British Columbia Hansard — WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2005
20050216pm-Hansard-v27n9
British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
2005 Legislative Session: 6th Session, 37th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2005
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 27, Number 9
CONTENTS
Routine Proceedings
Page
Introductions by Members
Introduction and First Reading of
Bills
Thompson Rivers University Act (Bill 2)
Hon. I. Chong
Statements (Standing Order 25 B )
Rotary International
J. Nuraney
Tax incentive for use of public transit
J. Bray
Long-term care
K. Krueger
Oral Questions
Debate of budget estimates
J. Brar
Hon. C. Hansen
J. Kwan
J. MacPhail
Release of comptroller general report
on Columbia Basin Trust contracts
E. Brenzinger
Hon. R.
Neufeld
Debate of budget estimates
J. Kwan
Hon. C. Hansen
Motions on Notice
B.C. Judges Compensation Commission
recommendations (Motion 74)
Hon. G. Plant
Judicial Justices Compensation
Commission recommendations (Motion 75)
Hon. G. Plant
Second Reading of Bills
Attorney General Statutes Amendment
Act, 2005 (Bill 4)
Hon. G. Plant
Tabling Documents
British Columbia Government
Strategic Plan 2005/06-2007/08
Second Reading of Bills
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act,
2005 (Bill 3)
Hon. G. Plant
Budget Debate (continued)
J. MacPhail
V. Anderson
D. Jarvis
B. Lekstrom
K. Manhas
Hon. P. Wong
[ Page 11899 ]
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2005
The House met at 2:04 p.m.
Prayers.
[1405]
Introductions by Members
Hon. I. Chong: It is my pleasure to recognize in the
gallery distinguished members of Rotary International and also to proclaim
February 21 to 27, 2005, Rotary International Week.
Rotary International was founded in 1905 and now has over 1.2
million Rotary club members composed of professional and business leaders in
over 31,000 clubs in more than 165 countries. The service of Rotary clubs around
the world is exemplary, from working with the World Health Organization to
eradicate polio to being the world's largest privately funded source of
international scholarships to fundraising to send aid to developing nations
while still addressing needs of their individual communities. Their motto,
"Service above self," is true to form.
It is with great pleasure that I officially proclaim, on behalf of
the province, the week of February 21 to 27, 2005, as Rotary International Week.
We have in the gallery many guests who are Rotarians, but please join with me in
welcoming the district governors. They are Mr. Dick Drew, Mr. Ron Neukomm, Mr.
Gary Hollick, Mr. Derek Bottomley, Mr. Lloyd Gray, Mr. Bruce Christensen and
their respective clubs. Would the House please make them very welcome.
D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce four
special guests to this House today. Visiting from my riding of Surrey-Tynehead
is Mr. Rashpal Sidhu, owner of Fraserview Cedar Products sawmill. Visiting from
Ontario is Mr. Jaswinder Sidhu, who is a journalist. Also, visiting from India
are journalist Mr. Rajinder S. Taggar and Mr. Varinder Kumar, assistant
inspector general for the Punjab police. Would the House please join me in
making them very welcome.
Hon. G. Plant: I hope all members of the House will join
with me in welcoming to the gallery in the precincts today six distinguished
Richmond Rotarians — very accomplished citizens in their community and people
who help make the world work: Magdalen Leung, John Yap, Michael Chiu, David
Rogers, Gail Maida and Cynthia Chen.
Hon. P. Wong: Today in the gallery I would like to
acknowledge a special visitor from France, the newly appointed Ambassador of
France to Canada, His Excellency Daniel Jouanneau. This is the ambassador's
first official visit to our province. I am pleased he has travelled to British
Columbia to discover the many opportunities our beautiful province presents. He
is accompanied by his wife and by Mr. Jean-Yves Defay, the consul general of
France at Vancouver, and his wife. Would the House please make them all feel
very welcome. Merci beaucoup .
J. Reid: On behalf of my colleague from the North Island, I
would like to welcome the president and members from the Campbell River Rotary
Club. May the House make them welcome.
Hon. T. Christensen: Mr. Speaker, as you well know, for the
first time ever we actually know when the next election date is going to be here
in British Columbia. It's a real step forward in terms of transparency. Needless
to say, it also provides a great opportunity for British Columbia's students to
learn about the election process and to observe it and become involved.
Today it's my great pleasure to introduce to the House two
representatives from Student Vote. We have with us today Taylor Gunn and Lindsay
Mazuko. Their organization will be working in partnership with the Ministry of
Education as well as a number of other educational partners — including, I
believe, the BCTF, the principals and vice-principals, and the superintendents
association — to deliver an innovative educational program organized by youth
for youth.
[1410]
These are non-partisan instructional materials that they will
distribute to schools. I'm told that in the last two days alone more than 40
schools from across our province, from Kitimat to right here in Victoria, have
enrolled. It will allow students an opportunity to actually participate in the
election process, to cast a ballot at the same time that voters around British
Columbia are casting a ballot, and hopefully will provide an opportunity for
students to see the importance of the electoral process. They will, in fact,
vote once they are 18. Would you please join me in welcoming these two guests to
the House today.
J. Nuraney: I'm very pleased to introduce 25-plus members
of the Burnaby Rotary Club, who are with us today led by their president, Peter
Beynon.
Among the guests, I also have the president of my riding
association, Neil MacKay, and his wife, Jeanette. I would request the House to
please give a warm welcome to our guests.
K. Manhas: I'd like to introduce to the House today a
wonderful woman from my constituency of Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, Louise
Thorburn, who is here today meeting with the Minister of Community, Aboriginal
and Women's Services on behalf of students in Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port
Moody, Anmore and Belcarra.
She decided to come and take a look at us doing business in the
House. Louise heads up CLOC, the Coquitlam school district's continuing
education storefront school, on Westwood in my riding. She's helped many men and
women build a new start to their lives through her work. She's very involved in
our community. She's a strong woman who stands up for what she
[ Page 11900 ]
believes in. She's a fellow Rotarian at Rotary of Coquitlam Sunrise. She's a
wonderful person, and I'm glad to have her here. On behalf of my colleagues the
member for Port Moody–Westwood, Burquitlam and Coquitlam-Maillardville, I would
like to welcome her here. Would the House please make her welcome.
B. Kerr: The South Cowichan Rotary Club provides a
tremendous service to our community, and they're a great group of people. I
would like to introduce Elly Rugge from that club and her husband, Michael
Rugge, as a member of the Victoria Rotary Club. I would like the House to make
them both feel very welcome.
R. Sultan: I would like to introduce two distinguished
Rotarians: Otto Massey and Jacci Mctavish, who is also an active member in the
West Vancouver Coho Society, which is dedicated to the restoration of salmon and
steelhead, particularly in our North Shore rivers and streams.
R. Masi: On behalf of my colleague the member for Delta
South, I would like to introduce, from the Ladner Rotary Club, Graham Witcher
and Brenda Sheen.
From my riding of Delta North, I have visiting today Mr. Pio
Mason, the vice-president of our local association, accompanied by his wife,
Joan. Also with them are Dorothy Giles, a longtime party supporter and family
friend, as well as Dorothy's friend, Enid Herbert. Would the House please make
them all welcome.
D. Hayer: On behalf of all my colleagues from Surrey as
well as Surrey–White Rock, I would like to welcome all the members of Rotary
from Surrey who do a great job, as well as our district governor, Gary Hollick,
who also does a great job. Would the House make them all very welcome.
Hon. G. Bruce: I tremble as I rise for fear of what I may
say, but with the Clerk nodding approvingly, I would like to acknowledge the
Rotarians from my community. Mr. Speaker, I hope that you won't rule me out of
order for being repetitious, but the Rotarians in my community do a tremendous
job, as we know they do in all of the communities throughout British Columbia.
Would the House please make them welcome as well.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
Hon I. Chong presented a message from Her Honour the
Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Thompson Rivers University Act.
[1415]
THOMPSON RIVERS UNIVERSITY ACT
Hon. I. Chong: I move that Bill 2 be introduced and read a
first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. I. Chong: On March 19, 2004, the Premier announced
that the University College of the Cariboo would be transformed into a
special-purpose university. On September 22, 2004, the Premier announced that
the name for the newly created university would be Thompson Rivers University.
This name was chosen from a list of 171 suggestions, as it reflects the
geographical region that the university is intended to serve.
This bill being introduced today will establish the legislative
framework on which the Thompson Rivers University will be built. It will merge
the former University College of the Cariboo with components of the Open
Learning Agency to create a special-purpose university that aims to meet the
needs of the region as well as provide a variety of on-line and distance
education learning opportunities for the province.
This bill establishes a university council which will possess many
of the duties and powers of the senate under the University Act. In addition,
the legislation provides for the creation of a planning council for open
learning, which will implement the provincial open learning mandate and set
admission and residency requirements for the open learning
section of the
university.
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 2 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)
ROTARY INTERNATIONAL
J. Nuraney: February 23 will mark the 100th year of Rotary.
Rotary was founded in Chicago by an attorney named Paul Harris. The name Rotary
derived from the early practice of rotating meetings among members' offices. In
the decade that followed, Rotary's popularity spread rapidly throughout the
United States. Later the organization was renamed Rotary International and
assumed an international stature when it admitted foreign chapters in six
countries, including the first Canadian
chapter in Winnipeg in 1912.
As Rotary grew, its mission expanded beyond serving the
professional and social interests of club members. The organization's dedication
to humanitarian causes is best expressed in its principal motto, which says
"Service above self." Rotary later adopted a code of ethics called the four-way
test, which has been translated into dozens of languages around the world.
Among Rotary's numerous international humanitarian and educational
programs, eradication of polio worldwide stands out as its best achievement.
Millions of children have been immunized against this debilitating disease.
[ Page 11901 ]
I've had the pleasure of not only being a member of the Burnaby
Rotary Club but also the privilege of being president of that club for a while.
I have experienced and seen the impact that Rotary has and what it has made in
my community. I have enjoyed the camaraderie and the friendship of the club.
Over the years, I am proud to say that Burnaby Rotary Club has launched various
initiatives including an outreach program that feeds hungry children and
establishing and maintaining a residence for people with disabilities.
Recently we helped establish a project called Clubfoot in several
developing countries including Uganda, Malawi and Mozambique. This project
corrects defects in children born with club feet and helps them to walk.
Rotary has played an important role in my life, and I take this
opportunity to wish all my fellow Rotarians a happy 100th anniversary.
TAX INCENTIVE FOR USE
OF PUBLIC TRANSIT
J. Bray: In the last year, the Victoria community has done
a great deal of work around what the future of the city and region might look
like in the years ahead. One of the areas of focus has been looking at how to
improve downtown transportation. One of the key ingredients to improvements that
were identified was increasing the number of commuters who use public transit as
their choice for coming in and out of downtown. Better service, more routes,
more night buses, etc., are all potential options.
[1420]
I would like to focus on an idea that has been proven in other
jurisdictions to improve ridership among car-owning commuters. The idea would be
to make employer-provided bus passes tax-exempt. Currently, if an employee were
to receive a bus pass from their employer, it would be viewed as a taxable
benefit — thus making it a costly option, especially if the employee owns a
vehicle and has a free parking space at work. This option would level the
playing field for employer-supported commuter options.
The U.S. has passed legislation that allows for these
employer-provided bus passes to be tax-exempt. Quebec is currently reviewing
this option. Studies have shown that this form of tax change can increase
ridership by as much as 16 percent.
I believe that B.C. should take a lead in encouraging the federal
government to make this change and to amend our own tax rules accordingly.
Victoria and, indeed, every urban centre in Canada need to find real ways of
encouraging more people to move from their cars to public transit. For Victoria
there are the obvious environmental benefits from commuting by public transit,
but there are also benefits to the movement of goods and services throughout our
downtown core. It reduces wear and tear on the infrastructure and makes downtown
a friendlier and quieter place for tourists and residents alike. I'll continue
to work with my community to find real solutions to move more of us from our
cars to public transit.
LONG-TERM CARE
K. Krueger: Big union boss Jim Sinclair, who wants to be
the unelected Premier of British Columbia again, as he was in the nineties, is
making it clear he wants this province's clock turned back.
To consider the state of seniors care in British Columbia at that
time, I'd like to read from a November 2000 press release from the NDP brain
trust, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. You remember, the NDP were
so fond of these people that on their way out the door, they gave them $200,000
from British Columbia taxpayers' funds. This is what they reported about the
NDP: "Community and continuing care has been seriously eroded over the past
decade. Hospital stays declined by almost half in the 1990s with no parallel
investment in community and continuing care. Between 1994 and 1999 the number of
public long-term care beds fell by 18 percent." Even the NDP's friends could not
believe how badly the government treated our seniors during their decade of
misused power.
We conducted the first-ever review of seniors care facilities in
2002, and the results were dismaying. The average age of seniors facilities was
more than 30 years old. They were overcrowded. Seniors were forced to share
small washrooms and live in buildings with poor security or none. The facilities
were unable to respond to basic care needs such as mechanical lifts and
wheelchair access. Staff were being injured as a result.
The conditions the NDP left our seniors in were deplorable. Even
worse, they had absolutely no plan or desire to improve those facilities. Before
we reformed the health care system in B.C., the average wait time for a senior
to get into a residential care facility was one year. Now it is down to between
60 and 90 days.
In a 100-day period recently, the interior health authority
tracked the complaints about seniors placement, and there were only seven
complaints in 100 days. The NDP failed to build any continuing care or extended
care beds in our whole health region in their entire ten miserable years in
power. We're on our third new facility in Kamloops, and I'm tremendously proud
of the record of this government in seniors care.
Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements.
Oral Questions
DEBATE OF BUDGET ESTIMATES
J. Brar: The Premier pledged before the last election to
create the most open, democratic and accountable government in Canada — a
promise made and a promise broken. Will the Minister of Finance tell us: what is
in the quarter-billion-dollar pre-election slush fund?
Hon. C. Hansen: I'm glad the member for Surrey–Panorama
Ridge acknowledged the commitment that was made by this government to make this
government the most transparent ever. In fact, we've actually won awards for the
move that we've done to generally
[ Page 11902 ]
accepted accounting principles and the fact that we now have the most
transparent budget process that has ever been in this province. No longer can we
see in British Columbia the kind of fudge-it budgets that we saw during the NDP
years.
There is budget allocated for the coming year to the various
ministries of government, and that is going to allow those ministries to expend
funds over the 12 months of the fiscal year. In due course, all of those details
will be made available to the member.
[1425]
Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge has a
supplementary question.
J. Brar: Mr. Speaker, you know, I didn't ask that question
to ask what is the decision of the government or what the policy of the
government is. The question is very simple. The minister plans to spend a
quarter of a billion dollars before the election, and he won't even tell us what
it is for. Yesterday in the lockup…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Please, hon. members. Quiet, please.
J. Brar: …he assured British Columbians that every line of
the budget will get debated in estimates, ministry by ministry, line by line.
Will the Minister of Finance make this same commitment to British Columbians
again today, or is this…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
J. Brar: …another B.C. Liberal flip-flop?
Hon. C. Hansen: I just remind the member — he may not be
aware of some of this history — that his colleague from Vancouver-Hastings
actually introduced something in this House, to the province, called a mental
health plan — $125 million. Guess what. It wasn't funded.
Actually, Corky Evans, when he was running for the leadership of
the NDP…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. C. Hansen: …acknowledged that they had made an
announcement for which…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. C. Hansen: …there was no approved funding.
The member is not correct when he says that there's a quarter of a
billion dollars in the Ministry of Small Business and Economic Development that
would be spent before the end of the year. Everything that would be spent before
the end of the year is itemized in the supplemental estimates that are in the
budget documents. Those supplemental estimates will be presented to the House
and will be debated. The member can have a chance to ask whatever questions he
wants then and to vote yes or no.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge has a
further supplementary.
J. Brar: Yet another broken promise — a very fresh one. It
took less than 24 hours to break this one.
Again to the minister: how can he justify pouring a
quarter-billion dollars into a slush fund for Liberal MLAs without a full and
complete debate in the Legislature?
Hon. C. Hansen: I acknowledge that the member is a new
member, but the way the process works is that you actually come with the
estimates for spending by the ministries. Those were presented yesterday; they
were made public. The member can go through that.
What we will do is ask for the approval of the Legislature before
money gets spent — unlike what happened under the NDP government, where they
relied on supplemental estimates that did not go through full legislative debate
before the money was spent.
That is the way the process works. That's the way it should have
worked under the NDP. We are living up to those obligations.
J. Kwan: Let's understand what's going on. The B.C.
Liberals bring on an election budget that few believe and hide a
quarter-billion-dollar secret slush fund in fine print. A budget that does not
meet the commitment….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the member for Vancouver–Mount
Pleasant has the floor.
J. Kwan: A budget that does not meet the commitment on
long-term care beds…. Now they want to run away from this place as fast as
possible to hit the campaign trail with no scrutiny. Why is the Minister of
Finance afraid to debate his budget in this House before May 17? What is he
running from? What is he afraid of?
Hon. C. Hansen: I want to take the member back a little bit
in history to 1996. It was actually the first election that I stood for election
and the first time that she stood for election. In that election, actually, a
Premier of the day by the name of…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, let us hear the answer to the
question, please.
[ Page 11903 ]
Hon. C. Hansen: …Glen Clark brought in a budget and then
did not even allow one day of debate in this Legislature before calling an
election.
[1430]
The rules of this House provide for six days of debate on the
budget. That will happen. The members can make a decision. They can either vote
for this budget at the end of the six days, or they can vote against it. I would
caution that if they vote against it, they do so at their peril, given the great
feedback that we're getting on this budget from every corner of British
Columbia.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a
supplementary question.
J. Kwan: Well, there's a revelation: the Minister of
Finance's new standards — that he will be just like Glen Clark. Let me quote the
new-era commitment.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
J. Kwan: That's the new standard for this Minister of
Finance.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Order, please.
[Mr. Speaker rose.]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Let us hear the
questions and the answers.
[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]
J. Kwan: Let me quote the New Era document: "Our
plan will deliver real, transparent, accountable government."
To the members: you live and die by your own swords.
To the Minister of Finance: if that was the promise, why is he
afraid to debate his pre-election budget line by line, before May 17?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the answer.
Hon. C. Hansen: Today is the first of those six days of
debate, and I know I'm anxious to hear as much of the NDP's contribution as
possible.
I made a commitment in the lockup that the supplemental estimates
for the moneys that would be spent this year would be debated line by line. I
also indicated that I know there is going to be the full six days of debate,
unlike what we saw in 1996 when Glen Clark pulled the pin and called an election
before there could be debate in this Legislature.
J. MacPhail: This government is going to have to run on its
own record and is scared to death. They're so scared that they're invoking the
names of people from the past that they have ridiculed and denigrated, and
they're now embracing those people. Shame on them.
Here's what the Premier said….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.
J. MacPhail: Here's what the Premier said after '96, '97,
'98. Here's what he said in 2001. I quote the Premier: "We will act boldly and
decisively to open up government."
The opposition has questions on long-term care. There isn't one
Liberal MLA who will address that. We have questions on overspending in the
Ministry of Management Services. We have questions on B.C. Liberal mismanagement
on children in care.
To the Minister of Finance: there won't be one Liberal MLA that
will address those issues during the six days. Why will you not commit to having
a full line-by-line debate? We've got plenty of time. Why are you afraid to have
your budget scrutinized?
Hon. C. Hansen: I have no doubt that my colleagues in this
chamber from all parts of the province will be engaging in a rigorous debate
over these six days of budget debate on all of the subjects that she has talked
about.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary
question.
J. MacPhail: There won't be one Liberal MLA who asks
questions about the unprecedented expansion in gaming. There won't be one
Liberal MLA who asks why the debt is going up under this government.
Here's what the Premier said in 2001 after he was sworn in.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
J. MacPhail: "We think openness beats hiddenness every
time, and we want to be sure that people can see what's taking place." What the
Premier forgot to say was: "Except if it's 90 days before an election and we
want to hide a quarter-of-a-billion-dollar slush fund."
To the Government House Leader: will he stand up and live up to
his responsibility as Government House Leader and ensure that every line of this
budget is debated in the full light of day by April 15?
[1435]
Hon. C. Hansen: What was presented yesterday to the public
— up on the website, can be viewed from
[ Page 11904 ]
anywhere around the world — is the most transparent set of budget documents
that have ever been produced in British Columbia.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. C. Hansen: No longer can any government in this
province get away with the kind of fudge-it budgets we saw in the 1990s. I would
refer the member to page 136 of the estimates book — which her colleague called
fine print, but it is all there. It's out….
Interjection.
Hon. C. Hansen: Well, it's….
Mr. Speaker, I would actually refer the member back to her own
budget that she brought in in 1996 — or 1999, was it? — where she actually sets
out spending for the various ministries that they can then draw against as they
make decisions and make announcements during the coming fiscal year. This year
is no exception.
RELEASE OF COMPTROLLER GENERAL
REPORT ON COLUMBIA BASIN TRUST
CONTRACTS
E. Brenzinger: I keep hearing the word "transparent." My
question is to the Minister of Energy. Seven months ago it was reported in the
Trail Times that this government was investigating over $1.5 million in
contracts awarded by Columbia Basin Trust to the ZE PowerGroup. Ken Epp, who is
the CEO of Columbia Basin Trust, also works for ZE Power. Thus we have the boss
of Columbia Basin Trust also doing the work that the same company's largest
supplier, ZE Power, which is a perceived conflict of interest….
Can the Minister of Energy please inform the House why Mr. Epp has
not been suspended, and can the minister please inform the House when we can
expect the report from the office of the comptroller general — hopefully before
the election — to be publicly released?
Hon. R. Neufeld: The member is quite right. There is an
investigation going on in the hiring by the Columbia Basin Trust, I want to tell
you, of Mr. Ken Epp and ZE Power. That's being fully investigated, and I hope
that report is out fairly soon. I'd like to have it out sooner than later.
DEBATE OF BUDGET ESTIMATES
J. Kwan: It is this Liberal government who put in fixed
election dates. It is this government who put in a fixed calendar. There is
plenty of time to engage in line-by-line estimates debate for this pre-election
budget. There are only 74 Liberal MLAs and three opposition members and two
independents. There is every opportunity to engage in this debate.
I ask this question of the Minister of Finance: what is he afraid
of? Why won't he debate estimates? Why won't he engage in estimates debate line
by line before May 17?
Hon. C. Hansen: I actually think one of the more
fundamental questions that needs to be asked is: where is the leader of the NDP?
Where is she hiding? You know, she had an opportunity….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Order, please. Order.
Let us hear the answer.
Hon. C. Hansen: The leader of their party had the
opportunity to seek a seat in this Legislature and decided to run instead. Now
she's not there. I think the question a lot of British Columbians are asking is
why their leader isn't in this House to be part of these coming six days of
budget debate.
[End of question period.]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Orders of the Day
Hon. G. Plant: I call Motion 74 standing in my name
in the orders of the day.
Motions on Notice
B.C. JUDGES COMPENSATION
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Hon. G. Plant: I move Motion 74.
[That the Legislative Assembly reject five recommendations of the
Report to the Attorney General of British Columbia and the Chief Judge of the
Provincial Court of British Columbia, pursuant to
section 5 (3) of the
Judicial Compensation Act, Final Report of the 2004 British Columbia Judges
Compensation Commission, as laid before this Assembly on October 7, 2004 and
again, pursuant to
section 6 (1) (
c) of the Judicial Compensation Act, on
February 9, 2005, for reasons outlined in Response to the 2004 Report of the
Judges Compensation Commission filed in this House February 9, 2005, pursuant
section 6 (2) of the Judicial Compensation Act.
1. The recommended salary increase for
January 1, 2004 until March 31, 2005 of an amount based on the change
in the British Columbia CPI (the "BC-CPI") over the period of January 1, 2003
- December 31, 2003, is rejected as unreasonable and unfair. The substitute
provision is zero increase for January 1, 2004 - March 31, 2005.
2. The recommended salary increase for fiscal
year 2005/06 in the amount of the change in the BC-CPI from January 1,
2004 - March 31, 2005 is rejected as unreasonable and unfair. The substitute
provision is zero increase for fiscal year 2005/06.
[ Page 11905 ]
3. The recommendation that salary differentials
for the Chief Judge and Associate Chief Judges be retained when
they leave office and resume duties as regular Provincial Court Judges is
rejected as unreasonable and unfair. The substitute provision is that salary
differentials will not be retained when an incumbent leaves office as Chief
Judge or as an Associate Chief Judge.
4. The recommendation that, effective January 1,
2004, the judges' allowance for professional development be
raised from $2000 to $3000 per judge per annum, and a one-year carry over of
any used portion of the allowance be permitted is rejected as unreasonable and
unfair. The substitute provision is that, effective April 1, 2005, the judges'
allowance for professional development be raised from $2000 to $3000 per judge
per annum and a one-year carry over of any unused portion of the allowance be
permitted.
5. The recommendation that the professional
development allowances continue to be administered through the Chief
Judge's Office, subject to his or her sole discretion to approve incidental
expenses incurred by a judge for the fit and proper execution of his or her
office is rejected as unreasonable and unfair. The substitute provision is
that effective April 1, 2005, subject to the discretion of the Chief Judge and
administered through the Office of the Chief Judge, the professional
development allowance may be used to reimburse the following expenses incurred
by a judge for professional development related to the duties of a Provincial
Court Judge:
a. Books, periodicals and subscriptions;
b. Computer software;
c. Internet access fees;
d. Professional association membership dues;
e. Courses, seminars and conferences
including travel and expenses incidental to attendance.
That the Legislative Assembly accept the
remaining recommendations contained in the Report to the Attorney
General of British Columbia and the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of
British Columbia, pursuant to
section 5 (3) of the Judicial Compensation Act,
Final Report of the 2004 British Columbia Judges Compensation Commission.]
[1440]
In addition to moving Motion 74, I also move the amendment as
follows:
[I move that Motion 74 standing in my name on the Order Paper be
amended as follows:
1. By substituting the date "February 14, 2005" for the date
"February 9, 2005" wherever it appears in the first paragraph of the said
motion.
2. By substituting the word "unused" for the
word "used" in the first sentence of paragraph no. 4 of the said
motion.]
On the amendment.
Hon. G. Plant: I tabled a copy of those amendments with the
Clerk just now. The amendments merely address clerical errors made in the
preparation of the text of Motion 74.
Amendment approved.
On the motion as amended.
Hon. G. Plant: I want to say a word or two about Motion 74
and also about Motion 75, in a sense, in anticipation.
The two motions that I hope we will have an opportunity to pass —
certainly, that we will have an opportunity to debate this afternoon — speak to
important aspects of our judicial system in British Columbia. One of the most
fundamental aspects of our judicial system is the idea of judicial independence.
The idea of judicial independence is both critical to a functioning democracy
and also, in some respects, challenging when it comes to the determination of
such matters as the remuneration to be paid to judges and other judicial
officers.
The principle of judicial independence is rooted in our
constitution, and it has been repeatedly reaffirmed in judgments of superior and
appellate courts across the country, including the Supreme Court of Canada. In a
decision in 1997 the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed, established and
elaborated some principles around the processes that must be followed for a
determination of compensation and matters like salary and benefits for judicial
officers — for judges, for judicial justices of the peace.
Those processes include the appointment of compensation
commissions and the submission of reports by those commissions. Then there is
set out in legislation a carefully structured process that gives the Legislature
the opportunity to decide either to accept the recommendations of those
commissions or to reject them, and to reject them in whole or in part. There are
some requirements that have to be met if the recommendations are to be rejected,
and the primary requirement is a consideration of the question of whether the
recommendations are unfair or unreasonable.
Responding to reports by judicial compensation commissions imposes
an onerous obligation on government. We have to, on the one hand, discharge our
fundamental obligation of ensuring that we maintain discipline over public
expenditures, that we reflect the important priorities that are established for
us as government by the people of British Columbia. But at the same time, we
also have to respect the processes that have been established for the
determination of judicial compensation issues.
We are trying to discharge that as a government with the two
motions that I have put on the orders of the day, one of which we are debating
in an amended form now. We have worked long and hard to try to do justice to the
issues. The issues are not easy. We have tried to be fair-minded, reasonable and
thoughtful about our response to these important reports.
The details of our reasoning in relation to these issues are
contained in the response documents that I filed on February 14, when I filed
the notices of motion. I won't take a lot of time now; in fact, I won't attempt
to improve upon the reasoning set out in those responses. I do want to say
something about the Provincial Court of British Columbia and, indeed, about all
judicial officers in the province. But since we're talking first here about the
Provincial Court, let me say something about that court.
[ Page 11906 ]
[1445]
I think British Columbians can be rightly proud that we are served
by a Provincial Court judiciary that is innovative, that is responsible and that
serves the public interest in a very, very important way day by day in the
courts of British Columbia to a very, very high standard of excellence.
I know I personally am very proud to have spent the last three and
a half years in the role of Attorney General, with the opportunity to deal with
the Provincial Court judiciary on the issues where we do have to deal with each
other from time to time. The Provincial Court is interested in making sure that
the justice system serves the interests of British Columbians. They are
open-minded about innovation. They know that what is required and asked of them
is that they do justice according to law, and day after day in thousands of
cases in courtrooms across the province, that is exactly what our Provincial
Court judges do.
They do it under intense public scrutiny. Although the vast
majority of the cases that are decided go without much public notice, there are,
week after week — and sometimes it feels like night after night, on the nightly
news — cases that get an enormous amount of public scrutiny. Unlike almost all
the rest of us in society, judges don't have the usual opportunity that we all
have as citizens to respond to criticism.
If someone criticizes me for something that I've done in my public
capacity or criticizes a citizen for something that they do, you can write a
letter to the editor. I can write a letter to the editor; I can stand on the
street corner and defend what I've done. I can knock on my neighbour's door and
say: "You know, I think you've got it wrong."
We don't let judges do that. Judges speak through judgments that
they deliver from the bench. In fact, in the courtrooms of British Columbia
judges deliver judgments day after day. They have heard the evidence, they have
heard the argument, and they deliver judgment right then and there. They do a
great job of doing it. They do it knowing that what they are doing is going to
be subject to intense scrutiny.
When I talk about intense scrutiny, I have to say that most of the
time the scrutiny is less well-informed than it could be. It's informed by brief
media accounts that gloss over a few facts in order to highlight what is
sensational about them and ignore the detail which actually informs the
reasoning that underlies the decisions that have been made.
I know I've had many experiences where people have expressed
concerns to me about decisions as they've understood them from newspaper
headlines or from other accounts. Then they have an opportunity to read the
decisions, and they realize that judges actually do a pretty darned good job of
trying to wend their way through complicated facts, apply complicated law and
render justice in cases that are presented before them.
I think that British Columbians are enormously well served by our
Provincial Court judiciary. That doesn't mean for a moment that we can accept
the status quo of how our justice system is organized and leave it be. As I say
and have said many times, the status quo of how we do things is never anything
more than last week's answer to last year's problems. We always need to be
engaged in the search for better ways to meet the interests and needs of
citizens, and for as long as I have the opportunity to be a part of that search
for meaningful access to justice, I will certainly do that. I know that the
leadership in the Provincial Court in British Columbia are also fully engaged in
that important endeavour.
We also have to make tough decisions about issues of compensation
and remuneration. I don't mean to back away from the fact that those are tough
decisions. We've tried to strike a balance here in the recommendations that
we've brought forward for the consideration of this House. I commend those
recommendations for the consideration of the House. I think they strike a
balance that is fair and that is reasonable, and I look forward to the comments
of other members on the debate of this amended motion.
Motion as amended approved.
J. Bray: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
[1450]
Introductions by Members
J. Bray: I just noticed that joining us in the gallery is
someone from my community in Victoria, Garth Yoneda. Garth has been working with
underemployed and non-employed Victorians for many years in various programs,
including Work Streams and HardHats, that make a real difference in the lives of
underemployed Victorians — a great success rate and a great community person.
I'd ask that the House please make Garth very welcome.
Hon. G. Plant: I call Motion 75 standing in my name on the
orders of the day.
Motions on Notice
JUDICIAL JUSTICES COMPENSATION
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Hon. G. Plant: I move Motion 75.
[That the Legislative Assembly reject four recommendations of the
Report of the Judicial Justices Compensation Committee, September 1, 2004 as
laid before this Assembly on October 7, 2004 and again, pursuant to
section 6
(1) (
c) of the Judicial Compensation Act, on February 9, 2005, for reasons
outlined in Response to the 2004 Report of the Judicial Justices Compensation
Commission filed in this House February 9, 2005, pursuant to
section 6 (2) of
the Judicial Compensation Act.
[ Page 11907 ]
1. The recommended salary increase for
January 1, 2005 until March 31, 2005 from $73,872 to $75,600 is
rejected as unreasonable and unfair. The substitute provision is zero increase
for January 1, 2005 - March 31, 2005.
2. The recommended salary for fiscal year
2005/06 of $75,600 is rejected as unreasonable and unfair. The
substitute provision is zero increase for fiscal year 2005/06.
3. The recommendation that a senior Judicial
Justice program salary be developed, modelled on the senior judge
program for Provincial Court Judges, is rejected as unreasonable and unfair.
4. The recommendation that the Chief Judge
have the discretion to approve or disapprove all expenditures of the
allowance and guidelines be put in place with respect to the appropriate use
of the funds is rejected as unreasonable and unfair. The substitute provision
is that effective April 1, 2005, subject to the discretion of the Chief Judge
and administered through the office of the Chief Judge, the professional
development allowance may be used to reimburse the following expenses incurred
by a Judicial Justice for professional development related to the duties of a
Judicial Justice:
a. Books, periodicals and subscriptions;
b. Computer software;
c. Internet access fees;
d. Professional association membership dues;
e. Courses, seminars and conferences
including travel and expenses incidental to attendance.
That the Legislative Assembly accept the
remaining recommendations contained in the Report of the Judicial
Justices Compensation Committee, September 1, 2004.]
I also have an amendment to Motion 75. It is in the
following terms:
[I move that Motion 75 standing in my name on the Order Paper be
amended by substituting the date "February 14, 2005" for the date "February 9,
2005" wherever it appears in the first paragraph of the said motion.]
On the amendment.
Hon. G. Plant: By way of explanation, the amendment is
intended to deal with a clerical mistake in the text of the motion that I filed
at the beginning of this week.
May I also say that the province of British Columbia is also very,
very well served by the men and women who serve as judicial justices of the
peace, and what I said about judges is true of judicial justices. It is equally
difficult to deal with these issues of compensation and remuneration, but I hope
that the document that I tabled earlier this week, which is the government's
response to the report of the Judicial Justices Compensation Commission, will
assist members of the public in understanding government's reasoning. I commend
it to members in support of the recommendations and the motion that is before
the House.
Amendment approved.
Motion as amended approved.
Hon. G. Plant: I call second reading of Bill 4.
Second Reading of Bills
ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2005
Hon. G. Plant: I move the bill be now read a second time.
Bill 4 contains amendments to statutes that are the responsibility
of the Attorney General. The intention of these amendments is to provide greater
flexibility and efficiency in several areas, and I am particularly happy about
one set of amendments that should improve the way in which child support is
administered in British Columbia.
These are amendments to the Family Relations Act that will provide
statutory authority for establishing a new cost-effective administrative process
for recalculating child support amounts on a regular basis based on income
changes. Other amendments to the Family Relations Act will allow the child
support service, which is referred to in these amendments, to use search powers
to locate a payer or a recipient for the purpose of recalculating a child
support order.
These changes will allow us to establish a pilot project, and they
are intended to save payers and recipients of support the time and money of
applying to court to vary child support orders when the payer's income changes.
These changes will also reduce the number of court applications to vary child
support based solely on a change in the payer's income.
Children will benefit from an increase in child support when the
payer's income increases, and payers whose income decreases or is reduced will
benefit from child support orders that more accurately reflect their ability to
pay. Administering these changes more effectively without the need to go to
court to get a variation in every case should reduce the number of child support
orders that fall into arrears and then need to be enforced.
[1455]
I want to say that it is important to keep two things in mind.
First, this is a purely administrative process. There will be no exercise of
judicial discretion involved. Secondly, it only deals with changes in income.
It really is tied very closely to the way the child support
guidelines operate. The child support guidelines help identify the amounts of
support that have to be paid, based on levels of income. The point of the
administrative process contemplated here is that if all that's happened is
someone's income has gone up, all that should be required is to go to the
requisite
section of the child support guidelines and determine what the new
amount of child support should be at that level of income. If it's as simple as
that, then the administrative process will allow the new level of support to be
implemented without the need to go to court and make a full application to vary
support levels.
Conversely, if a payer's income falls, then the payer should be
able to reduce the amount of support that is required to be paid, by reference
to the child support guidelines. There will also be the implementation of
[ Page 11908 ]
those changes without the need to go to court. For any other changes, where
an exercise of judicial discretion is needed, parents will still be able to
apply to court to vary their child support orders as they do now. The details of
the operation of the scheme will be set out in regulations to the act.
Bill 4 also amends the Legal Services Society Act to allow the
Legal Services Society to include in an upcoming year's budget any accumulated
surplus available from a previous year. The intention here is not to allow the
society to accumulate a deficit, but rather to ensure that the society can
realize the benefit of careful financial management by improving the level of
service they can provide.
It will also allow the society to realize the benefit of any
revenue-generating activities they might undertake. The legislated requirement
that the Legal Services Society budget be approved by the Attorney General is
unchanged. However, the amendments also will require the society to prepare a
budget when so directed by the Attorney General. Currently, the society is
required to present a budget by November 21 each year. The amendment will allow
the society to synchronize its budget process with that of government.
This year we saw the challenge of the current operating system, as
the society was required to submit a budget in circumstances where they knew
they had made some requests around increases in family law programs. They knew
we were working hard to see if we could get a budget increase in the area of
support for family law. Of course, as we now know from the budget documents
tabled yesterday, there will be an increase. But the statutory requirement and
the time line associated with it are out of sync, really, with the time lines in
our budget processes, which are also mandated by legislation. The purpose of
this amendment is to try to ensure that those things can operate together more
effectively.
They do not lower the level of accountability that the Legal
Services Society has to government. The amendments will accord the society
greater flexibility in its budget process and ensure its budget process is
aligned with that of government.
Bill 4 also amends the Offence Act to enable fines to be
prescribed for violation tickets without requiring prior consultation with the
Chief Judge of the Provincial Court. The office of the Chief Judge supports this
amendment. The current requirement for the Attorney General to consult with the
Chief Judge prior to amending violation ticket fine amounts is an administrative
burden for both the office of the Chief Judge and the provincial government.
There are over 350 separate fine amounts for violations of the Motor Vehicle Act
and motor vehicle regulations and a similar number for the other statutes for
which violation tickets may be issued under the Offence Act.
When the federal Contraventions Act comes into force in British
Columbia later in 2005, the total number of separate fine amounts will increase
to over 2,500. A similar requirement from municipalities to consult with the
Chief Judge before establishing fines for municipal bylaw violations was removed
with the introduction of provisions of the new Community Charter in January
2004. The amendments before the House in this bill are intended to complete the
process that was initiated by those changes to the Community Charter.
[1500]
Finally, Bill 4 amends the Provincial Court Act to make permanent
the highly successful senior judges part-time program. This program, which
permits senior judges to elect to sit part-time, assists in retaining senior
jurists who might otherwise retire fully. The program was implemented as a pilot
project following the 2001 judicial compensation process, with a sunset clause
of March 31, 2005. Following a review of the program last year, government and
the judiciary made a joint submission to the 2004 Judges Compensation Commission
that the program be made permanent.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be referred to a
Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House
after today.
Bill 4, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2005, read a
second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at
the next sitting of the House after today.
Tabling Documents
Hon. C. Hansen: I rise to table a document pursuant to the
budget papers from yesterday. It's titled British Columbia Government
Strategic Plan 2005/06-2007/08 .
Hon. G. Plant: I call second reading of Bill 3.
Second Reading of Bills
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2005
Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be now read a second
time.
Bill 3 amends various statutes to clarify provisions, correct
inadvertent errors and make a number of minor housekeeping amendments. Firstly,
there is a retroactive amendment to the Crime Victim Assistance Act. That will
ensure that those who are criminally injured during the course of their
employment will have the same access to financial assistance and benefits as
others who are affected by violent crime.
Secondly, a minor housekeeping amendment to the Expropriation
Amendment Act, 2004, will allow regulations to be made for transition purposes
to permit the effective transfer of the Expropriation Compensation Board's
jurisdiction to the courts. This will provide greater flexibility and certainty,
and it will help us ensure the timely windup of the Expropriation Compensation
Board.
[ Page 11909 ]
[J. Weisbeck in the chair.]
Bill 3 also extends the transition period between the Forest
Practices Code of British Columbia Act and the new Forest and Range Practices
Act to provide industry with the anticipated two-year transition period. The
intent of the extension, which is fully endorsed by licensees, is to provide for
a smooth transition, which is essential for the competitive operating of our
licensees and the workers and communities that depend on British Columbia's
number one industry.
Minor amendments are also required to correct a cross-referencing
error in the Land Title Act. Additional amendments will also provide clarity and
harmonize the language with the new Transportation Investment Act.
The amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act and the Motor Vehicle
Amendment Act, 2004, show that the province is committed to enhancing public
safety. Specifically, the amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act provides
flexibility to increase seatbelt fines to encourage British Columbians to
continue to belt up. Additionally, a drafting error in an unproclaimed
section
of the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2004, will be corrected to reinstate the
mandatory jail sentence for driving while prohibited for second and subsequent
offences. The amendments also increase the minimum fine to $500 for second and
subsequent offences of driving while prohibited or suspended, while maintaining
the mandatory 14 days in jail.
In addition, Bill 3 adds a
section to the Municipalities Enabling
and Validating Act (No. 3) to remedy a procedural oversight made by the city of
Nanaimo in seeking elector approval of a proposed borrowing bylaw for the new
Nanaimo centre development.
The proposed amendment to the Park Act is a housekeeping amendment
to correct the referencing error made when Bill 16, the Water, Land, and Air
Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, amended the Park Act in the spring of
Bill 3 also corrects an inadvertent drafting omission to the
Property Transfer Tax Act that restores the list of specific criteria that must
be met for an exemption from tax to be available with respect to the transfer of
the property to a trustee.
[1505]
Bill 3 amends the Referendum Act to clarify that the
Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations that apply sections of the
Election Act to a referendum with any necessary adaptations. Those provisions
will assist cabinet as regulations are made to ensure the smooth operation of
the electoral reform referendum that will be a part of the election day in May
of 2005.
Lastly, the amendment to
part 2 of the Small Business Venture
Capital Act will ensure that program investors can only offer goods and services
to registered small businesses if they can demonstrate that the transaction
equates fair market value. This amendment is necessary to ensure that program
capital invested under the act is not subject to misuse.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be referred to a
Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House
after today.
Bill 3, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2005, read a
second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at
the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Bruce: I call response to the budget.
Budget Debate
(continued)
J. MacPhail: Yesterday I said the best word to describe
this election budget was "cynical" — cynical because it's not credible; cynical
because it's part of a plan to give the Premier an extreme makeover 90 days
before an election following four years of extreme policies; cynical because, as
I said yesterday, it is not believable to speak the language of the hard
conservative Right — the government-is-the-enemy language of deregulation,
trickle-down tax cuts, restraint, pain — with apparent sincerity for four years
and then to abandon it so completely in only a few weeks.
But cynical really doesn't even begin to describe what this
government has done. Now we know that this government doesn't even plan to put
its budget before the House for debate. The Minister of Finance says he doesn't
think he has the moral authority to allow this budget to be debated. Well,
perhaps the Premier could have told us that when he was taking such great pride
in his fixed election date legislation. Perhaps the Premier could have told
British Columbians that when he set the budget date and took such great pride in
it, what he really meant was: "You're going to get a budget, British Columbians,
and we're not going to let you have one iota of say or question about it."
Perhaps he should have come clean when he and his government caucus passed that
legislation.
This is a budget that contains a quarter of a billion dollars in a
pre-election slush fund. It's a budget that provides nothing for long-term care
beds. It's a budget that tries to rewrite the history of the last four years —
four years of record deficits, broken promises, higher taxes, higher fees,
longer surgical wait-lists, failed privatization schemes, and a more polarized
and divided province than ever. No wonder this government wants to hide from
debating this budget.
The government insists that it doesn't have time to debate the
budget in full, that there's no possible way we can get through the budget
before the election is called. How insulting. Does the government honestly
believe that two months is not enough time to debate the budget? Of course they
don't. They want to deny British Columbians the right to have this budget
debated, because they don't want their election promises
[ Page 11910 ]
held up to scrutiny. They don't want to have to answer for their flip-flops
and their broken promises. They don't want the public to have the chance to lift
the hood on this budget and discover more waste, mismanagement and broken
promises. All they want to do is hit the campaign trail, give more broken
promises and start spending the money in the secret slush fund.
[1510]
It's no wonder they're scared, Mr. Speaker. Every time the veil is
lifted on their budgets, the litany of broken promises and failed schemes grows
and the Premier's credibility gap with the public widens.
Just take a look at some of the issues we've explored in the
line-by-line budget debate. Here are some of the issues in past line-by-line
budget debates that we've explored. And now there will be no debate — muzzled
and shut down by this government. Here's what we've explored in the budget
debate process: a B.C. Rail 990-year lease. Let me see. In a 2001 promise the
current Premier said: "We will not sell B.C. Rail." What they did was lease it
for a pittance for 990 years. Who do they think they're fooling?
We explored the issue of patronage. Why was Andrew Wilkinson, the
president of the B.C. Liberal Party, hired for $200,000 per year of taxpayer
money in a portfolio for which he didn't have an iota of experience? In fact, on
the first day on the job, his picture was still up on the B.C. Liberal Party
website as the president of the B.C. Liberal Party. And that's not patronage?
I guess the government doesn't want us to ask questions about Prem
Vinning being hired by the Premier's office. That's why they don't want any
debate on the estimates. Hello, Prem Vinning. We have questions to ask about
that.
Interjection.
J. MacPhail: Peter. I'm sorry. Peter.
We explored over and over again in last year's estimates the
disappearing long-term care beds. We explored the Premier's wildly overbudget
pet Web portal project. We explored the public affairs bureau — budget increases
to pay for partisan, pro-government advertising. We explored the Minister of
Agriculture, Food and Fisheries' fish farm fiasco. We asked him questions over
and over again about why he tipped off Stolt Sea Farms that they were going to
be fined. We explored why this government returned money from legitimate
penalties imposed and fines collected on fish farms to those very same fish
farms.
We know why the government doesn't want to debate some of these
issues. We see today that the long-term care bed commitment that they made in
the 2001 election for 5,000 additional beds has been officially ditched,
officially abandoned. No wonder they don't want to open themselves up to
questions.
The Minister of Finance says that there will be six days of debate
on the budget. I can hardly wait for a Liberal MLA to stand up and address, in
their budget debate remarks, Mr. Premier, why you abandoned the long-term care
bed commitment that you made. I can hardly wait.
[1515]
I can hardly wait for a Liberal government caucus member to stand
up and say: "Why did you return that fine money to the fish farms?" I can hardly
wait for a Liberal government caucus member to stand up and say to the Minister
of Water, Land and Air Protection: "Gee, you cut hundreds of conservation
officers over the last three years, and you're hiring back less than half of
them. Why will that be any good?"
We examined, in the line-by-line budget debate last year, the Doug
Walls scandal and the mismanagement of the Ministry of Children and Family
Development restructuring. My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant uncovered
all sorts of information that had not been revealed to the public about how tens
of millions of dollars had been wasted on a failed restructuring plan in the
community living sector — how children were going without, how parents were
going without because this government blew over $25 million on a failed
community living sector restructuring plan.
In the budget debate last year we finally got the Solicitor
General to acknowledge that this government had broken their promise and had
expanded gambling. We finally got him to admit to that, and yet they still try
to spin their way out, saying that half a billion dollars in extra revenue from
gaming isn't expanded gambling. Well, there are about 70-odd Liberal MLAs who
are the only ones in British Columbia who believe that this government didn't
expand gambling. Virtually every other British Columbian knows that this
government broke its election promise to not expand gaming.
In the line-by-line budget debate we shone the light on how the
B.C. Liberals were diverting federal funds meant for child care into their
health budget. No one else did that. That was revealed in this chamber.
There are so many issues that, but for the opposition grilling of
this government, would never have seen the light of day, because the Liberal
government caucus members don't do their job for a minute, let alone a day or a
week, and represent their constituents in this chamber. They represent one
person in this chamber, and that's the Premier. That's the only person they
represent. They abandon their constituents day after day after day.
On the matter of pay equity my colleague the member for
Vancouver–Mount Pleasant grilled the then Minister of State for Women's Equality
on what their plan was for pay equity. This government destroyed pay equity
legislation but said they were going to replace it with something. They've done
nothing, absolutely nothing.
My colleague grilled this government day after day after day on
the cuts to women's centres and transition houses, and this government did
nothing until yesterday, when they had a deathbed repentance and are now funding
transition houses. How many women have been harmed and abused in the meantime?
How many children have been harmed because of domestic violence?
[ Page 11911 ]
The opposition revealed the government's end to mandatory charging
for spousal abuse. Yet this government thinks they can put a little bit of money
back to victims and restore money for family legal aid in the dying days of
their government, and they think British Columbians will just accept that.
[1520]
It was the opposition, the New Democratic opposition, who shone
the light on the most cruel and unnecessary and anxious-making review of
people's rights and benefits ever seen in this province, and that's the
disability review. It was the New Democrat opposition that shone the light on
that cruel and completely unnecessary review — $5 million of taxpayer money to
grill and humiliate people with disabilities, only to find that there was no
problem.
It was the New Democrat opposition that shone the light on the
cuts to inner-city school funding that this government imposed. It was only
because of that hard work with the communities, the families, the parents, that
the funding was restored.
Well, Mr. Speaker, there are so many incidents where holding this
government to account forced this government to back down on their draconian
cuts — forced them to back down and reverse their draconian cuts. No wonder they
don't want a debate. Day after day we asked the Premier about the way he does
requests for proposals and how ridiculous that process is. Day after day we
debated the off-loading of provincial costs onto the municipalities in the
estimates debate, the budget debate. No wonder they don't want a real budget
debate.
In this year's estimates, in order for the opposition to do its
job on behalf of British Columbians, we need to be able to examine ministry
budgets. Why? We need to ensure, on behalf of British Columbians, that there's
not continued contract mismanagement and scandal in the troubled Ministry of
Children and Family Development restructuring process. We need to find out why
the treaty negotiations office is taking a budgetary hit when there's been next
to no progress on treaties.
We need to examine the reasons for delays in getting the B.C.
integrated gang task force up and running. This government made great promises
on fighting organized crime. Of course, they had to do that just moments after
their own Legislature offices, their own Minister of Finance's offices, were
raided by the cops. Oh, yeah. A raid on the Legislature related to drugs and
money laundering, and they announced an organized crime task force. Well, what's
the delay? It's not happening. In fact, Dave Basi and Bob Virk and Aneal Basi
have been charged with criminal activity. The activity's still there. The reason
for the organized gang crime task force is still there.
The Minister of Finance's office had people working in it who are
now charged with some very serious crimes. Yet we don't see any integrated gang
task force. We don't see any congress on organized crime.
We need to shine a light on immigrant settlement funding. We need
to understand why this government has attacked immigrants and refugees by
slashing their funding. I can't tell from the budget. I can't tell what
happened. We've talked to the community. They don't know what happened. They
have no idea what's going on. And that's after the budget documents were tabled.
Settlement funding for immigrants is completely unclear. It's in
confusion. It's in chaos. People are being harmed by it. We need to ask
questions about that.
[1525]
We need to shine a light on the government's ongoing efforts to
privatize ICBC now that they've removed Nick Geer and installed Paul Taylor as
the CEO of ICBC.
We won't be able to ask questions about the hiring of Prem Vinning
and what the heck he was going to do for the government other than try to buy
votes. I mean get votes, Mr. Speaker. My apologies. Where was that money coming
from? Where was the posting for Prem Vinning? How much was he going to be paid?
What was his expertise?
What is the plan for increasing trade with China and South Asia?
What's your plan, government? There's nothing in the documents that explains it,
except for spin.
We need to be able to ask questions about the
Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit line, the budget for that and how
that's going to work, given the fact that the community is up in arms now that
the government, because they've got a public-private partnership agreement,
won't be able to tunnel down Cambie Street but are going to have to do a
cut-and-cover — rip it up and destroy small business along Cambie Street — in
order to build the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver line. And this government claims
they're big friends of small business people. Let's go to the Cambie Street
small business people and ask them how much they like this government.
We need to know whether the government's going to use Bill 75, the
most draconian piece of legislation I've seen in years. What is it called? It's
the project streamlining act — where they can shove their own interests down the
throats of municipal governments, even if municipal governments say no. Are they
going to use Bill 75 to build the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit line
down Cambie, even against the community's wishes?
We won't be able to examine the government's failed Web portal.
You know that project, the Premier's pet project. We in the opposition call it
the digital dumpster. Open it up, shove a bunch of money in there, and see it
disappear.
We won't be able to examine the exploding surgical wait-lists and
this government's failed health privatization scheme.
We won't be able to examine the complete failure of this
government's apprenticeship program, just at the very time in this new, young
century when British Columbia needs the strongest apprenticeship training
program ever. No. We won't be able to ask any questions.
We won't be able to find out why the government's putting a measly
$40 million back in peoples' pockets
[ Page 11912 ]
in reduced medical services premiums when they took $400 million out of
people's pockets in increased medical services premiums. We won't be able to ask
that question, will we, Mr. Speaker?
We won't be able to examine the government's privatization
schemes, which have threatened our privacy.
We won't be able to examine the government's partisan political
advertising budgets, and I'll tell you that I have dozens of questions on that,
based on the new Liberal Party ad, given the huge similarity — one might say
almost identical nature — of the Liberal Party ads compared to the government
ads that were bought with our taxpayer money. Oh, but we won't be able to ask
those questions.
[1530]
The executive director of the B.C division of the Canadian Mental
Health Association, Bev Gutray, said just yesterday: "It isn't clear from the
budget document exactly how much money will be allocated to help treat mental
illness." That was yesterday. Oh, do you think we might have some questions
about that?
Here's what she says: "Although the budget provides a lot of money
for health, we're not sure how that will translate into the treatment of mental
health." We won't be able to help her get those answers. We won't be able to ask
questions about the government's inadequate pine beetle strategy to protect
vulnerable communities. We won't be able to ask questions on why they abandoned
their heartlands strategy and abandoned those communities at the same time.
Who is going to examine the shortage of conservation officers that
continues to exist and this government's halfhearted response to threats to our
environment, including this government's failure on Kyoto? Who's going to ask
those questions, if not for the New Democrat opposition? Who's going to ask
questions about the pain that this government has caused in communities when
they destroyed the social contract in forestry that said: "Yes, forest
companies, have British Columbia's trees. Make a good living, make a profit, but
share the value of that public resource with the communities from which you take
those trees"? That was the social contract that this government ripped up,
destroyed. Who's going to ask questions about the ill effects of that action?
This government has allocated $291 million to the Gateway Project.
Now, that includes doubling the capacity of the Port Mann Bridge and Highway 1.
There has been little — okay, how about no — public consultation on this
project. I'm sure they talked amongst themselves. "Hey, give me some money so I
can win in my riding," says the Minister of Transportation. But any public
consultation? Not one. There's been little or no study. In fact, there has not
been one study demonstrating in a transparent and accountable way that the
benefits of this project outweigh its cost.
There has been no public disclosure of a workable plan. Oh, we're
all in favour. The New Democrats are all in favour of opening up the economic
corridor for transportation. We want to make that corridor work. But this
government has no plan — absolutely none — for how that's going to work. For all
we know, what they're going to do with the Port Mann Bridge could make Surrey
worse off, not better off.
The member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge wants to represent his
constituents. He wants to open up the economic corridor and fix the Port Mann
Bridge in a way that works — doesn't just pass the buck and harm other
communities, but works. We'd like to ask the government questions about that.
The member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge has a dozen questions on that, and he won't
be allowed to ask one — not one.
[1535]
With the government spending $291 million on the Gateway Project,
don't you think the citizens of British Columbia deserve an answer about
feasibility, cost and timing of the projects? We need to ask why it took the
Premier 24 hours to break his promise on accountability. We need to ask the
Premier why he wasn't straight with British Columbians when he said: "Openness
beats hiddenness." We need to ask him why it took six days to break his promise
from the throne speech on delivering 5,000 additional long-term care beds. And
we need to ask dozens of questions about the secret slush fund of $236 million —
their pre-election slush fund that there are now no details on whatsoever.
We need to find out why they're spending so much money on having
open cabinet meetings. I don't know. Is it a dress rehearsal for politician
wannabes? Is it kind of like it's the only opportunity for the cabinet actually
to get experience because, really, half of them have nothing to do — absolutely
nothing to do?
There is no excuse — no excuse that actually honours democracy in
this province, no excuse that recognizes that we have a British parliamentary
system for a reason. There's no excuse for the arrogance of the massive majority
that this government uses as a weapon against the public every single day.
Last year the opposition had 27 days of line-by-line debate on the
budget. There were two of us. We asked concise, thoughtful, cohesive, relevant,
direct questions, and that took 27 days. There are more than 27 days of sitting
before April 15, so I don't know what the Minister of Finance or the Government
House Leader is talking about — that we've never, ever got estimates done before
mid-April. That isn't because of estimates. That isn't because of the time we
took to debate estimates; it's because the government put through 50 pieces of
legislation at the same time.
They've got no legislative agenda. They've got no legislative
agenda, because all they want to do is run, hide and try to make British
Columbians believe their pre-election cynical budget document, without anybody
having the opportunity to ask any questions or holding it up to any scrutiny. It
was this government, when in opposition, that railed against the previous
administration for not debating the budget, and now they use that as the example
to justify their actions. The shameful hypocrisy by this government is now
unmatched.
One of the great lessons that my colleague and I have learned
about the British parliamentary system is
[ Page 11913 ]
the value of opposition in a representative democracy. My colleague from
Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was in government for five years; I was in government
for nine and a half years. Neither of us had been in opposition prior to that.
Over the course of the last three and a half years we have both come to
understand the very valuable role that the opposition plays in holding a
government to account.
[1540]
The Liberal Party was very effective in carrying out that role
when they were in opposition. I know they thought they were in opposition far
too long, but they were effective. We know that. We know from our own experience
now that there is just as valuable a role in the opposition's work in a British
parliamentary system as the government's role. In fact, a government who rules
by fiat can never, ever do the citizens of the province well. This government
will be ruling by fiat. Shame on them.
V. Anderson: It's a privilege to rise and respond to the
budget presentation and discussion, which the Leader of the Opposition has been
discussing without actually dealing with any of the realities of the actual
budget that's been presented at this particular time.
I had the privilege of being in the opposition that the now Leader
of the Opposition talked about today and of having the opportunity to interact
with them on a positive basis, discussing with them and working with them to
make the best combined operation we could — by all the members of the
Legislative Assembly — for the effective government of the province.
Today, though, I'd like to respond in a different way than I've
been able to respond to budgets in the past. In the 13-some years that I've been
here in the Legislature, one of my concerns in undertaking a response to the
budget was that each and every one of those budgets was, in my opinion, lacking
in concern for the everyday life of the citizens of British Columbia —
particularly in the area of people concerns, particularly in the area of the
needs of the average citizen that the government had taken over, historically,
from the community. I'd like to go back a little bit and give a context in which
I speak.
I was born in 1929. I lived in the midst of the Depression. One of
the realities then was that there were no social service programs available to
the people of the community. There were no opportunities to go to anyone else
except your neighbours, and neighbours were very helpful to each other.
Neighbours were very helpful to the transients who came through the province and
who rode on the railcars from one part of the country to another.
Most of the social programs — the health programs, the educational
programs — were undertaken in large part by the religious community, bringing
together the people of the community so that they would understand what they
were about.
I would like to have the opportunity today to highlight what we
have put forward in this coming year. I would like to have the opportunity to
say to our community at large that things are different in this particular
budget. They are different because, in a unique way, this budget has taken on a
responsibility to respond to the issues that have been brought forward to us
from the community and are of concern to their everyday community living.
[1545]
It's interesting that in the goals set forth in both the throne
speech and the budget, three of the five goals — in fact, the first three of the
five goals — have to do with the everyday life of our community people — their
well-being, their personal interactions, their family and community lifestyle.
The first of these was to make B.C. the best-educated, most
literate jurisdiction on the continent. It's an education plan that begins at
birth and continues for the whole of one's life. Early development education is
a key opportunity which is brought forth in this budget in a very new way — to
develop in every community across this province, with the same concern that we
do in public and high school education, an opportunity for young children to get
the best possible start in life, to become learners with community support from
the very earliest opportunity in their community and to help and support parents
and community members to be learners and teachers with the youngest members of
our society.
Perhaps this is something that we have learned from our aboriginal
community, because it has been their tradition throughout generations that the
youngest members of society should learn from the elders in every aspect of
their life. It is our opportunity to enable our young people to have that kind
of head start so that when they come to the years of public and high school,
they have the background and a personal ability to undertake that process.
The second of those goals is to lead the way in North America in
healthy living and physical fitness — again to stress that from the very
beginning of life, there is the opportunity for our young people to have the
healthiest, most active possible opportunities in an urban setting.
I grew up in a rural setting, and in that rural setting and even
in the urban setting in days gone by there were lots of opportunities for
physical activity. We did not have cars to travel with. We did not have theatres
to go to in the same place. We did not have television to watch during the day.
We did not have computers to sit in front of. Indeed, we didn't have televisions
to watch the National Hockey League. The best we could do was listen to it on
Saturday night on the radio.
Interjection.
V. Anderson: My comrade here wants to know what the
National Hockey League is. Well, there was an announcement today, but I haven't
heard what it is yet.
These were opportunities that we had, and now we need to plan,
within our educational and health system, opportunities for our young people and
adults to
[ Page 11914 ]
become physically active and have the opportunity for a full life.
The third of those opportunities or goals is to build the best
system of support in Canada for persons with disabilities, those with special
needs, children at risk and seniors — opportunities to put a priority on those
who have special opportunities and special challenges in their lives and to give
them the concern and the priority they need.
[1550]
It's interesting that the focus on early child development as a
universal concept which builds into its plan the opportunity to assess every
single young member of our society as to their physical ability, their mental
ability and, where it is needed, to discover if they have difficulties in
hearing, in eyesight or in other parts of their medical being…. So they become,
from the very beginning, wholesome and healthy young people — to approach this
from an educational point of view, to approach it from a health point of view,
to approach it from the unique characteristics of each one of them so that they
may discover it in their families and find the support they need for their own
unique opportunities in life.
It's interesting that when you put these three categories together
in our budget presentation and you add to it the related ministry of community,
aboriginal and community development — which, again, is there for the support of
all of our people within the community…. Of a $32 billion budget, $22 billion is
covered by these three categories. Two-thirds of our budget, contrary to the
understanding of many people, is devoted to the personal, physical, mental and
social health and well-being of our citizens.
Apart from that, the overall goal that is presented in the budget
is sound fiscal management for a sustainable future. In that other third of the
budget is the opportunity to support our business communities, our mining, our
forestry and our small businesses, which provide the jobs, the livelihood and
the experience for our communities, our citizens and our adults to be able to
care for themselves, their families and their children.
It's unique for me in the 13 years that I've been here in the
Legislature to discover a budget two-thirds of which is devoted to the
well-being — health-wise, education-wise and social community–wise — of our
community people. I want to commend our government for that undertaking, and I
want to commend them for the way in which they have begun, more each and every
day, to meet with and listen to the people of the province, even as we did today
here in the Legislature with groups that came to share with us what they were
accomplishing and how we could work together with them for common community
service.
One of the things that came out of all of those meetings with
community groups and that came out again with today's community group was that
in the past they felt, in their attempt to work with government, that the
stovepipe nature of government — where each ministry operated independently of
the others — was a drawback to their interaction with the government. They
asked, and rightly so, that there should be more interactive opportunities with
government and amongst the ministries of government in order that there be an
integrated approach to the community.
That's exactly what this budget brings forth: the interactive
approach of the ministries concerned with various aspects of the population —
the Ministries of Health, Education, Human Resources and Children and Family
Development — focusing on the needs of early development in preschool boys and
girls, focusing together in education to raise the implications of the health
needs, environmental needs, social needs and financial needs of those who are in
our educational system at all levels.
This new pattern of interactive ministries is fundamentally
important to the promises that were in the throne speech and in the budget. It's
one thing to focus on the amounts which are made available in the budget, which
are intriguing and interesting in themselves, but even more important is what
happens to those. Is there a plan for coordinating amongst the ministries of
government how those plans are put into practice within the community?
[1555]
One of the realities that I've mentioned here before which I think
is extremely important is the working of government with the partnership of
community agencies that are a part of our lifestyle. This is a new problem
within our community, a new opportunity, and our government has taken the stand
of working with community agencies so that we can work with them in partnership.
In order for that to be effective, what has come across very clearly is that
communities and community groups must be able to work in partnership with each
other. Partly because of the way government has operated, each of the community
groups has come independently to government with programs for their community
which are separate and apart from programs of other groups operating in that
community. There has been dissatisfaction in everybody's mind because of that
approach.
If we have, as was developed in the Healthy Communities project —
which is now being reorganized and brought back, I trust, into our communities —
the opportunity for community groups to come together with each other in their
own community, to develop a community plan and to say what part of that
community plan each of them will undertake in cooperation with the others, then
when we are supporting community programs, we can go and share in a partnership
in that community plan. There will not then be the dissatisfaction or the
counter-opportunity between them that we've had in the past.
I want to say to the citizens of the community that there is an
opportunity we have not had before for community groups with common interests to
come together and develop a community plan to say how those groups will work
with each other and to come collectively to the government and say: "This is
what we need in our community."
That's part of the plan in regional health — to bring health
closer to the community so that the community
[ Page 11915 ]
can come to their regional health…. That's part of the plan in education — to
bring it home to the region so that they can do that. It's part of the plan in
children and family development — to bring it home to community care, for
individual care to develop within the community, where the community's citizens
are making their own plans and their own opportunities and the government is
moving in to work with them and to plan to help them.
I want to say, from my point of view, that after 13 years I'm
pleased and delighted at the new approach that is coming in government in
British Columbia through this throne speech and this budget speech. I'm curious
about the questions that the Leader of the Opposition had, full of questions but
no answers. We need answers and new opportunities, and I'm pleased that in this
budget we have an opportunity to say to the community: "Come together. Work with
each other so that we can work with you as a government for the well-being and
the prosperity of B.C."
Jobs are created in communities. Families live in communities.
Children grow up in communities. The needs of people can be met in their home
communities. New opportunities of mental health are being provided in the home
community. Let's look to our community, develop plans and a vision within those
communities and share that vision with the government so that they can respond
and coordinate community concerns across the province.
Thank you, hon. Speaker, for this opportunity.
[1600]
D. Jarvis: I rise once again to talk on the budget speech.
I have to commend the previous speaker, my friend Val Anderson, who is retiring.
He brings out a different discussion whenever we're talking about throne
speeches or budget speeches or bills. He certainly always gives us some sage
advice, and we should all listen to him more often.
First of all, I want to do a correction or an apology back to last
week when I did my throne speech, in which I said — I think I said — that it was
my twenty-fourth throne speech, which raised a lot of questions and eyebrows in
here. I'm not really that old, but I got it mixed up. Both the budget and the
throne speech were about 24. At this point here, I'm now heading into my
thirteenth or fourteenth budget speech, so we'll see what happens when it comes
out about it.
Also, before I get into the speech, I want to thank my
constituents in North Vancouver–Seymour for bearing with me all these years
since 1991. They have given me marvellous support, and I truly appreciate it. I
also want to say that it is a great thing to be an MLA, as you all know. This
House was first opened 134 years ago in 1871. I bet you all knew that. Since
that time, 134 years….
J. Bray: You were here then, weren't you?
D. Jarvis: No, I wasn't here then, but I was right around
the corner.
There have been millions of people through this province. We now
have a population of around four million, but there have only been 831 MLAs in
134 years. The point is that, as MLAs, we have got to appreciate the honour our
constituents have given to us.
This Budget 2005-06 is what I think you'd call a defining moment
in B.C., as a result of the balanced budget legislation we put forward several
years ago. Much is being made of the surplus — the budget that we have — and not
just because we had made a promise to do so, but it signifies that we are now
back in business and that the economy is going to once again be healthy in this
province.
We can now start to meet the needs of all British Columbians, be
they social or fiscal. The real purpose of a balanced budget is that we will
also see a surplus — and yes, for years to come. No fudge-it budgets. As you
know, the accounting is now done under the GAAP, which are the generally
accepted accounting principles.
For those who don't recall balanced budget law, the Balanced
Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act was put forward to this Legislature in
our first session when we became government in 2001. The bill in essence stated
that the government was not to have a deficit after the 2004-05 year. So on
February 17, 2004, it was mandatory that B.C. have its first balanced budget
under that act. This is what we have now in '05-06 — a balanced budget, and it
will remain balanced for years to come — no more deficit financing in the
province.
Mr. Speaker, for your own interest, over the last three years
balanced budgeting has resulted for the first time in decades because the
spending by the ministries themselves has actually been done within their own
personal budgets. The ministries in 2001 were required to operate within their
budgets or be faced with the penalties out of their own pockets. Now that is
what you may call an incentive — incentive management — but nevertheless it was
part of the restructuring program that was put forward.
As in the past, if you overspent your ministerial budget, who
cared? You just…. Hence they weren't required to balance even their own ministry
books, and such was the case that we kept spending more than what we had and
getting into the negative position. The respective ministries, as I said, did
just that. This is one of the reasons that we see the balanced budget today.
[1605]
Like your own household expenses, if you don't watch how you spend
your income, you will always spend more than you have, and you will be bankrupt
soon. That is what was happening in this province. This tough stance that was
taken by the management of this government is why we see balanced budgets today
and a big surplus for this year. The budget does emphasize that the major
spending over these next years will go to improving health care, education and a
reduction of taxes and causes for those that actually need it the most.
[ Page 11916 ]
It has been related before that over the past three years B.C. has
created more jobs in Canada than any other province. Over 202,000 new jobs were
created in the last three years. To be politically correct, I guess I would have
to say that approximately 5,900 of them were part-time jobs. Therefore,
full-time jobs actually did exceed over 197,000. Nevertheless, it was a very
positive result.
This steady performance is indicating steady growth in British
Columbia. We have to be thankful for this, because we've had a decade of an
unknowing financial position as to where we were going. We went from the number
one spot down to the number ten spot.
The government, in its restructuring program, realized that there
was a lot of uncertainty out there. When you consider the softwood lumber
problems, the land use claims, the 9/11 disaster, SARS, BSE, even the fires in
the Okanagan and the aboriginal concerns, there were a lot of things in
question. One of our main thrusts when we got elected was to restructure this
province and the way it was run and concentrate on getting the economy moving
over the next few years, which have now come upon us.
For example, in mining, it's improving and will improve even more.
We have great optimism here in British Columbia about it.
Interjection.
D. Jarvis: That voice we heard in the background was the
minister looking after mining.
All you have to do is look at the financial pages to see that the
metal prices are up. Copper is over $1.40 now. Gold is at $4.25 plus per ounce.
Nickel is over $6 a pound. Exploration is exploding for the first time since the
early nineties.
Claim-staking has risen and probably is…. I thought I read
somewhere that it was a little over 400 percent from where it was a short while
ago.
Drilling programs are climbing as the new companies are taking
advantage of the rising metal prices, along with — I might add — what our
government has done in a proactive action with respect to the credits for
investing. We're now seeing…. I think there are 12 new mines waiting to be
approved before they come on stream.
Hon. P. Bell: Thirteen.
D. Jarvis: Thirteen mines. We're doing even better than I
thought.
Hon. P. Bell: A new one every day.
D. Jarvis: Every day there's a new one for sure.
The government's philosophy was to help mining as we made changes
to their regulatory burdens and taxes to encourage investments. We saw a better
2004, and we are now going to see a better 2005, '06, '07 and on into the next
decade. Mining has, once again, become a major revenue producer for British
Columbia.
Once again, we see growth in our resource communities. That is
part of our goal. This government, by streamlining regulations to encourage
investment and by the lowering of tax burdens to spur on economic development,
has made our resource areas grow once again. No longer do we see our young
people and men and women leaving for better pastures in other provinces.
Energy also has now eclipsed forestry as one of our largest
revenue generators. Energy is now…. I think over $1.5 billion in revenue was
brought in last year. The potential is that there is no end in sight.
[1610]
With the prospect of offshore drilling for gas and oil, there is a
potential in the Bowser and Nechako basins and in offshore drilling. The
prospect will be an additional bonanza for British Columbia and, down the road,
for our children.
We also have growth in our tourism due to our natural beauty,
naturally. Every business is on the threshold of real recovery, including, for
example — which I've mentioned many times — the film industry, which holds a
link with tourism.
On the North Shore, where my riding is located, we have a thriving
film industry, as you know, that has become a global one. It is located in the
North Vancouver–Seymour, North Vancouver–Lonsdale and West Vancouver–Capilano
ridings. We have somewhere around 6,000 people, plus or minus, that have
employment in the film industry.
Now, these people, as I say, make their living in this industry,
and a taxable income of well in excess of $92 million comes into this province.
That is something we can't turn away. These numbers do not even take into
consideration the number of service companies in the private sector that rely on
the film industry and supply the film industry. They estimate that there are
approximately 30,000 people in the lower mainland who derive their income from
the film industry. It's truly a boon to my constituents and the provincial
government.
This industry is a very competitive business, and there's always a
danger of losing considerable advantage due to taxation and things like that.
This government came in to help when the governments of Quebec and Ontario tried
to pirate the industry out of British Columbia. I thank the government for doing
that.
Mr. Speaker, as you go through the budget speech, you can see why
it was necessary to put our economic house in order so that we could continue
and enhance our social agenda and ensure that we could provide and sustain the
programs that are necessary. From the start in 2001 we said that the economics
would come first, as our economy was in a state of decay and was languishing
from almost two decades of spending without concern as to where that money was
coming from.
The previous government borrowed without concern for the taxpayers
of the future, our children and grandchildren. As the bureaucracy grew more and
more, servicing of our debt grew and grew until finally
[ Page 11917 ]
it was necessary to get a more realistic view or assessment as to what it was
costing this province. That is why we came forward with that plan to restructure
this province. At one point our debt servicing was in excess of $8.5 million a
day every day of the year — and no sign of it being addressed.
Our economy was failing, and we were in last place in the Canadian
economic equation. We were listed as a have-not province. Surely this could not
go on, as we could not do this in our own personal households.
We ran on the promise that change was not only needed; it was
necessary, as our social programs were ready to collapse. We have now undergone
three and a half years of a restructuring program. It has not been an easy one.
A great deal of angst was experienced by all in this province, especially your
MLAs that were here on the government side. Our plan has allowed this government
to balance a budget that included tax reductions, debt repayment and increased
funding for our vital services.
The previous government had eight consecutive deficits and five
management plans. They never hit one of their targets once,
whereas this
government has always hit its targets and always kept its promises. In fact,
about 97 percent of our promises have been kept. All you have to do is look at
the New Era document where it shows that. There are more promises that
have not been fulfilled that will be coming down the line.
[1615]
It was not easy to do this, as I said, and there was not really
that much joy in doing it. There was a lot of pain and tough love over these
past three and a half years, but it was necessary. We had to continue with our
plan and not just spend, spend, spend. One thing is for sure: the bankers who
have been stepping in would have stepped in if we had continued to spend like
they had been doing for the decade before this — as our creditors. They would
have been in charge of our destiny, not the taxpayers. It would have been the
bankers.
This 2005-06 budget lays out the benefits of the tough and hard
work that occurred to create it. The government is now living within its means
once again — with balanced budgets, including forecasts of record surpluses.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
I want to mention a few things that the actual budget did include.
The budget included a record debt repayment of $1.7 billion. Our surplus for
this year will be $1.4 billion, as you know, with a forecast for the next three
years of $200 million surpluses. That's approximately $6.5 million over three
years.
Tax reductions. There are going to be $484 million of tax
reductions in this budget, and 730,000 people will see either elimination or
reduction of provincial taxes. The 330,000 of them that have less than $16,000
in income will have no tax. Another 400,000 that earn up to, say, $26,000 will
pay considerably lower taxes.
The MSP premiums are reduced or eliminated and will actually help
215,000 people in British Columbia. Singles that have less than $20,000 income
will have no costs for MSP premiums. Seniors earning less than $20,000 or
families with less than $20,000 net income will pay no premiums as well. Those
who need it the most will receive the benefits of the hard work over these last
three years.
The stronger economy that we now have is creating and generating
new revenues for a better, sustainable improvement to our social services. As
well as paying down our debt, both the throne speech and budget show that health
education and social programs will not be up and down with overnight whims but
will be sustainable social services for all. As we go through this budget, it is
evident that these reforms have been made to ensure that this province will
again be a leader in the economic, environmental and social development of
Canada. We're on our way back.
This budget will have an impact on every aspect of this
government, and it won't be long before we will see the profound effect of these
government policies, as we see immigration coming back from across Canada and
immigration from around the world into this province. Our economic, social and
environmental policies, with our natural beauty and resources, will create a
great future for this province. This budget, in conjunction with the principles
laid out in the throne speech last week, will make this province the
best-educated, literate and healthy jurisdiction in North America.
Independent businesses are one of the main economic engines that
will help British Columbia reach out to become an economic leader. They
themselves have recommended to the government that we first reduce our debt
significantly, which we have done, and also reduce the small business tax rate
and then the corporate rate over the next three years, along with the PST and
the personal income tax.
[1620]
Over all, most who I talked to and those that contacted me
stressed the need for the surplus to be used, firstly, for debt reduction, and
this is what we have done. This is how the independent businesses see our
economy strengthening, both the small and medium-sized businesses. They see
themselves as a significant part of the economy, which they are, as they employ
so many people. They are small in size, but as employers, they represent
approximately 60 percent of private sector employment in British Columbia.
While total burden for small businesses has not been reduced in
the last few years, the costs of government overall have. The small business
federation — there are many of them on the North Shore — wants to see a
reduction of taxes and regulations, which will provide many more benefits to the
province by attracting investment while, in turn, increasing their productivity.
This budget is a very good budget, one that can be supported by all, and I think
the people in our province will certainly appreciate what we're endeavouring to
do.
In closing, I just wanted to do a small review and maybe read some
points that I've taken out of the speech presented to the House by our Minister
of Fi-
[ Page 11918 ]
nance, which I thought were very apropos of this budget and of where we stand
in this province. He says:
"I'm amazed at what we have accomplished in the past
three years…. In just three years we have turned this province around. We have
rebuilt our economy, revitalized our industries and regained our role as a
national leader. As a province we have brought back investment, created
hundreds of thousands of jobs and strengthened our communities…. The challenge
now for all of us is to build on that momentum, and this budget will help us
do exactly that…long-term investment in our environment and our communities;
new measures to strengthen our economy; new supports for children with special
needs and people with disabilities; thousands of new post-secondary training
spaces; the highest budgets ever for health care and education; the
largest-ever reduction in provincial debt; and income tax and MSP premium
changes that, over three years, will leave $480 million more in the pockets of
those who need it the most."
This is "possible because of the economic growth
and prudent fiscal management for the last three years. We have proven our
ability to stick to our plan and to keep our investments affordable."
Again, I might add there that the NDP has had five plans and never
kept one of them.
The budget is all about the people of this province. It's about
the nurses and the doctors and the teachers and the child care providers and all
those individuals who dedicate their professional lives to caring for others.
It's about the loggers and the miners and their support — individuals who
literally turn our natural resources into products — and the truck drivers and
the port workers and everyone else who helps bring those products to the
marketplace.
It's about the small business owners working around the clock to
realize their own dreams and, in the process, generating jobs to strengthen our
economy. It's about the scientists and the researchers and the risk-takers
pushing the very boundaries of what is possible. It's about the families in our
province juggling all those daily demands of work and life and raising a family.
These are the people who built our province, who keep it going
from day to day. As MLAs we owe it to them and to our constituents to do such,
and that's why I'm prepared to support Budget 2005-06.
B. Lekstrom: It is a pleasure to rise in this House this
afternoon to speak in favour of this budget, a budget that I think has a very
sound base and one that is very sustainable. That is the key word we as British
Columbians have to look towards when we talk about our financial ability to
deliver the services that we enjoy in British Columbia.
This budget is the result of this government putting a plan in
place, following that plan and seeing it through. As my colleague earlier said:
"This is about planning and following the plan through to see the reality of all
of the hard work."
[1625]
Were there tough decisions? There were many tough decisions over
the last number of years in British Columbia. Were they made for the right
reasons? Most definitely. They were made for the single, simple reason that
British Columbia was living beyond its means. We were having services delivered
to us as British Columbians from one end of this province to the other, but the
reality was that many of those services we were enjoying couldn't be afforded by
what we had coming in from income.
As a result, when we were elected in 2001, our province was facing
a $3.8 billion structural deficit. Many people in my riding asked what that
means. What it means is if British Columbia continued to deliver the services in
the method that we did and continued to deliver the same services, we would be
spending $3.8 billion a year more than we brought in. I'm not prepared, as a
parent or as a representative in this Legislative Assembly, to continue to dig
the hole deeper so that our children have to pay for our greed today. I'm very
proud to stand before this Legislature to say we've corrected that problem and
turned our province around.
Mr. Speaker, 71 percent of all new funding in this three-year
fiscal plan will be spent on health care and education. That is a significant
amount of money. Since we were elected in 2001, over 2 billion additional
dollars has been invested in health care, with another $1.5 billion dedicated in
this three-year fiscal plan to go directly to health care for the provision of
the services needed by British Columbians. It has been part of what I ran on in
2001. It has been a fundamental belief of mine, when I look at financial
management, that the basics are that you can't spend money you don't have. As a
province we did that for many years. We have spent, out of a roughly $32 billion
taxpayer-supported debt, about $16 billion as a result of overspending on
day-to-day operations.
Debt isn't a bad thing. Most of us in our day-to-day lives incur
debt to buy our homes, to purchase a car, possibly to enjoy a holiday. But at
the end of the day you take on debt, usually to build a capital asset. You make
your payments, and when your home is paid for, you have an asset. When your
vehicle is paid for, you have an asset. But if we borrowed money every day to
run the day-to-day operations of our households — to buy groceries, to pay the
bills — it wouldn't be long before our banker would be knocking on our door
telling us we can't continue. You would lose everything that you have worked for
all your life. A business is no different, and certainly a province is no
different. We had to make changes.
Did we make cuts? I'm always quite amazed when people say: "Well,
you cut, and now you are just giving back." That's exactly what we said we'd do.
We had to make cuts. We had to live within our financial ability to pay, so that
meant downsizing. Downsizing the government when the majority of expenses go to
health care and education — and the commitment we made was to not touch those
two — was very difficult, but we've done it.
We see a surplus today in our budget, with projected surpluses in
the years out, and it's a result of a
[ Page 11919 ]
number of things. I've heard some of the opponents out there say this is just
a result of high commodity prices. Certainly, high commodity prices have helped,
but I can tell you it's a good regulatory regime, it's a sound legislative
environment that we have in British Columbia, and it's the people of British
Columbia that have made this happen. I'm very proud that we've achieved that.
I want to go back to the issue that people seem somewhat surprised
that some programs were changed, cut, delivered differently. Many of them seem
somewhat shocked. I asked them the simple question. We were delivering those
through the nineties with money we didn't have. Did you have any
misunderstanding that changes to get our financial house in order were needed in
this province? Without exception, for the most part, the people do understand
that.
Is change difficult to accept? I think, as human beings, that it
is always difficult, regardless of your political affiliation. This budget, I
think, shows all of the hard work that took place, not just in this Legislative
Assembly and the discussion back and forth amongst members, from the opposition,
but it is about British Columbians. It's about what we've heard from them; it's
about what their expectations were. I'm sure in my heart that British Columbians
today are very thankful that the difficult decisions made over the past couple
of years have paid off, and we're seeing that benefit today.
[1630]
We have the lowest unemployment rate this province has seen in
over 20 years. That's good news. That isn't news that just comes and drops out
of the blue. It comes because people want to invest in your province. It comes
because the mining companies are coming back. Mining exploration has quadrupled
in the last three and a half years, and I can tell you that is a positive note.
In the area that I represent, Peace River South, mining is back in a big way.
Mining jobs are high-paying jobs; mining jobs drive our economy in the northeast
part of this province. I can tell you that the communities of Tumbler Ridge,
Chetwynd, Dawson Creek, Pouce Coupe, Taylor…. Everybody is benefiting from the
investment we're seeing from our mining companies because of the changes made in
the regulatory environment we've created — one that is sustainable for the
mining industry while at the same time ensuring that the highest environmental
standards are adhered to. That, again, is good news.
This budget is about a lot of things. I think a lot of the people
before me have said it is about the people of British Columbia. That's exactly
I believe that when governments are in power in Victoria, they're here to
represent the people of British Columbia. They take that very seriously, and
they do the best job they can.
I can tell you, as a B.C. Liberal standing here today…. Am I proud
of what we have accomplished in this province? Extremely. Three and a half years
of extremely hard and difficult work and difficult decisions that were made that
you know affect families and people…. But if those tough decisions weren't made,
our province would still be going downhill, and that's not what we want to see.
I'm going to touch on this budget and what it means to families in
British Columbia. I know it has been touched on already. Our tax reductions,
which many people over the years have heard were there for the rich, for the few
that made all of the money in this province…. This, again, I will disagree with
wholeheartedly. They were there for everybody.
This budget is directed at low-income families and seniors. Seven
hundred and thirty thousand British Columbians will pay less tax or no tax at
all in British Columbia as a result of our ability, through a strong economy, to
deliver on that commitment. A total of $484 million in tax cuts is encompassed
in this budget, which is significant. The tax relief, as I indicated, is for low
income — for people making $30,000, $26,000, $16,000. That is good news. It
leaves money in their pockets, so they can maybe purchase their child a bike
that they may not have been able to before, maybe try and grow an account to buy
a new home — a number of things, whatever they choose.
The goal of government is to make sure we try and stay out of the
pockets of British Columbians so they can spend the money where they want.
Having said that, there is a reality. We as British Columbians, and I'm one of
them, expect services delivered by a government. I also understand those
services cost money. So the reality of saying that I want lower taxes or that I
want something more, on one hand, means that, on the other hand, you either have
to increase your revenue flow or cut another service. It's that simple.
In British Columbia since 2001 we have increased spending —
something that people, I think, have overlooked. We're delivering programs to
the best of our ability. Again I'm going to go back to the word I think is key:
in a sustainable manner — one that can be sustained this year, next year and for
the years out, so that our children have a bright future to look forward to and
not a debt-ridden society where all they can look forward to is paying down a
debt that our greed created.
There was an increase in the vehicle surtax — and many people
refer to it as a luxury tax — from $47,000 to $49,000. That's good news for
British Columbians, and it's good news for us in the northeast part of our
province.
It was interesting. I heard a report — I believe it was just
yesterday — that this luxury tax increase was so that people could go out and
buy their new cars and so on. Well, I can tell you that in the northeast and in
most of the north in resource communities, we don't look at it that way. Most
people go out and have to buy their pickup trucks, their three-quarter tons,
their half-tons, their flatbeds. I can tell you that with the price of vehicles
today these trucks are used to make a living. They're used every day by the
people that get in them and drive out to the oil patch — or within the forest
industry, mining industry — to go out and earn a liv-
[ Page 11920 ]
ing to bring home enough money to raise their family and provide for them.
So, this is good news.
[1635]
Taxes are something, when you look across this country…. I believe
we now have the second overall lowest taxes in the entire country, next t