hon. G. Campbell: I guess what the challenge is, is that at that particular time I didn't feel — and the public service didn't feel — it was at risk. Yes, there were revenue challenges. Yes, they could be met. They were manageable. I think that was really the message: "Yes, we have revenue challenges; yes, they're manageable." That's what I knew.

[1535]

C. James: How would the Premier know that the public service felt that they could manage those challenges?

[ Page 2748 ]

Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned earlier, I was told by my deputy that we were facing some revenue challenges. She also told me that she felt, and she had been informed by the Deputy Minister of Finance, that those revenue challenges could be managed, and they were manageable. That did not mean it would be an easy budget. It was going to require difficult decisions, but they were manageable.

C. James: I'd just like to read a quote to the Premier: "It's dishonest to try and portray the books differently, and it's fundamental in our democracy that the taxpayers who elect us have a right to know what the bottom line is. They have the right to know what the true financial position of the government of the day is so that people can be held accountable."

Does the Premier agree with this statement?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think, obviously, it's important for the public to know what the bottom line and what many of the lines leading up to the government's bottom line are. The fact of the matter is that the bottom line didn't sound to me like it was going to change at that point. I think that it's been recognized, in fact — not again by people necessarily in government, but outside government — that we have managed our finances well in the province of British Columbia. That's why we've had successive credit rating upgrades through this last number of years.

I think it's also important to note that both before and after the election, before and after the September budgets, our triple-A credit rating has been recognized. Those things are because we do have a very transparent set of books. We are clear about the direction we're going in. We're clear about the initiatives we've undertaken. Our budgets are recognized for their transparency, and they will continue to be.

C. James: Just to remind the Premier, the quote actually said — speaking of the public: "They have the right to know what the true financial position of the government of the day is so that people can be held accountable." Those are the Premier's own words, spoken in this very House in 1996.

So I'd like to ask the Premier again, because this is an important and fundamental question for British Columbians: didn't he feel it was important to let the public know, as he says in his quote, the financial position of the government of the day and that the $495 million deficit could be at risk?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me say that I've tried to relay the conversations that I've had as best I can. I did not believe that the $495 million deficit was at risk. I felt that what we had put forward was achievable. I felt that for a significant period of time after the election. That did not mean that we didn't require to make difficult decisions, but it did mean it was achievable.

So the bottom line: the $495 million deficit, I believed, was achievable. I was clear with that with British Columbians. I was also clear with British Columbians that it would require us to make difficult decisions.

C. James: I guess, to sum up, the Premier says no, he didn't feel it was important to share the information with British Columbians. No, he didn't feel it was important to be up front about the fiscal situation of the day. I think that certainly leads to the cynicism and the kind of concern that you have out there in the public around budget issues.

[1540]

This was a difficult economic time. The public saw revenues shifting. They saw forecasters downgrading their predictions, yet the Premier continued up until the day of the election to say to the public: "It's $495 million maximum; protect health care and education." Yet he had information, on or about May 7, as he says, that told him revenues were in trouble.

I think it's very concerning that what we've heard here today is that the Premier didn't feel it was his job or his role nor important to share that information with the public.

In fact, that's part of the reason we brought forward a resolution, a private member's bill, around an independent budget officer. I've heard the Finance Minister's response. I'd like to ask the Premier to give a response around whether the Premier supports our call for an independent budget officer.

The Chair: In estimates, if I can remind the Leader of the Opposition, we do not allow the discussion of legislation.

Hon. G. Campbell: I'll just remind the Leader of the Opposition that this fall we had a full review of our budgeting process in British Columbia. It was a report that was authored by Douglas Enns and other people with regard to our budget process.

The process and the practices actually got a very strong review, a very positive review, from Mr. Enns. That was set up as a result of earlier legislation that had been passed.

It's important, also, to note that the budgets are signed off by the deputy of Finance. To reiterate the words of the Leader of the Opposition just a few minutes ago, we have excellent public servants in British Columbia, and their professionalism is beyond question.

We have a transparent process. We are GAAP-compliant. It's because of all of those things that we actually have a triple-A credit rating in British Columbia, the highest credit rating you can get in the country and the highest credit rating that's received among other

[ Page 2749 ]

provinces. That credit rating has just been confirmed for British Columbia.

I believe we have an open, transparent budget process. As I mentioned earlier, in the 2008-09 fiscal year, a time where we were suddenly buffeted by substantial winds of change in the global economy…. I can recall in 2008 having a briefing from the governor of the Bank of Canada, at the Council of the Federation, where he pointed out that he felt British Columbia was going to grow throughout the economic downturn. In fact, right up until September of 2008 we were informed that our province, unlike many others, was going to be able to go through this economically challenging time.

I think that we had a very clear budget statement in February. We have reiterated the directions we're trying to take in the budget that we are dealing with today. I think that budget is not just transparent and open, but it's my goal and objective to outperform our projections this year as we have in other years.

[1545]

C. James: Just to continue on and to comment on the Premier's comment about the civil service. Again, these aren't questions around the openness and transparency of the civil service. These are questions around the openness and transparency, or lack of, by this government and by this Premier.

I want to talk a little bit about how we got the information around the May 7 briefing, because I think this goes to the concern the public has around the lack of information that they get from this government on when they knew what, why they didn't share that information with the public.

We hear the Premier talking about being open and accountable, but we see just the opposite when it comes to finding information like this out. Even as late as September of this year, when the Premier was confronted with questions about the knowledge that he had around revenue pressures and the effect on the budget, the Premier denied any knowledge at all. This was all the way up until late September.

In fact, this is what the Premier said to reporters when he was first asked, and it's a quote from the Premier: "Well, I didn't know that. Did you know that? I did not know that. I was not frankly aware of what the impact was in terms of the revenue."

So, again, my question is to the Premier. Why did he claim ignorance at that point in time and claim he didn't know anything about changes in revenue?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me start by pointing out again that the review that was done was done in September with regard to the budget process that had taken place. If I was asked a question in September, I can tell you candidly that there were lots of things that I knew in September that I did not know in May or April or March or February. In fact, I think it's clear that most people didn't know what was going to take place between May and August and September of 2009.

Most people didn't know that the Canadian dollar was going to start a rapid climb between May and August of 2009. Most people didn't know that there was going to be a decoupling of natural gas revenues from oil revenues, which has been the traditional way that natural gas revenues have tracked. They decoupled this year.

Most people didn't know how corporations and personal individuals were going to use their tax losses in terms of the revenues that we would generate as a province. Most people didn't know what was going to be happening directly with regard to a number of our resource and commodity prices that we have depended on in our economy in British Columbia.

I never claimed in September that I knew everything that was going to happen by September back in May or in April. I don't think anyone does. I've been very clear. I have been as clear as I can be with regard to the discussions I had with regard to the potential challenges with revenue and the fact that they were manageable. I've been clear that it was a very short conversation. There's not much more I can offer to elucidate that in terms of these estimates.

I can say this, though. When Mr. Enns, who is a recognized expert in this field; David Baxter, a well-known British Columbia economist; Don Calder, who participated in the 1999 review of the budget processes; Colin Kinsley, a highly regarded municipal elected official; Jim Cutt, an economist and someone who's been recognized in not just British Columbia but across the country; Jill Leversage; and Alison Morse all say that we have a very transparent and open budget process, I think it's important to note that they're not passing a comment on the decisions that are made within the budget.

They are passing comment on how the budget is presented to the public and whether those who would like to know can find out and discover what's taking place.

Similarly, with our September budget we are very open with the challenges we faced. We were very open with the revenue challenges which became apparent as we came from the end of June out till August. I think that that's a critical component of any budget process.

It's clear when we had discussions with the public, with the legislative Finance Committee, that there are a number of ideas about how we could make better decisions or different decisions or encouraging us to make decisions. All of those are part of our budget process, all of which I think include the public, provide the public with information and allow people to make their choices about who is best able to manage our economy and our budgets as we go ahead.

[1550]

C. James: I have to say that the public will be scratching their head at that kind of response when, to use the

[ Page 2750 ]

worst example, the HST was not even talked about with the public. There's nothing open and transparent about the HST. There's nothing open and transparent about a government that said they weren't going to do something and turned around and did it, that said they were going to have a deficit of $495 million and ended up in the billions. There is nothing transparent about that. I think the public really will be wondering at that kind of response.

But just to take the Premier back again. On May 7, or thereabouts, the Premier has told us that his deputy told him that there were revenue pressures, that revenues were falling. When the Premier was asked in September about revenue falling, he said: "I didn't know that. Did you know that? I did not know that. I was not aware of the impact in terms of revenue."

My question, again, is to the Premier. He had a call on May 7. He did not acknowledge that call in September, when he was asked this question. In fact, it took a few weeks before he finally admitted it. Why did it take the Premier so long to be upfront about the briefing he received from his deputy?

Hon. G. Campbell: I've tried to relay what I knew and when I knew it, to the best of my ability. This was a manageable situation that we had. I believed that we could meet our budget projections of February 14 with a deficit of $495 million. I believed that because I was led to believe that.

[1555]

I think it was correct in terms of what took place between the time in May and later. There were a number of things that took place that I couldn't predict in May and that I didn't predict in May.

I don't have the entire conversation that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to, but my recollection of that conversation, as I said, had very similar comments to what I've had today.

C. James: Just to close off on this

section before we move on to the information the Premier had between the budget and the election, to ask the Premier again, then. He received information in May from his deputy. He was told that revenues were plummeting, that there were revenue pressures. He was asked in September, and he said he didn't know — that he didn't know that and he was not aware of the impact in terms of revenue — even though he'd received information in May.

Again, just to ask the Premier: why didn't he tell either the public or the press, when he was asked, that he in fact had received a briefing in May and had been told that revenues were pressured?

Hon. G. Campbell: I've tried to relay this as well as I can. From what I was informed, revenues were taking a 0.5 percent reduction. Those were manageable within the context of the budget that we'd set. That's what I knew at the time. That's what I said at the time. I've done the best I can to relay what I knew and when I knew it in the best way that I could. The bottom line wasn't changing. We were expecting to be able to meet the revenue targets that we'd set in the February budget in May.

C. James: I want to take a little bit of time now to go backwards in time, to be able to take a look at how the Premier was dealing with news that he received from the February budget until the election time period.

We've now confirmed that the Premier was told that revenues were plummeting in May by his deputy and that he didn't release that information until September. Now let's take a look at some of the forecasts and revisions that were being made during the time the budget was being formed and the election time period.

Some of these are public statements that came from forecasters, and some of these have come through freedom-of-information documents. I'll just start off with the first one for the Premier.

On February 3 Helmut Pastrick of Central 1 Credit Union stated, in communications with the Ministry of Finance: "If I could, I would lower my 2009 forecast. I am now at negative 1.5 percent real GDP. I trust the forecast allowance and contingency reserve are large."

So my question is to the Premier. You've now received information — it came in from Helmut Pastrick — that said you should have a large contingency allowance. Could the Premier tell us why there was not a large forecast allowance and contingency reserve in the February budget as recommended by Helmut Pastrick?

[1600]

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm glad to try and highlight this for the leader. I note that the Finance estimates have just concluded, so I imagine this was canvassed at that time, but let me try and do as good a job as I can for this.

We have a forecast council that's made up of 12 independent forecasters that comes forward with its recommendations. In February of this year the forecast council made a recommendation that their belief was that we'd have zero percent economic growth through the year. It was identified at that time by the Minister of Finance that we were being far more conservative than that. We projected for the February budget a 0.9 percent reduction in our forecasts.

I'll get this confirmed, but I believe that we have the forecast council come and meet and go through their forecasts sometime in December and then again sometime in September so that we can see how we're doing and how we're tracking in terms of our budgets. It may be more often than that, but those are the two times that I recall.

As one of them said, some of them are right some of the time, and most of them are wrong some of the time. No one has it dead right. That's why we have 12 independent forecasters that come together.

[ Page 2751 ]

We average those forecasts, and typically, this government has been on the conservative side of that. In February we were particularly conservative by saying that we expected that our economic growth would be minus 0.9 percent, as opposed to flat. We felt that provided some cushion for us as we went through the year. At that time, again, I can tell you that not just rating agencies but a number of commentators said that it was a conservative budget and that it was a sensible budget for us to move forward with.

The information that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is information that was available to her as she put forward her proposed budget for this year. Her proposed budget actually was based on ours, so she obviously felt we'd made sensible forecasts as well, basing on the forecast council that we had.

C. James: It's just interesting that the Premier mentions our election platform. In fact, we had predicted a larger deficit, a longer period of time, more revenue coming in, because we felt the situation was going to be much worse than the Premier was predicting and worse than he was telling the public. But many of these documents are in fact documents that we received through freedom of information, so they weren't public documents but were documents coming to government.

I think it's important to walk through these, because the Premier has said that he was looking at the economy. He was looking at the challenges in the economy — that it was his primary concern, that he as Premier was taking on that issue as a primary concern.

Just to read, again, another FOI document to the Premier that was received on February 6, which was 11 days before budget day. Robert Hogue of RBC e-mailed with a plea to change their forecast. He said: "Is it too late to submit a revised forecast? This morning's awful labour force survey numbers have changed the picture. We could do a quick update. We could send in a new table by the end of today. The outlook is increasingly dismal for B.C., unfortunately."

My question is to the Premier: what did you do when you received RBC's concern around downgrading their prediction?

[1605]

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't know if that letter was written to me or to the Minister of Finance. Typically, the forecast council deals directly with the Minister of Finance, not through the Premier or the Premier's office.

I know that the budget was set for February 17. It was probably out being printed at that time. I don't know all of the vicissitudes of that, but that's why they have Finance Ministry estimates. That would have been the time to discuss that. I'm sure that they did canvass those items under the Finance Ministry, which is the appropriate place for them to be discussed.

C. James: Yes, I'm sure the questions were asked in the Ministry of Finance. I believe it's important to ask the Premier what knowledge he had. As we know and as the Premier made in his statement, he is responsible for the economy, the budget that the government prepares and the impact that it has on the economy, so it is important for the public to know what knowledge the Premier had.

It also goes, again, to the questions we're asking around credibility, around what the Premier knew when, about what information was shared with the public. I believe that's part of the Premier's duty and responsibility when it comes to openness and transparency — to share that information with the public.

I'd ask the Premier, then: with this information coming in, with a change in RBC's forecast, did the Finance Minister share that information with the Premier? Did you have discussions about the ever-changing forecasts?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think that it is important. The Leader of the Opposition has asked what I knew. What I knew was that our forecast council had reported. What I knew was that we were actually being very conservative in terms of what the world looked like in February of 2009.

What I know since is that in fact, when that budget was put out, it received good reviews as being prudent and thoughtful in terms of what we were doing; where our additional expenditures were going — to health care and to education; where we thought we could do well in terms of managing our costs in terms of the discretionary spending.

I think it is important to note that these discussions and decisions are made by the Minister of Finance. In fact, they are signed off by the Deputy Minister of Finance to sort of reiterate the fact that we want to be sure that this has a professional eye in terms of the public. They should know that that's done.

The budget was presented to the public on February 17 to fairly significant reviews — not that there weren't people that said things were going to be worse. There were some people that said they were going to be better. On average, the forecast council said they expected zero. We projected for our budget a reduction in our economic growth by 0.9 percent.

I thought that was conservative, and we were very upfront and transparent about letting the public know that. I think that is why we had the kind of positive response to our budget that we did. It's likely one of the reasons why the opposition felt they could use our budget, which they called a fiscally prudent foundation, to build their budget on.

[1610]

C. James: I want to come back again to what the Premier knew. I understand that the budget is signed off

[ Page 2752 ]

and the forecasts are signed off by the deputy and the Finance Minister. I understand that, but this was a difficult economic time in British Columbia. The Premier was, I'm certain, involved in taking a look at the budget numbers, taking a look at the forecasts. This was a budget that was coming forward before an election campaign. I would imagine that the Premier would have been directly involved.

It wasn't simply one forecaster who was coming in, before the budget was finalized, with changes in their predictions. In fact, there were a number of forecasters who were bringing forward changes.

Just to let the Premier know another one. On February 10 — again, this was before the budget was finalized — a senior economist with CIBC World Markets wrote, again to say that they requested to revise a

section of the budget. I'll read it:

"Clearly, things are moving quickly in the wrong direction. While we can still see B.C. moving ahead, the weaker Canadian outlook includes a softer outlook for British Columbia in the coming year. We're shocked by the recent scale of job losses, the steep housing start drops in the province. We'll be lowering our B.C. forecast as a result.

"We haven't put anything in print, but we want to let you know that it's going to drop. If it's not too late, please change our forecast as described."

I understand, as the Premier said, that these forecasts went to the Finance Minister and that the Finance Minister took a look at them. But my question is: during this difficult economic time and the preparation of such a critical budget for our province — and, for the Premier, going forward in an election — was the Premier informed by the Finance Minister of these changes that were occurring in the forecast through these e-mails that were coming in?

Hon. G. Campbell: I've tried to answer this in the best way that I can. I was aware of the fact that we had a forecast council. I'm not the person that is involved with dealing directly with the forecast council.

I don't think either the opposition leader or myself didn't understand that we were facing a difficult and challenging economic time in 2009. We both did that.

In our budget we projected a reduction of 0.9 percent of our economic growth compared to what the forecast council had said, on average, across all 12. I do think it's important to note that our February budget was generally perceived to be relatively conservative in terms of those things. I actually operated on that with the….

The Finance Minister set his budget. We knew we were facing challenging economic times. That's exactly why, in the budget, we had to be clear with people and transparent that we were expecting we were going to have to face about $1.9 billion of discretionary savings if we were going to protect health care and public education funding as we went ahead. That's what the budget reflected.

I think it is important to note that the economic forecasters and our projections, obviously, for February were wrong. Sometimes they go down, and sometimes they go up. When they're going up quickly, you're generally looking back and saying, "Well, we didn't meet that" — right? I think everyone would look back at the year and say: "Gee, we wish we knew everything we know in November of 2009 in January or February of 2009."

The preparation of the budget is a challenging program to go through, as anyone who's been in government would tell you. It is prepared. Many difficult decisions have to be made by the Ministry of Finance and the Minister of Finance. It is then put forward to the public. All of the forecast allowances were clear there for the public to see.

Then we proceeded to make our choices. We chose to be more conservative than the average of the forecast council would have suggested. I can't speak to the specific letters that the opposition leader is referring to, but again, that's why we do have Finance estimates. That's why the Minister of Finance is available — to make sure that he can answer those questions. I'm not in a position where I can.

[1615]

What I knew was that we were actually being far more conservative than the economic forecasters were. What I knew was that we had to make some challenging decisions as we went forward if we were going to protect health care and education funding, and that's what our budget reflected.

C. James: Just so I'm clear. This isn't talking about the forecast council — to the Premier. These were changes that were being recommended to predictions that had already been put in by the forecast council. These were CIBC, RBC, BMO and Central Credit Union, which had all asked to downgrade their predictions.

I understand that the Minister of Finance would receive these and that the Minister of Finance would deal with these when it came to the budget, but my question is to the Premier, because I think it's fairly important. People expect and, particularly with this Premier, they understand that he's directly involved in decisions that are made by government.

Did the Premier not have discussions, and was he not aware that many of the members of the forecast council were in fact downgrading their predictions before the budget was tabled?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'll just reiterate to you, hon. Chair. These would have been preferable discussions to have in the Finance Ministry estimates. This was not covered in the Finance Ministry estimates, and I think it would have been far more informative to everyone had that taken place.

Let me say this. On December 4, I understand that the forecast council met. They discussed the economic situation in December. They were given a deadline by which

[ Page 2753 ]

they had to have their forecasts in so that we could finalize our budget numbers.

Three forecasters evidently came in after the budget that asked if they were able to change their numbers. Those numbers would not have changed our estimate, which was the largest single reduction in terms of forecasts that we'd had. We were projecting, as I had mentioned, a minus 0.9 percent economic growth,

whereas the average had been zero. It was the largest measure of prudence that we'd ever had in the province because we recognized the volatility.

In January of 2009, I had been quite explicit with people that there were significant revenue hits that we had already taken when we announced that we were going to have to put ourselves in a position where we had to go into a deficit. We knew there was volatility. We knew there were changes. The forecast council knew the deadline date, and we set our budget following the deadline date having been met with a level of prudence that far exceeded what had been there in the past to reflect the world we lived in, in February of 2009.

The Chair: Before I recognize the Leader of the Opposition, I wanted to remind her that under Standing Order 61, debate in Committee of Supply must be strictly relevant to the items under consideration.

[1620]

With respect to Vote 10, the Premier's estimates currently before the committee, it has been the practice of this committee to allow some latitude in debate on governmentwide policy and administration, but debate will not be allowed to canvass details associated with other ministries.

Leader of the Opposition, continue.

C. James: I appreciate the Premier providing the detail, but in fact, it wasn't the detail in my question, hon. Chair. The question was around what the Premier knew and how he was involved in these discussions — not the details around the budget, not the details around the forecast council. I understand that those are details that are dealt with in the Finance Ministry by the Minister of Finance and the Deputy Minister of Finance.

My question to the Premier was: did he have discussions with the Finance Minister about the fact that there were changes being sent in, before the budget was tabled, to downgrade the forecasts?

Hon. G. Campbell: I tried to answer that question before. I pointed out that I was aware of the fact that we were in a volatile economic time. I was aware of the fact that the forecast council had come forward and said that they were suggesting zeros.

The Finance Minister was not explaining to me the correspondence that he was having leading right up to the budget. The budget was set in an orderly, thoughtful and deliberate manner, including the forecast council. That was all very transparent when the budget was presented.

Again, I would say that the comments we received on the budget were that it was a responsible and conservative budget. It provided for a smooth transition from the recession to better economic times. It was a realistic budget for tough times. It was a responsible approach to dealing with a very difficult situation. Those were the sorts of comments that we received from people who looked at our budget subsequent to it being brought in.

There was a very conservative minus 0.9 percent forecast that was in place. That was very conservative in February. I'm the first to admit that it's not necessarily very conservative in November, when we know what we know today. When we knew what we knew then, it was conservative.

I knew there was a range of opinions from the forecast councillors. There always are. I was not informed directly that one or two might have wanted to change their positions after the deadline. I was aware that we were, in fact, still more conservative with our projected forecasts than the forecast council was — significantly more conservative.

I think the really important part of this was that those assumptions were there. The situation taking place in the world was there for all of us to see. We can all read economic reports, and we can all see the different banking institution reports or investment institution reports. The opposition, I'm sure, does that kind of homework, as we do as a government.

The opposition felt that we had prepared a responsible budget. They used that responsible budget as the foundation for their budget. The difference was that they actually were far more optimistic, suggesting that they could generate $600 million of additional revenues, and were far more, if you want to call it, optimistic in the savings they could find in government. They thought they could find over a billion dollars more in savings in the government.

Now, I'd love to hear what they think we should do that would add that billion dollars. We've been very rigorous in looking at our budgets as we came to September.

I also think it's important to note that our budget actually increases spending this year. In spite of the economically challenging times, it increases spending. It increases spending on health care, education, income supports, forest fire fighting, H1N1 flu. Overall, it is an expense-increasing budget, not a reduction budget.

It is something, I think, that was important as we went through the Febr