2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the

Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 3, Number 2

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder

M. Elmore

Schubert Centre

E. Foster

Mae-Jong Bowles

G. Coons

Ellen White

R. Cantelon

Fall fairs in Kootenay area

K. Conroy

Community groups and festivals in Burnaby

H. Bloy

Oral Questions

Funding for literacy programs

R. Austin

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

D. Donaldson

N. Simons

D. Thorne

N. Macdonald

Funding for domestic violence programs

M. Mungall

Hon. K. Heed

M. Farnworth

Emergency services at Ashcroft Hospital

H. Lali

Hon. K. Falcon

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Budget Measures Implementation Act (N o . 2), 2009 (continued)

N. Simons

R. Fleming

J. Horgan

B. Routley

H. Lali

M. Elmore

G. Gentner

Bill 5 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. C. Hansen

B. Ralston

Bill 6 — Insurance Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. C. Hansen

B. Ralston

R. Sultan

L. Krog

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 4 — Wills, Estates and Succession Act

L. Krog

Hon. M. de Jong

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Citizens' Services (continued)

Hon. B. Stewart

D. Routley

[ Page 655 ]

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2009

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, before we get started, I have a really special announcement to make. This morning at 7:57 my daughter-in-law Hilary and son Glen blessed me and my wife, Edna, and John and Janet Thompson of London, Ontario, with a seven-pound baby boy. Would the House please welcome Benjamin Charles Barisoff.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, first of all, congratulations to your family.

Visiting the precincts today from the storied state of West Virginia, from the House of Delegates, is the Clerk of that house of assembly, Gregory Gray. He is the Clerk. He is here with two staff members, and I hope that the entire House will make the delegation from West Virginia feel very welcome here in British Columbia's parliament.

[1335]

D. Routley: Would the House help me welcome two friends from the Cowichan Valley, Annie May and John Miller. Annie May has served our community in many volunteer faculties, and she's an excellent friend and supporter. John was a longtime PGE — formerly Pacific Great Eastern — and B.C. Rail employee. He has told me many stories about his railroading days. I appreciate their friendship, their support and their presence here today. So please help me welcome them to Victoria.

R. Sultan: Don and Anna Grant, who are in the House today, are hikers and skiers starting from the days when if you wanted to go skiing, you first had to hike up. There weren't any ski lifts.

After 35 years of teaching — with emphasis on music — in West Vancouver schools, Don and Anna have devoted their energies to the restoration of the Hollyburn Ski Lodge, which I can still remember from the days when if you wanted to ski, you had to hike. Would the House please make them welcome.

E. Foster: I have two guests in the House today. First, a longtime friend, neighbour and supporter of mine from Lumby, Ms. Jackie Hansen. Accompanying her is the most important of my supporters — my wife, Janice Foster. I would like the House to make them welcome.

S. Fraser: Today visiting us in the House is Mr. Wernart van Deventer, and he's here with the Port Alberni Christian School grade 5 class. There are ten stellar students and two chaperones. Would the House please join me in making them feel very, very welcome today.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I've got three special guests here today. Bob and Peggy Heywood worked tirelessly on my campaign. Bob is a retired superintendent with the RCMP and, most recently, retired city of North Vancouver councillor. His wife, Peggy Heywood, is retired and an artist, and her mom, Irene McIntosh, is a retired accountant from Duncan. Please make them welcome.

Hon. I. Black: I have two introductions to make this afternoon. It's a pleasure and an honour to welcome a very, very good friend of mine and a minister from the federal government. The Hon. James Moore is in the precinct this afternoon. He's the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages and the Member of Parliament for my area of Port Moody–Westwood and Port Coquitlam. I ask the House to make the minister feel most welcome.

My second set of introductions has to do with two good friends of mine, one of whom is very, very instrumental in my re-election. His name is Chris Barry, and his friend Katie Birj is here as well in the precinct. I ask the House to please make them feel welcome as well.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

fetal alcohol spectrum disorder

M. Elmore: I rise today to mark September as fetal alcohol spectrum disorder awareness month. September 9 is recognized worldwide as international FASD awareness day. It's vital that we are conscious of the impact of this condition on individuals and on our communities and that we support innovative responses to FASD.

FASD is an umbrella term that refers to a range of disabilities caused by the drinking of alcohol during pregnancy. It's an inherently preventable disorder, and effects vary greatly from individual to individual. The effects can include mental and physical disabilities, addiction issues, hyperactivity and lack of social skills.

Individuals with FASD are often misdiagnosed with behavioural disorders that don't take into account their underlying brain-based condition. People with FASD usually end up facing a variety of challenges in their lives: disrupted education, mental illness, poor employment records, drug and alcohol abuse. They often end up in the criminal justice system when our overburdened mental system fails them.

Raising awareness about FASD is key to improving the life chances of people with FASD. While prevention

[ Page 656 ]

is vital, there is considerable work we can do to improve the quality of life for people living with FASD.

[1340]

I would like to point to the Vancouver and Surrey FASD round tables as innovative models for responding to FASD. These round tables, created by grants from Justice Canada and the Victoria Foundation, bring together individuals with FASD, their families, MCFD, the RCMP, the Vancouver police department, educators and other agencies that deal with FASD. They focus on services for youth and children and strive to improve education outcomes and reduce involvement in the criminal justice system.

The integrated services strive to develop coordinated responses to FASD. They take into consideration the specific life circumstances and needs of children and youth living with FASD. Because of the complex impacts of FASD, this coordinated and individual response is essential.

I hope all members will join me in recognizing FASD Awareness Month, the real contribution these individuals with FASD can make in our society and the need for sustainable funding.

SCHUBERT CENTRE

E. Foster: I'm pleased to rise in the House today to talk about the Schubert Centre Society. Founded in 1984, the Schubert Centre is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year. The centre is located near where Vernon pioneer James Schubert built the first house in Vernon. The east wall of the centre displays a mural depicting this connection.

With the spacious interior and hard-working staff and volunteers, the Schubert Centre regularly provides activities such as dancing, singing and games as well as musical and fine arts performances. These along with the excellent food services keep the members and guests coming back for more.

All of this could not be possible without the hard work of the volunteers. President Fred Smilski, vice-president John Toporchak, treasurer Ron Denton and secretary Felinda Saunders lead a hard-working board of directors without whom none of this would be possible. A special thank-you is also in order to the centre's manager, Jack Gareb, and his staff for providing a truly exceptional service.

Whether you're in the mood for a game of snooker, cards or bingo, the Schubert Centre has a wide array of activities for the active Vernon senior. I would like the House to please join me in congratulating them on 25 years of service to seniors in the North Okanagan.

MAE-JONG BOWLES

G. Coons: Today I would like to share a motivational story about a constituent of mine from Prince Rupert — a teacher, a good friend and a magnificent sailor. Mae-Jong Bowles grew up in the orchards of British Columbia's Okanagan Valley.

Although she was a terrific athlete, Mae never learned to swim. When she was at a high school graduation, as a joke Mae was tossed into the swimming pool. One of her friends finally figured out she was really drowning and dove in and pulled her out.

Mae met and married Marty Bowles, with whom I taught for many years at the alternate school in Prince Rupert. Marty is an avid sailor with a severe passion for life on the sea.

If Mae were to spend time with Marty, she had to learn two things. She had to learn how to sail and how to swim, which she did with great tenacity. A few years ago they bought the Wild Abandon , a C&C 30-foot sailboat, and sailed the thousand nautical miles from Victoria to Prince Rupert through fast riptides, Pacific Ocean swells, surviving a mainsail torn to shreds and the usual breakdowns in remote locations.

Mae learned to sail, repair the boat, navigate and not get seasick. She then went to an all-female sailing school, which cemented the knowledge she had already accumulated.

Sailing with Marty means sailing around the north coast, going out day and night in all kinds of weather — dense fog, no wind, high wind, horizontal sheets of rain, hail and snowstorms. I can only imagine the courage it took for Mae to learn to sail after nearly drowning.

This month, in a cruising magazine called Latitudes and Attitudes Seafaring , which is the third-largest boating magazine in the world, Mae was chosen as the Seafaring Person of the Year. I'm thrilled to acknowledge Mae's accomplishment. Her passion for sailing and her love for Marty have made her a remarkable candidate for this prestigious award. Mae-Jong Bowles is now an accomplished sailor in her own right and definitely knows that you can't change the wind;, you can only adjust your sails.

ELLEN WHITE

R. Cantelon: Ellen White, Dr. Ellen White, Auntie Ellen or just Auntie to the Snuneymuxw First Nation, who love her dearly, was given the Coast Salish name Kwulasulwut , meaning "Many Stars." As a child Ellen was taught by her grandmother Mary Rice to be a midwife, herbalist and spiritual healer.

[1345]

Ellen is a grandmother, mother, spiritualist, healer, educator, author, community activist, feminist and, above all, a champion for her Snuneymuxw people. She

[ Page 657 ]

has worked on ensuring that the Halq'eméylem dialect is retained and that the cultural and spiritual knowledge is passed on to new generations. She is champion of the need to be knowledgable in both cultures. Her saying is: "When your hands are both full with the knowledge of both sides, you'll become a great speaker, great organizer, great doer and a helper of your people."

Ellen has been a leader in developing cross-cultural understanding as elder-in-residence at Vancouver Island University for 13 years. Ellen's approach to teaching is to have fun because she believes people will retain the information better. As the elder-in-residence for VIU, Ellen has shared traditional teachings and rituals with students — both aboriginal and non-aboriginal. Ellen believes that rituals can connect people with higher powers of the universe and understanding.

Ellen has a special presence in any room she enters. She will bring traditional Snuneymuxw greetings and blessing when she attends meetings, and when she speaks, you hear the warmth, acceptance and respect she holds for each person. Everyone feels somehow better and the meetings are a little more positive after Ellen does her greetings.

So let's celebrate the work of Ellen White — 87 years young and still going strong.

FALL FAIRS IN KOOTENAY AREA

K. Conroy: A number of members have spoken about the various fall fairs held in their communities, and I, too, would like to. However, I have a slight problem. I don't have just one to talk about; I have a number. So in two short minutes, I will attempt to summarize those in our area in chronological order.

Slocan Valley Fall Fair is the last of the summer, first of the season, held August 30 in the beautiful Slocan Valley, showcasing all that the valley has to offer.

Rossland Fall Fair was part of Rossland Golden City Days on September 12, focusing on some of the activities from the past needing to be utilized again today to ensure healthy and sustainable practices.

Nakusp Fall Fair will celebrate their 100th anniversary next year — one of the oldest in the province. This year they had a trashion show with people modelling wearable clothing all made of articles from the recycling bin, and they also have the famous zucchini races. What a novel concept for that extra zucchini all of us in the Kootenays usually have at this time of year.

Hills Garlic Festival attracted thousands of visitors to this tiny community, so they now hold it in the neighbouring village of New Denver. This year was the 17th annual festival, and you've guessed. It's all about garlic.

Grand Forks Fall Fair has stayed true to its agricultural roots with an amazing show of produce from throughout the region.

Rock Creek, that little community you all drive through on your way to the Kootenays, averages over 20,000 people through their gates. The emphasis for this fair remains on agriculture and home crafts, and animal shows and judging are a central part of the program. There are numerous entries from young and old alike, all vying for that coveted blue ribbon.

This last weekend the annual Pass Creek Fall Fair, just outside of Castlegar, held its 14th annual fair with all the traditional displays, as well as a horse show and competition for riders of all ages.

All those fairs don't just happen, Mr. Speaker. They happen because of all the amazing volunteers who commit themselves to ensuring that rural B.C. and our rural ways that have sustained B.C. families for many, many years stay front and centre for many more years to come.

COMMUNITY GROUPS AND FESTIVALS

IN BURNABY

H. Bloy: Many volunteers and many groups make Burnaby the great city it is, and I'd like to just mention a few today.

We have the Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion, which helps residents with developmental disabilities. It was a pleasure to attend their annual summer barbecue again this year and to meet their outstanding volunteers like Gerry and their executive director, Richard Faucher.

Burnaby Family Life with their executive director Jeanne Fike and great volunteer Donna Cheltenham.

South Burnaby Neighbourhood House helps many residents to get support and services. At their annual barbecue I had the pleasure of talking to Antonia Beck, their executive director; RCMP superintendent Rick Taylor; and Burnaby fire chief Bob Cook, along with many local residents.

Kensington Park Fun Days is a highlight of every summer. They have excellent volunteers, like Ken and Lou Ryan, who make sure that it's always enjoyable for Burnaby families. This fair always features a lot of local community groups like scouting and guiding.

[1350]

As always, the Korean Heritage Festival was also terrific with great music and dance and drumming from local groups and from Paju, Korea. The festival was started by Michael Hwang and was also attended by the first Canadian Senator of Korean heritage, Sen. Yonah Martin.

[ Page 658 ]

In addition to these groups, Burnaby is fortunate to have other great groups like the Rotary, the Lions, the Kinsmen, and the optimist club, of which I am a founding member. All of these groups make such a profound difference in our communities, and it includes all the sporting groups.

I would like to ask the members of this House to give a hand to all these groups and individuals who make Burnaby a great place to live.

Hon. K. Falcon: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Falcon: Today in the gallery we have two students who are completing their doctorate of pharmacy degrees. In the gallery with us today we have the two students, Eugene Yeung and Sayako Yokoyama, who are completing and doing their residencies with Fraser Health. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR LITERACY PROGRAMS

R. Austin: Yesterday the B.C. Liberals claimed that hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on an Olympic luxury box wasn't discretionary spending. But on August 21 they made the decision to cut the entire funding for Literacy B.C.'s READ Line and the B.C. Literacy Directory.

To the Minister of Education: is cutting literacy funding this government's definition of controlling discretionary funding? And tomorrow, as the minister makes her Raise-a-Reader stops, what's her plan to show her priority isn't just more photo ops but to strengthen literacy in B.C.?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm really delighted to have an opportunity to speak about our record on literacy. We've invested almost a billion dollars in literacy programs. Close to $1 billion in literacy programs in this province since 2001 — it's an outstanding record. It is not matched anywhere in Canada, and certainly it's something that we should all be enormously proud of.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: In 2005 the Premier declared that one of his golden goals was to make B.C. the most literate province in Canada. So let's look at the record.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Austin: Let the new Minister of Education look at the record: cuts to Literacy B.C.'s Reading Link, cuts to B.C. Literacy Directory, cuts to 16 regional literacy staff positions, library funding cut by 22 percent and frozen for three years, grants for 18 reading rooms eliminated and adult literacy programs cut.

Again to the minister: how will cutting key literacy programs for adults and youth make B.C. the most literate province in the entire country?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This year alone we'll be investing $180 million in literacy programs in this province. I'm glad the member opposite has raised the Raise-a-Reader program, because that's one I'm very proud of. Over the last five years we have provided…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: …$3.3 million to the Raise-a-Reader program.

Tomorrow morning, very early, I will be out selling papers, and I really hope you'll come and buy one.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a further supplemental.

R. Austin: Here's what Literacy B.C. Executive Director Judy Cavanagh is saying about the cuts. "Thousands of British Columbians each year use these services to connect with education programs in their areas. This seriously jeopardizes their access to information."

[1355]

Again to the minister: the day before she goes out and encourages British Columbians to read, will she tell this House how cutting access to crucial literacy programs will improve literacy in this province?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: These are challenging economic times, without doubt. In spite of that, we are investing, as I've mentioned, $180 million this year alone in literacy programs.

With respect to library funding, we were able this year to provide 80 percent of the previous year's funding, but importantly….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Interjections.

[ Page 659 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Importantly, we were able to completely provide core funding. The reason we chose to do that is that that is funding that specifically goes to rural centres, preferentially.

I have a letter from Andy Ackerman from the B.C. Library Trustees Association, where he says: "We're pleased to see the provincial government recognizes the integral role public libraries play in community development and literacy."

D. Donaldson: The Premier's great goal of four years ago to have the most literate jurisdiction on the continent appears long forgotten.

He axed, just this summer, 16 regional literacy coordinators that provided adult education expertise to volunteers and learners in the communities. He cut $60,000, eliminating the B.C. Literacy Directory and the READ Line, services especially important to isolated rural communities — cuts that the executive director of Literacy B.C. said don't make sense.

On the eve of Raise-a-Reader Day, would the Premier please demonstrate that his words around literacy mean something by restoring these services in adult literacy?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We are providing this year for funding in many areas, but specifically, to adult literacy we'll be providing $4.6 million. This is the education guarantee which helps adults to upgrade their skills.

We're also making our commitment to literacy clear by our investment in StrongStart B.C. centres, a place where preschoolers can attend. This year we're expanding that program, and there will be over a hundred more StrongStart B.C. centres in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: We're talking about cuts to adult literacy here. For a government that says it cares about literacy, they sure have a funny way of showing it.

Again, on the eve of Raise-a-Reader Day we learn funding for reading centres in Atlin, Dease Lake and Telkwa is cut — a mere $1,400 in Dease Lake and $1,600 in Atlin to keep these reading centres going. They don't have public libraries nearby. This is all they have. The closest public library for them is in the Yukon.

Will the Premier show his words mean something by announcing, on the cusp of Raise-a-Reader Day, that funding for these reading centres is reinstated?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It's certainly great to be able to get up and talk about our investments in literacy in this province, and I'm pleased to have a chance to do that. Let's talk about some of these…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: …isolated rural communities that were absolutely overjoyed to hear in 2008 that the Premier announced $5.2 million, a multi-year grant which is rolling out now so that communities like Dease Lake and like Boswell on the east shore of beautiful Kootenay Lake are having $50,000 for high-speed Internet.

[1400]

These are the kinds of initiatives that we're all happy about. I would really challenge the members opposite to match this achievement of a $1 billion investment in literacy since 2001.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Simons: There isn't a community in this province that hasn't been affected by the literacy cuts by this government. Libraries and reading rooms across the province are trying to adjust to this blow.

Will the minister tell the residents of Powell River–Sunshine Coast, for example, how they can address the problem of illiteracy in this province when they're making these kinds of decisions in this House?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm pleased again to talk about more of our investments. One of the things that we are doing….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister. Continue

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: These are without doubt some of the most challenging economic times that have ever happened in this province. Yet in spite of that, our government has actually increased the budget by a billion dollars, and we've increased funding.

I see the member opposite shaking his head, but in fact, we've increased the funding for health, and we've increased the funding for education. We are investing $84 million more in education this year than we did last year in spite of declining enrolment. The reality is that choices did have to be made. We've made those choices, and they're excellent choices.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: In these difficult economic times, it's not the time to turn your back on community programs that promote social inclusion, that promote job readiness,

[ Page 660 ]

that promote literacy for adults and children. This government is making the wrong decisions.

So far, nothing the minister has said will reassure the people of this province that they're taking the right action in this file. So to the minister: what will she do to convince her cabinet colleagues to reverse these damaging cuts?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I know that there is disagreement on the two sides of the House about many things, but we do, in fact, agree on one thing. I quote the member for Skeena, who just a few days ago said this: "Obviously, you know British Columbia still has an outstanding public education system."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I would like to speak to students I met this summer, students like Ian and Julia, and their parents and say to them that, yes, we're continuing to invest record amounts in education, record amounts in literacy. It is a priority for this government.

D. Thorne: Books for B.C. Babies is another casualty of this government's about-face on its literacy promises. Introduced at the early stages of a child's growth, this program delivered books to 42,000 babies in B.C. and promoted reading as central to our children's future. Thanks to this government, that program, too, is on life support.

[1405]

I again ask the Minister of Education: as she and the Premier prepare to hand out newspapers on Raise-a-Reader Day tomorrow, do they not think that protecting literacy programs for young children deserves at least as much priority as putting 20 people in luxury boxes during the Olympic Games?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I can assure the members opposite that we considered babies, like brand-new babies that are just born today, as well as children that are in our public school system today but, in particular, the early learners. We've considered them, and that is why we are going to be funding full-day kindergarten. And 19,000 children will start full-day kindergarten next year.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We continue to fund programs like StrongStart B.C. that are really starting to make a difference in this province for preschoolers and their parents, who can attend these programs, where the children learn and their parents learn about early childhood education. We had over 200 of those centres last year, and we'll have over 300 by the end of this year. That's where we're investing.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Thorne: All that is well and good, but it'd be really nice if all of the children who come into all-day kindergarten could read when they get there. It would be very nice.

It becomes more obvious daily that this is a government that just can't get its priorities straight.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second.

Members, it's getting very difficult to hear.

Continue, Member.

D. Thorne: I was saying that it becomes more clear daily that this is a government that just can't get its priorities straight. This government had no trouble finding millions — millions — of dollars for hockey events at GM Place, half a million dollars for one Olympic party and hundreds of thousands of dollars for ministers' offices, but when it comes to protecting programs like Books for B.C. Babies, they say there's no money.

Tomorrow, as the minister takes

part in Raise-a-Reader Day events, it's time for her and the Premier to demonstrate they care about literacy. On this Raise-a-Reader Day, will the minister commit to spending the money where it should be spent, on B.C.'s children and their future, or does this day, Raise-a-Reader Day, mean nothing more to this government and the minister than just another photo op?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I don't mind at all being repetitive, and I'm happy to review again our spending and our commitment to education. This year there will be about 7,000 fewer students entering B.C. classrooms, and we will be investing $84 million more than last year. We will be investing $180 million across government in literacy programs, and we'll continue to make those kinds of investments.

Our commitment is strong. We're demonstrating it clearly with the kinds of investments we're making. We're increasing investments in education year after year after year in this province.

N. Macdonald: Well, the minister has had seven chances to answer questions. Today she's reading a script. Tomorrow it's a photo op. You have had cut after

[ Page 661 ]

cut to literacy programs. When is the minister going to stand up and justify cuts that are indefensible?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1410]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Our record in literacy is not something to defend. It is something to stand on top of the building and shout about.

Where is there a province where a billion dollars has been invested since 2001 in literacy achievement? There is no one. And absolutely, in answer to your question, we have made some decisions. We are not fully funding everything we funded last year.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: But what we are doing is showing clearly our commitment to early learning, to our most vulnerable students, to our aboriginal students. Our record is clear, and it is something to be absolutely proud of.

FUNDING FOR

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROGRAMS

M. Mungall: My question is to the Solicitor General. B.C. already has the second-worst rate of domestic violence in Canada, and during times of economic downturn, like right now, the level of violence against women rises. Why, then, is the Solicitor General forcing funding cuts of $440,000 on groups that help women and children who are victims of violence?

Hon. K. Heed: Our government takes domestic violence very, very seriously. Matter of fact, we're spending $43 million on victim violence programs. We have several programs that deal specifically with people that are the victims of domestic violence and sexual exploitation. We have 161 victim services programs in British Columbia.

We are working with the service providers to ensure we continue to meet the needs of domestic violence in British Columbia, and in our discussions with them of what we should do here in the province of British Columbia, we are ensuring that front-line programs are not removed from our victim services.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Mungall: I have to say it's very difficult to believe this government's claims that during tough economic times, helping and protecting the most vulnerable is a priority for them. Women and children hurt by domestic violence are among the most disadvantaged group in our province. But here we are. We have the B.C. Liberals reneging on service contracts and cutting programs by close to half a million dollars. Next year the programs will be cut by even more; $1.2 million in government funding will be lost.

Again to the Solicitor General. Is he willing to break rank today, do what they actually say they are going to do, and protect women and children fleeing from violence by restoring those funding cuts?

Hon. K. Heed: We continue to ensure that we have programs in place here in British Columbia for domestic violence. Matter of fact, we are coordinating our efforts even more here. We are moving all programs related to domestic violence into one ministry, that being Public Safety and Solicitor General. That way, we are finding economies of scale in order for us to deliver front-line services to victims here in British Columbia. We are working with the service providers, and we have found efficiencies in order for us to keep front-line programs here in British Columbia.

The figure the member is responding to is actually what we found with working with several contract providers here in British Columbia. They are the ones that assisted us to find these efficiencies by moving all victim services programs into our ministry.

[1415]

M. Farnworth: The bottom line is that this is a $440,000 cut to a front-line organization — front-line services. The Solicitor General was a police officer. He knows, or should know, all too well the effects of domestic violence. He should know all too well the tragedy of domestic violence, and he should know all too well the dangerous situations that police officers find themselves in when they go to domestic violence situations. So how can he stand in this House and justify a $440,000 elimination in domestic violence programs in British Columbia?

Hon. K. Heed: I know very well what domestic violence does to people here in British Columbia and victims of domestic violence, because I spent over 30 years in policing having to respond to it.

We will continue to treat domestic violence here in British Columbia as a priority. As a matter of fact, we are working with stopping the violence counselling. We have 102 contracts. Children Who Witness Abuse counselling — we have 92 contracts. Outreach services and multicultural outreach services for women — we have 69 contracts. Ending Violence Association of B.C. contracts for provincial services, training and community coordination for women's safety programs — three contracts. B.C.-Yukon Transition House Society contracts for children who witness abuse — two contracts. Those are the contracts.

[ Page 662 ]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Instead of standing up and reading a list of, "This is a contract; this is a contract," why doesn't he stand up and admit in this House that a $440,000 cut is going to hurt service providers, front-line people, many of them volunteers who provided much-needed service to victims of domestic violence, and it needs to be restored? So will he stand up and restore the $440,000?

Hon. K. Heed: It's clear the members opposite are confused about the facts. I have given you the facts. We are spending $43 million this year on victim assistance programs in British Columbia. We'll continue to make that a priority to deal with this significant issue.

EMERGENCY SERVICES AT

ASHCROFT HOSPITAL

H. Lali: Will the Minister of Health please explain why the Liberal government is closing the emergency room at the Ashcroft Hospital?

Hon. K. Falcon: As the member well knows, one of the challenges we have in British Columbia is attracting particularly physicians and sometimes RNs to places like Ashcroft Hospital. It is an ongoing challenge — frankly, a challenge that would have been a lot easier had the NDP in the 1990s not frozen the training spaces for doctors and nurses in the province of British Columbia.

They conveniently forget that, and I'll tell you why that's important. It's important.…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: That is an important point, because actually to train these medical professionals often takes seven, eight years. But I am pleased to say that by doubling the doctor training spaces in our schools, by doubling the nurse training spaces in our schools, we are finally getting the kinds of professionals we need into the system and throughout the system.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1420]

H. Lali: The minister knows well that Liberal cuts to small rural hospitals are acting as a deterrent to bringing health care professionals and an appropriate level of doctors to small communities all throughout the province.

During the election campaign the Premier said that he actually did not support rural areas losing health care services. But after the election, over the summer months, Ashcroft's ER was shut down six days a week — like on July 6, when Gloria Duncan, suffering from allergic reaction to hazelnuts, was rushed to Ashcroft's emergency room by her husband.

Because this Liberal government had closed the Ashcroft ER, she did not receive critical care for an hour and a half. Gloria instead was transferred to Kamloops, where she died in the intensive care unit a few days later.

Gloria's family and the community of Ashcroft are raising legitimate questions about Gloria's not receiving timely emergency care and are worried about the ER being closed all of October coming up.

Will the minister please explain why the Liberals, after promising during the election to protect health care in rural areas, are failing to ensure communities like Ashcroft have adequate health care when they need it, where they need it?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member well knows that it has been a challenge to recruit physicians, particularly to small rural communities. It's one of the reasons why, in attempting to deal with this issue, the first thing you have to do is increase the supply of physicians. So doubling the number of training spaces was a very important step to make sure that we are producing more physicians into the system so that we can spread them through the system.

The second thing we did was have a rural recruitment program, where we specifically encourage physicians to go to rural communities like Ashcroft. That doesn't mean the problem has gone away overnight. It is still a challenge.

But I can tell you this. Having doctors being trained at the University of Northern British Columbia is one way you get northern students from the north becoming doctors and wanting to stay and practise in the north and through the Interior and through rural parts of British Columbia. That's exactly what we'll continue to do.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, continued second reading debate on Bill 2, and in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continued consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Citizens' Services.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Budget measures

implementation act (N o . 2), 2009

(continued)

N. Simons: I stand to continue my comments about Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act. I started just before lunch but only had time to note the time.

[ Page 663 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members. Just a second, Members. Could those who have other duties please leave the chamber.

Continue, Member.

N. Simons: Many of us start our speeches or our talks or our discussions with how much pleasure it gives us to be standing in the House to talk about a piece of legislation. In this particular case, it's kind of disappointing to have to be standing here to talk about what is really a get-out-of-jail-free card for this government.

As much as they might like to characterize it as an adjustment based on external factors, what it really is, is a bill to excuse themselves for a number of indiscretions. For the information and benefit of those who are observing this debate, either in the gallery here or at home, Bill 2 represents a piece of legislation that gives this government permission to break its own law.

[1425]

They passed this budget bill some years ago that said it was illegal to run a deficit. At the time, it was lauded by themselves and seen cynically by others as simply a public relations campaign to say: "Look, we're never going to have a deficit because we're good fiscal managers."

Well, lo and behold, there'll be seven out of 12 budgets shortly that will be in deficit, and I think that sort of says more about this government's actions than it does about their commitments.

Twice now we've been in this House spending time talking about passing a piece of legislation that simply tells the government that it doesn't have to follow its own rules. But they've also broken the rules on this very act in other situations, with respect to ministers getting bonuses. Those bonuses were scheduled to be provided to ministers who used their budget according to plans. When they failed to do that, government introduced other legislation to forgive them for not meeting the expectations that the legislation laid out.

It's disappointing to have to be in this Legislature to talk about this particular piece of legislation, because what it really is, is simply, as I said, a get-out-of-jail-free card, one that offers government an opportunity to excuse itself and sort of get on their way.

It's the role of opposition — on behalf of my constituents, I believe it's required of me — to ensure that the truth of this gets out to the public. What it symbolizes to me is a government that's more concerned about public relations than it is about good public policy. Good public policy would suggest that you would know that economies go through cycles and that we cannot always predict every aspect of what we're faced with — global economic crisis or even local challenges.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

So in effect, what we're doing here is spending time to correct, to fix, the mistakes of this government's previous legislation. But we're going to be doing it again, and we're going to be doing it again. Every time we do it, it's a reminder that this government said one thing and did another.

Unfortunately, it leads to cynicism in the public, and it leads to a distrust of the word of politicians and, in this particular case, not just the word of politicians but the legislation that politicians have voted for.

Bill 2, the bill, the act that allows government to enact their budget, is really a large excuse for their mismanagement and their failings. It doesn't give me any pleasure to say that. It's not an individual insult, but I think it requires that members of the government side become a little bit introspective when they look at legislation.

They realize that legislation is not an advertisement. It's not a publicity campaign. It's not a billboard. Legislation is enacted in order to ensure that the public interest is protected. That should be the fundamental basis of all legislation. Unfortunately, the original act and this amendment to that act are purely facades. They are purely straw figures that hide the truth of the situation.

Really, it's like legislation that says: "You have to do this, this, this and this, except" — on the back page — "when you feel like doing it a different way." Really, that's to put it into plain language. Government passed a rule, and then they passed another rule saying that you don't have to obey the first rule.

It's troubling to me — and I think it's troubling to those who follow the politics of British Columbia — to see that a government manages to portray a certain image of itself, in some cases quite successfully, only to find out later that that image was really not an image but an illusion.

That illusion was fed to the people of British Columbia prior to the election, and now we see it for what it is. We see it for what it is: a government promising a $495 million deficit and actually coming in with a $2.8 billion deficit — I might add, the largest deficit in the history of this province.

[1430]

What makes that more troubling is that they claim to be good managers. The facts speak for themselves. The facts are before the people of this province in black and white. They have managed to actually take a province that was benefiting from high commodity prices, the natural resources that belong to the people of this province…. The people of this province expected benefits from the wealth that we co-own, and instead, mere months after the economy started to go down, we find our cupboards bare.

We find our cupboards bare because of mismanagement. Someone over on that side of the House was either not looking forward toward the future or they were woefully uninformed — or, as they call it in criminal law, wilfully blind. That refers to knowing something is coming down the pipe but pretending not to know it's there.

[ Page 664 ]

The example used in criminology is always about perhaps hitting another car, and without looking to make sure you didn't, you drive away and hope that noise wasn't you hitting that other car.

Well, in this particular case, all the warning signs showed this government that our revenues were going to be down, that our social assistance rates were going to be up. Instead of acknowledging that, because of political opportunism during a time of election here in the province, they chose to withhold that information only to allow it to come out after the deed was done and after they were re-elected — I think to the detriment of the people of this province.

There are a number of issues that this bill raises besides the duplicitous nature of the government's stated goals, and that is some of the content that includes the elimination of an agency called Tourism B.C.

I'm the former critic for…. At the time it was called Tourism, Sport and the Arts. I met with a lot of individuals working in the tourism industry. Those people are dedicated to showcasing this province in all its beauty, to inviting guests from other jurisdictions to see what a beautiful province we live in and to sharing that beauty with others and building goodwill.

Unfortunately, in this particular circumstance, the government has chosen to eliminate that entity in order to take the revenue that was previously allotted to it for their general revenue, to make up for the shortfalls that they found themselves facing in other areas.

This all has to do with government priority. It doesn't have to do with simply the fact that we're all undergoing a difficult economic period of time. It has to do with government priority, and I believe that the issue here is misplaced priorities.

We saw for years and years programs that were splashed across pages of our newspapers with bright colours and easy-to-read words extolling the virtue of programs that they felt — or they implied — would be beneficial to the communities, including literacy programs, programs that supported vulnerable families, programs that promoted sport in school. Yet really the true test is: how dedicated is this government to those goals when we see that the first things that they cut are those very programs?

What happened to the money? Where's the money? I think this government has some accounting to do, some explaining to do to the people of the province, to the people of Powell River–Sunshine Coast — the people of Powell River–Sunshine Coast, whose costs since this government privatized their only transportation link to the rest of British Columbia, the B.C. Ferries system….

[1435]

When they privatized that, our marine highway, we saw the prices of our transportation going up almost quarterly to the point where people are having a very difficult time — whether they're business people or residents travelling to visit families — making ends meet. These are fixed costs that individuals living in Powell River–Sunshine Coast cannot continue to bear at this rate. This is a government that allowed private interests to take over the management of what is essentially and should be a public service.

That just illustrates, I think, perhaps the ideology or the way this government likes to do things, and that is minimize government and maximize profit for private corporations that don't bring the benefits back to British Columbians.

We can also see examples in my riding of Powell River–Sunshine Coast, of energy projects that will benefit far more the offshore interests than they do the people of that region. The people of that region pay more for their food than many other areas of the province because of the transportation costs, and pay more for health care. They have to travel further for health care because the government has cut programs even in our health region that have served people so well.

People with mental health issues on the Powell River–Sunshine Coast, people with addictions problems, seniors who have mobility issues — all of them are feeling the cuts of the government's misplaced priorities. The handyDART services that allow for seniors to be in social situations with their friends and their peers and their families — these programs are being cut.

I've been told stories from senior citizens, one 80 years old, who for the first time, because of cuts to services that help her look after her husband with Alzheimer's…. Because of cuts to services to that program, her mental health has declined, and for the first time she needs to take medication to control her depression.

The impacts of government cuts are often perhaps not examined carefully enough, I believe, before decisions are made. They're made at high-level management levels. Organizations and agencies are being told to cut a certain percentage of their budget. When they're given no choice, the cuts ultimately do have an impact on people.

But why would a government in good conscience cut respite services for seniors who are looking after their loved ones at home? Would they do that, and when it's brought to their attention, would they change their mind?

That's the issue. My responsibility as an opposition member is to point out the impacts of their public policy and to point out the failures when they are clear. When I do, Madam Speaker, we're met with quotes about how things were when I was in first-year university. We're met with quotes about politicians who did things, who I never even heard of, instead of actually saying to me and to the constituents of Powell River–Sunshine Coast that we need to re-examine this.

This particular example, Sea to Sky. It's not my constituency; it's a bordering constituency. It's the area, essentially, from West Vancouver up to Whistler, to Pemberton. It's semi-rural. It's well travelled. In Squamish they have

[ Page 665 ]

mental health and addiction services. At least they did until they were notified at Sea to Sky Community Services that they were getting a budget cut of half a million dollars.

The government's explanation, when prompted, was that they were going to move all these services provided by six professional counsellors into the government shop itself, where 1.5 positions await the transfer of over 100 files of individuals who have mental health or addictions issues. Transferred with those individuals is a waiting list of over 80 people waiting for addiction services, waiting for mental health support.

[1440]

What happens when an MLA representing an area like that sits on the government side? Will they stand up and speak on behalf of their constituents? I think it's important to say that the role of the opposition includes representing those who find no voice on the government side. I'd just like to point out the irony of this. The government has also seen fit to approve the establishment of a casino or gaming room in Squamish….

Deputy Speaker: Member, may I draw you back to the debate of Bill 2.

N. Simons: Madam Speaker, pardon me if I was straying. I strayed from my constituency to another, and I suppose I did stray a bit from the actual guts of this particular piece of legislation. Thank you for reminding me.

I thought it was important to point out that here we have a piece of legislation ultimately making excuses for budget overruns. We see that even when we're spending more than the government has said they were going to spend, we're still cutting essential services that I think need to be shored up at times of difficulty, shored up at times when people are facing bigger challenges to their own pocketbook. I guess that's a wallet.

The connection between this legislation and the cuts to services in our communities is actually clear — for me, anyway — because what this government has done is said one thing and done another. In the case of cuts to health services, they've said one thing and done another. Promises made; promises broken. And it's not just the fact that these promises were not kept. The impact of these promises hurt individuals, hurt families, hurt service providers and, ultimately, weaken the social structure of our communities, prevent inclusion and cause hardship.

When the government cut Tourism B.C., they said that the 3 percent hotel tax would then go directly to general revenue. Perhaps they didn't say that. They said it would go to their funds to help promote tourism. Well, we've heard that before. Ask any firefighter in this province if they think that taxes originally earmarked for the promotion of fire safety and fire prevention have ever reached the office of the fire commissioner.

Ask members of the real estate community if they believe that the taxes earmarked as they were promised have ever found their way to the intended purposes. They go to general revenue. It's often seen, and it's not surprising, that government will say that this 3 percent will be targeted towards tourism. I wouldn't hold my breath. I've seen them offer one thing and then offer something entirely different when their mood changed.

Here we have before us a bill that basically offers government ministers — cabinet — the ability to break their law without punishment, to go against their own legislation without fear of repercussion.

I wonder aloud at the cost of the original legislation, the cost of its rewriting three or four times and the cost of this debate, and whether or not it would have been more in the public interest had they simply said: "We'll manage the economy however the world markets act, however the commodity prices change, in a way that protects the public interest." All economists will tell you that there are times when some deficits are required in order to protect core services.

In this particular case, though, core services have been so badly slashed since 2001 — you can ask any social worker in the province about that; you can ask any environmental protection officer in this province about that — that when it came time to start trimming, it's like cutting your fingernails too close. That's not a comfortable feeling, but they've cut so much already that it's going to bleed. That's where we are now.

[1445]

Sorry about the graphic nature of my illustration, but as a former child protection social worker, it was an actual case. I think that in this particular case, we've seen a whole province now being told this is going to hurt more than it had to. This is going to hurt far more than it had to because of excesses in the good times, because of the government's desire to trim the civil service which has provided so well for this province — to trim the civil service so close that there's almost no room to manoeuvre.

If you talk to civil servants in various ministries throughout the province, they've lost their ability to talk to each other, to coordinate forward-thinking programs, to evaluate programs. All they're doing is trying to get by on a day-to-day basis.

I would prefer to be in this House discussing public policy, discussing the values of government, the goals of government, the future of the province instead of talking about how we're going to excuse ourselves for breaking our own law. We have better things to do. We have far better things to do.

As I said before lunch when I started, I'm not pleased to have to be standing here talking about this bill. I would much prefer to be talking about the impact of programs on citizens. That's what we're supposed to be doing here.

[ Page 666 ]

I'm sure many of the members on the government side of the House recognize the charade that this has become, the charade that they started with their balanced-budget legislation. Instead of basing it on good, solid public policy, they based it on an image they wanted to project of themselves, which I think has basically been tarnished. Not on an individual basis, but as a collective, as cabinet and as government side, I think they've failed the people of British Columbia. I think the damage that we're feeling in our communities is only going to get worse while we're talking about these kinds of issues.

I would much prefer to see a government that showed a bit of vision, to actually live up to that vision if they're concerned about literacy. They should be concerned about literacy even when we don't have the same resources that we had before. If they're concerned about sport funding, if they're concerned about funding to individuals — young people — for sporting events, they should be as concerned about promoting health in difficult times.

In my constituency the food bank lineups have increased dramatically. In my constituency occupancy at our transition houses has increased dramatically. Services being provided to people with mental health and addictions have seen no decline in demand.

Homelessness, even in the rural parts of this province, is out of control. Since this government came into power, we've seen a 400 percent increase in the number of homeless people in this province, and that did not all take place during difficult economic times. That all took place when we had record revenues, when we had record-high commodity prices.

As much as we all recognize the difficult times we face now, what was this government doing with the money when we were doing so well? I think an examination of that needs to be undertaken. How is it that we continue to have the highest level of child poverty in the country?

[1450]

We had the highest level of child poverty in the country for six years in a row during economic boom times. For some reason the members opposite aren't yelling at me that it isn't true today. They yelled yesterday, and they yelled the day before. Not only are they, I guess, agreeing…. Maybe they're not agreeing.

I think it would be interesting to see some ministers go on record on the issue of child poverty. It was during the best times of this province that we've managed to see child poverty increase.

My previous work was with families and children, and often marginalized families who are living in poverty. I see the programs that are being cut now, and these are all programs that actually kept those families from the child welfare court system, often kept them from the criminal court system, and provided tools and techniques for parents to overcome their challenges, the stresses of their lives. When you see programs that were really like the glue that kept some communities safe, when you see those programs melting away, you know that everything tumbles after.

I'm speaking about Bill 2, about the promises that were made and the promises that were broken. I see a distinct and obvious parallel between the services and the programs that we were promised and the services and programs that were cut — the balanced or the small deficit budget that we were promised and this balloon of a deficit two months later that we got.

This government may well not have seen things coming. They might have been keeping their head down, or they might not have been using their windshield wipers. One way or the other, they didn't see the turn in the road, and unfortunately for the people of British Columbia, we're the ones that have to suffer from their mismanagement.

Madam Speaker, if you haven't already noticed, I plan to vote against this bill. I'll do so with the confidence that the people of Powell River–Sunshine Coast are behind me as I point out the duplicitous nature of this legislation.

Deputy Speaker: Members, second reading debate is typically wide-ranging, but I would ask members to draw their attention back to the substance of Bill 2.

R. Fleming: I will focus my remarks this afternoon entirely, of course, on the substance of Bill 2 because it's actually a much more wide-ranging Budget Measures Implementation bill than the standard that we're used to in this House. Many of my colleagues have already unearthed and spoken to some of the things that are in this bill.

The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast was touching on a wide-ranging number of elements in this bill too, and one of them that he spent some time on was Tourism British Columbia and its dissolution.

What an odd thing to put in a budget act — very odd — unless you're the government and you recognize how controversial and universally despised and panned and worrisome that decision is, how furious the reaction from what is a $12 billion industry that sustains hundreds of thousands of jobs and tens of thousands of small businesses in British Columbia, how furious that sector was with that surprise announcement this summer, this late August; and unless you're thoroughly embarrassed by how that announcement has turned out — as this government is.

Therein lies the reason as to why they would put in that controversial decision — one that I think will bode very poorly for British Columbia in terms of jobs and economic activity. That is why they would put it in a bill like this, this afternoon. I'm going to return to some points on Tourism B.C. later and speak to how important the industry is in my region and the risks that this government is taking.

[1455]

[ Page 667 ]

But there's something else that's curious in here too. There's a detail, a miscellaneous amendment in this bill to amend the Income Tax Act by $72. Madam Speaker, $72 is what individuals in British Columbia can expect back in pocket in terms of total basic personal exemptions.

That's the big so-called tax cut behind this massive tax transfer that is the HST, which this government has introduced and shocked British Columbians by saying one thing in the election only 110 days ago and, upon being returned to office, doing what they said they would never do and implementing that HST — which, by the way, the Toronto-Dominion Bank on the weekend released an analysis of and said will hurt average households by hundreds of dollars per year. Hundreds of dollars per year. So it's no wonder they wouldn't want to stack up the independent analysis from the banking sector in Canada next to very small personal income tax deductions in this bill.

You know what else isn't side by side with this $72-per-year basic personal exemption that ordinary British Columbians can anticipate — 72 bucks a year. What is that per month — $6? MSP premium increases. This budget, this throne speech outlined an 18 percent increase to medical service premiums. At the same time that the United States of America is talking about insuring more people and lowering costs for households for drugs and medical services, this government north of the border is raising the costs of health care for families by 18 percent. That's a tax increase.

Nobody is deceived by that at all — to call it something else. It's a mandatory fee that every household must pay and that every British Columbian must register for. It's a tax. It's a tax on business where it's paid in payroll. It's a tax on individuals where it's a shared cost. It's a tax on households and retirees where they pay. No wonder they wouldn't want to stack up that tax increase — because it dwarfs, after the full 18 percent of it is implemented, this $72 basic personal tax exemption.

So it's all about how the bill is constructed. This is a take-out-the-trash bill, Madam Speaker. We're taking out the embarrassment of dissolving and winding down what has been a successful, internationally recognized tourism organization. An arm's-length, independent Crown board has administered that for well over a decade and built an industry in British Columbia and raised revenues year upon year, often in the double digits annually. They don't want to put that front and centre in its own stand-alone legislation. They don't want to have that highlighted in separate stand-alone legislation.

Of course the main embarrassment of this bill is that for the second time in six months, this government has had to come to this House to beg permission to break one of its own laws. It has had to come to this House to say that we need to have a deficit, at the same time that it maintains this fiction that it is some kind of government that has made deficits illegal. For the second time in six months they have had to come into this place to change that law, to get an amendment, to get an exemption. It feels like yesterday — although it was only February, I suppose — that we were debating the very same thing.

But then it was in a stand-alone amendment act that authorized it. It was explicit for all to see. The government is coming in here and admitting failure, admitting its law doesn't work — the one they passed in 2004, which came into effect in 2004. They didn't want to quite have that stand-alone spectacle again for the second time in six months this week, so they tucked that main purpose of this bill into a plain, stand-up Budget Measures Implementation Act to avoid having that kind of debate and that kind of act proclaimed in this session.

[1500]

That's what makes up this miscellaneous bill — deficits, hidden tax increases through MSP which are not contrasted with the so-called tax savings that are allowed in the budget. There are other things that are inexplicable in here. Tourism B.C.'s dissolution put into a budget measures implementation act? Bizarre. Changes to Treasury Board allowing non-members of cabinet to sit at Treasury Board? What's that about? Which individual does that have in mind? And what purpose? And why wouldn't that deserve debate focused on that change?

As I mentioned, this government maintains a fiction that deficits are illegal in British Columbia, that there's a legal prohibition against running a deficit in B.C. and that that is somehow a hallmark of Liberal fiscal policy. That's one of their proudest achievements — so proud of it, in fact, that this unworkable law has come to this place for the second time now in six months, because the law doesn't work.

The hubris of the government to think that they could make the economy follow a law that they passed is unbelievable. Now they have to recognize, because it is law, that that's not in fact how things work, and they have to come to this House to change the law. They've done it twice now in six months. This legislation is only four years old. It's quite a record that's getting stacked up here.

I mentioned in February, when I responded to the deficit authorization act then, that it should be called the just kidding act, because the original law has nothing behind it. There's nothing there. It's a bold promise that deficits are illegal, but until the economy says otherwise, until the return of the economic cycle, which comes, sure as night follows day….

What is this that we're debating today, dressed up as the Budget Measures Implementation Act for the September post-election-tabled budget? This is the just kidding act 2.0. It's the same deal — the same thing, camouflaged as they try — that is needed today as six months ago.

[ Page 668 ]

For those of you keeping score at home, because this bill is being amended in this way to allow deficits to 2013, we now have seven out of 12 years in the Liberal mandate finishing in the red. That's less than a .500 average.

I've been a Canucks fan for my whole life, and I was trying to think back to the '70s. I've been a fan of the Canucks since the '70s. I'm trying to think of a worse season that that team — that storied, wonderful franchise — has had, and I couldn't think of one. But if this bill passes, that's exactly what will be confirmed about this government — that record, that average.

It's an interesting question, you know — for any government to look itself in the face when it finds itself in a position that it needs to amend a law that prohibits deficits twice in one year, twice in six months. Isn't it time that someone over there — the Finance Minister would be an ideal candidate — fesses up, talks to the public and tells them that they really ought to repeal the original act, because it doesn't work?

It doesn't work if you use the get-out-of-jail-free card twice in one year in the House, and that's what they've done. It doesn't work if you come in here and have four years of deficits tabled. You know, for four years the law will not apply. What's the point of having that on the books? The minister, if he's going to do that twice in six months, really ought to have that conversation with opinion leaders, with editorial boards, with the public about whether that law actually means anything anymore.

We have a law being amended today that isn't based in reality, and the worst thing, as I mentioned earlier, about what we're speaking to today is that we're not actually debating a stand-alone amendment act on the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. They didn't have the courage to table it like that, but they should have.

[1505]

They should have done it because that was the original intent of the bill that this government was once so proud of — that it would be done in that fashion; that the clauses of the bill that provided for situations like the ones we find ourselves in today, which this government finds itself in, would be brought before the House in that kind of transparent fashion.

Here it is hidden this way — snuck into a single line item, I might add — in a much broader budget measures bill — hoping no one is going to notice, hoping the about-face this government has done yet again on its law that prohibits deficits, hoping nobody noticed that this once-cherished political principle of this government….

Remember, the Premier says he can't sleep at night so long as there are deficits. He's going to have four years of sleepless nights apparently, if we believe him, in that way. But it causes him such great pain that he can't bring it in a bill into this House, as originally prescribed by the legislation when these situations arise.

I think that this government, if it could get away with it, would have scheduled no debate or invoked closure on this at the very end of this session or put it into the wee hours of the morning, if we still had the parliamentary

schedule set that way. I really think so.

What a number of my colleagues have raised questions about this afternoon is really the big one. How did we get here?

How did we go from the Premier, only a hundred days ago on the television cameras and news outlets of British Columbia, assuring voters, assuring British Columbians that should he be re-elected, no worries, the deficit for the province of B.C. will be — and this is a direct quote, his words — "$495 million maximum…"? How did we go from there to a budget that was tabled just a couple of weeks ago by the Premier's Finance Minister, which has a sixfold increase in that deficit figure — $2.8 billion? Like, not even close.

We know now that the Premier actually was briefed during the election. He knew revenues were sliding sideways. He denied that all through the summer, before they were ready to reveal the deception and could no longer conceal that the deficit was indeed much, much larger than what they assured people repeatedly on the campaign trail.

But you know what?

Interjection.

R. Fleming: Maybe the gentleman heckling across the way is trying to get to this point, because the government, in its throne speech, said things can change really, really fast in this globalized world. It was going to be $495 million up until — I don't know — July, 45 days ago. But then things changed really quickly. We were, to quote the throne speech, "brutally deceived by the economy."

An Hon. Member: Someone was brutally deceived.

R. Fleming: Somebody was indeed brutally deceived.

You know, what's interesting is that if they really believe that now…. If they really believe that economic tsunamis or changes in the global economy can have an effect like that which creates a sixfold deficit increase — and they have to, because they have to come in here to prove that — then why don't they go back this afternoon to looking at and repealing the original act that says deficits are illegal?

They're saying the world doesn't work like that. Things come up immediately, urgently. There's a knock-on effect. The economies are interlinked. "Things are beyond our control" is what they're saying on the one hand, and then they're clinging to this notion that B.C. still is a jurisdiction where deficits are against the law.

Well, this law is one that you can drive a truck through. It's not worth the paper that it's written on, and the proof

[ Page 669 ]

of it is that for the second time in six months they've had to come in here and admit exactly that.

If the Minister of Finance wants to cling to the notion that his original law against deficits is worth anything, if he wants to keep that notion alive, then I think he needs to up the ante when he comes in here and plays the get-out-of-jail-free card.

[1510]

I think he needs to demonstrate that if he's going to do that — and he's done it twice now in six months — then he's got to put his money where his mouth is. He has to show his convictions that deficits are really, really bad and that deficits, in fact, are illegal in B.C.

When we have them, why doesn't the Finance Minister — here's a novel idea in terms of accountability, which is in the title of the original act — put his job on the line? Why doesn't he back it up? If deficits are illegal and really, really bad, and ministers are being held accountable when they run them, then why doesn't he put his job on the line?

We could do that. We could amend the legislation. The minister himself could move it.

If the government believes that balanced budgets are so politically sacred…. It's pretty hard for them to maintain that, now that they've tabled a budget that calls for four deficits in a row.

But if they still believe, as a political principle, that in every instance a budget must be balanced — and therefore programs, like we talked about in question period and have been talking about for weeks, need to be hacked and slashed in furtherance of that goal — then I think the Minister of Finance has to think long and hard when he comes into this place and asks for an amendment like he is today, which mocks the original intent of the legislation that he defends. He has to consider putting himself on the line.

If he rejects, though, surrendering his privileges and his perks and his extra pay and stays on as minister, then I guess that's just what we have to accept as the real reason why for the second time in six months the escape clause is being used.

There's something else in this bill that deserves some examination on the subject of accountability — that is, changes to sections that allow ministers to reduce the amount of scrutiny that they receive in the Legislature when they bring supplementary estimates in here later in the year, and surely they will do that. Surely, they will do that just as they did in the first week of this session.

It will contain all kinds of things in there that do not conform to the budget that we're going to debate over the estimates process in the coming months. There will be all kinds of extra money for this and that and the other thing.

Now, the original legislation said we should judge the minister's performance against those original amounts that are passed by the Legislature. If I'm reading this correctly, the new amendments in this legislation say we should not judge the minister by the budget that's passed by the House in this sitting or in the usual spring sitting, but we should judge the minister by the results based on supplementary estimates.

In other words, they're taking all the fiscal pressure off the minister, because if there is a problem three-quarters into the fiscal year or whatever, the minister just works through Treasury Board a supplementary estimates package. They whisk it through the House here, and lo and behold, they don't get their pay withheld. They get it back, because under this new change, we will hold the minister accountable — and it's an abuse of the term — only to the budget as exceeded by the supplementary estimates.

That's quite a significant change. It's one that I think the public needs to understand is designed to make it easier for ministers to not have their pay held back. I can think of no other reason, and there's been no other motivation advanced by this government on this bill.

Their whole narrative for hacking and slashing public services, including health and education, which they explicitly promised not to do during the election…. This government's whole rationale is that it's tough times out there. Yet here we are passing a bill which has a clause in here making it not so tough times on ministers.

[1515]

They can share a little less in the pain with ordinary British Columbians and keep a little bit more of their salaries and their pay and their perks, which were withheld in the original legislation. It makes it easier for them to keep all that money.

Now, that's interesting. I haven't heard the Minister of Finance or any other minister get up and speak to this bill at all so far, but I would love to hear why they think one of the most important things in these tough times, where we've had to look for money of all kinds…. They've made it easier to escape a penalty clause when they're running a deficit in their ministry. Maybe we will hear that. It would be an interesting explanation.

Tourism British Columbia. This Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2) could be subtitled "the destruction of an independent, arm's-length Crown entity called Tourism British Columbia act" or whatever. We need to talk about it here this afternoon. It deserves a lot more than that. It deserves government putting to the light of day exactly why. I'd like to hear the Minister of Tourism, for example, should he put a stand-alone bill before the House, motivate on why it needs to be passed.

What is the urgency? What is the purpose? What plans does he have in place to replace what I've already described and what is well known to be an internationally recognized tourism promotion and destination marketing body? Why is the minister doing that? I won't get the privilege or the courtesy of hearing him speak to

[ Page 670 ]

that, because he has obviously colluded with the other minister to bury that action by this government into this bill.

So all we can do at this stage of second reading is ask some of those questions. Why would the Minister of Tourism sabotage the industry by winding down an institution that has been built up and has successfully performed for over a decade now in this legislation? By the way, nobody — and I've talked to a lot of people in the industry since this announcement was made — within tourism and the hospitality sector has any confidence that this minister has the ability to lead the tourism industry, and he's put himself in that position.

He's made himself, in effect, the CEO of tourism for all British Columbia after — what? — three weeks in the job since his cabinet appointment. I've looked at his background. I don't think he has it. I don't think he stacks up to Rod Harris, who was an award-winning tourism leader, who has a corporate memory and experience and award-winning programs and destination marketing successes for British Columbia. He's branded this province. He's worked with tourism leaders to adjust marketing plans, and now we've got the Minister of Tourism taking that job, dismissing the board of directors and the CEO? Unbelievable.

The minister didn't even have his story straight as to why he was doing it when it was announced. Why were you doing it, Minister? He suggested vaguely that there might be some savings in there. When he was asked for a figure — and this is the day of the announcement that Tourism B.C. was going to be blown up — he said, "Well, I think it's going to save $200,000 a year," on a marketing budget and an organization in the tens of millions of dollars.

He gave no example of where the savings would come from. He expressed no confidence that it was actually a real number. He just said, "Perhaps we will save a couple hundred grand," on an organization that administers a budget in the tens of millions. Wow. What a motivation for a so-called restructuring. Pathetic.

Now we have no plan in place. The board has been dismissed. The continuity in the organization is gone. The experience is out the door. All of this has been absorbed back into the ministry. Let's not forget that in adopting the old model, the one that we changed away from 12 years ago…. That was a model that the Liberals rejected then. They're bringing it back now, and they haven't explained why.

Some of my colleagues who have been sitting here in the House for a long time were part of the debates when they were then the opposition, when Tourism B.C. was created.

[1520]

One of them, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head — when Tourism B.C. was created as an independent, arm's-length entity — said: "We're hopeful that this legislation will provide for certainty and stability. I'm looking to see that this legislative agency has the independence" — because that was a paramount principle for her — "that was stressed, and I am assured it has."

The minister supported a new model that was independent, away from political interference, back then when it was introduced by the previous NDP government — and actually, on a rare occasion, voted with the government to create Tourism B.C. and now is supporting a minister who wants to destroy that model and bring it back in-house to the ministry and bring it under centralized, politicized control.

You know, the industry, under the current model — the one that's being dissolved in this legislation — gets to choose its own board. They get to select their own CEO without political interference. Under the new model, everything flows to the minister's desk.

Any tourism industry leader that potentially expresses an opinion that's different from this government's about a strategic direction or whatever, about how to market this province…. It's pretty easy to summarily fire and dismiss them, pretty easy to put fear into them.

And you know what? Economies — and this is a significant economic generator, the tourism sector — don't run well when they're on that model, when the directives come straight out of the minister's office, when the industry isn't free to use its entrepreneurialism and its insights and its experience and its dynamism, and leverage its own private sector dollars to get more and better arrangements. That's what we're giving up by going backwards.

There was another member across the way who was also in opposition back then, the member for Saanich North and the Islands, who said this at the time: "I'll be supporting the act to create Tourism B.C. as an independent stand-alone entity, because I think the intention of the act is sound." He then went on to express: "Government does not have a good reputation for appointing boards that are representative of the community."

That's why he supported the model in the late 1990s that took the power from the minister and gave it to the industry to appoint community representatives. Now he's absolutely silent when what he supported then and has been successful, has a track record of over a decade of success, is being destroyed. Where are those two members who supported that? Why aren't they standing with an organization that does an outstanding job in my community — Tourism Victoria or the Council of Tourism Associations? Where are they now?

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 2 this afternoon.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Juan de Fuca.

J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'm delighted to know that you can recognize me even when I have a cold.

[ Page 671 ]

I am pleased to be standing once again in my place here representing the people of the constituency of Juan de Fuca speaking on Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act. I want to focus my remarks, if I can, hon. Speaker…. I know there should have been a heckle on that one. If the member for Shuswap was on his toes, he would have been on that. I want to focus on three areas in the brief time I have available.

We've heard my colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake talking about Tourism B.C. We've heard my colleague also talking about the balanced-budget legislation that's amended by this act. I also want to touch on the harmonized sales tax, which is not, interestingly, in this document, but it's tangentially important to the discussion of management or mismanagement that seems to be the hallmark of the third term of the member for Vancouver–Point Grey's administration.

I heard yesterday or earlier in the week my colleague from Surrey-Whalley referring to the balanced-budget legislation as a document that might as well have been written on a blackboard. I'm thinking more along the lines of an Etch A Sketch, because then you can just shake it off and start again, and nobody even really knows what you're doing.

We were here — what was it? — seven months ago, called back in advance of the scheduled sitting of the Legislature prior to the tabling of the Budget 2009,

part 1, so that we could amend the balanced-budget legislation. I've said in this place, and others have said it, that the member for Vancouver–Point Grey lost sleep over the prospect of a deficit.

[1525]

We had had an emergency session last fall in October, where members like the member for Kamloops and the member from Quilchena and the member from Abbotsford all stood in this place and said: "Not here in British Columbia. We will weather the storm. We are bigger than the world economy. Our policies are so sound, so firm, so grounded in neo-conservatism that we cannot fail."

It was impossible for the world economy to affect British Columbia. That was the level of the hubris on that side of the House. It was absolutely appalling to hear thoughtful, rational people stand up and say irrational things. Not so unusual for the member for Kamloops–North Thompson at the time, but nonetheless he said that only here in B.C. could we traverse the rocky shores and make sure that we arrived at port free of deficit, ready to take on the challenges of the world economy.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Wow. What a difference 12 months makes when you're using an Etch A Sketch to draft legislation.

It's very good to see the Assistant Deputy Speaker in the chair for my remarks. I'm always comforted to know that you're there keeping decorum in this place while I'm on my feet.

So we had an amendment to the balanced-budget legislation in January-February, where the minister current from Vancouver-Quilchena and his seatmate the Premier from Vancouver-Point Grey insisted: "Two years — that's it. It will only be two years, and we came to this difficult decision based on…. Well, we've had a downturn in the economy here despite our sound policies that we put in place over the past number of years, which led to record deficits at the start of the decade, modest surpluses at a time when everyone in the world was reaping surpluses." And now we have, in September 2009, as the member for Victoria–Swan Lake has alluded to, Budget 2009 2.0, the Etch A Sketch version.

We're now going to have deficits for four years, which puts us at — what? — seven deficits in 12 years for the sound managers on that side. Two thumbs up for the Harvard Business School members over there for doing their job. But the tragedy — and this is when I speak for my constituents in Juan de Fuca — of the deception, the tragedy of the hubris, the tragedy of the perception on that side of the House that only they are benevolent enough to govern the people of British Columbia with their sound fiscal policies and their business school management practices is that it was a deception for the people during the election campaign.

We had months and months and months of: "Everything's fine. Don't worry about us. Everything is going to be okay. We're going to amend the balanced-budget legislation. We're going to have deficits for two years, but this year, 2009 — $495 million deficit tops. Guaranteed, no more. Not a penny more — $495 million."

We heard it over and over and over again from the Premier, from the Minister of Finance, from members on that side of the House, day after day, during budget debates, during the election campaign: "That's it. It's going to be great. Don't worry about us, because we have the keys to the kingdom. We have the wisdom of the ages. Only here in British Columbia. That's where it's going to all come together. We have our Etch A Sketch. We've changed the law. Two years maximum."

What have we got today? The election is over. The books have now been exposed to scrutiny, and we have a massive deficit. This year — $2.8 billion. It would have been higher had we not taken the blood money from the federal government with respect to the HST. It is interesting that in a budget implementation act that finds $750 million in revenue from the federal government to impose a harmonized sales tax, there's no mention of the HST. Interesting. The revenue would not have been forthcoming were it not for the secret deal.

An Hon. Member: The signing bonus.

[ Page 672 ]

J. Horgan: Yeah, the signing bonus. That's right. Boy, the Canucks could do better than that. It's a shame we don't have a salary cap for these sorts of things. We might have been able to get some honesty from the government on this question.

We have $750 million of revenue coming as a result of the harmonization of our provincial social services tax and the goods and services tax, but yet there's no mention of it in this document. Hard to believe. Hard to understand. Hard to fathom. It may not be in here because the government doesn't want anyone to know until next July, inconceivably, when the tax takes effect. So we'll have 12 months of: "Well, we had to do it. It's the single most important thing we could do to improve the economy."

[1530]

Although, yesterday, the Minister for the Olympics said the single most important thing we could do for the economy was to have an Olympic party in February. So now we have two single most important things. How do you do that? I think you should only have one single most important thing. Two single most important things are…. Well, they're two.

An Hon. Member: Redundant.

J. Horgan: Redundant. Well, I wouldn't want to say that, because I have respect for the new minister. I think she's going to be just fine once she finds her feet. But yesterday she was on a slippery slope, and I'm sure she was grateful today that we let her be and moved on to other matters.

I said I wanted to mention three things. I know there are other members that want to speak, and I have issues that are going to take me away from this place.

I wanted to talk a little bit about Tourism B.C., because this is another one of those examples of the government saying one thing and doing another. In the 1990s…. I know that the members love to go back to the 1990s. Those were the good old days where they could say anything and do anything and not be held accountable for it.

When Tourism B.C. was created and established by the then Glen Clark government, there were members on that side of the House…. My colleague referenced the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. I always like to take the opportunity to remind the former member for Kamloops–North Thompson that he was effusive in his praise of the government at that time for establishing an arm's-length organization, Tourism B.C., to manage and coordinate the promotion of this fantastic place that we all have the privilege of calling home.

Tourism B.C. was constructed and run by professionals that were world-renowned. Some of the promotional activities by that body allowed us to have confidence as citizens of this province that every corner of B.C. was being recognized.

The challenge we have with the repeal of Tourism B.C., under

section 17 of Bill 2, is that the control of Tourism B.C. is now in the hands of the minister responsible. Regrettably, the current denizen of the minister's office is the former member for Kamloops–North Thompson. I don't know if it's Kamloops–South Thompson. Maybe my colleague will help me out on the location of the member. I don't want to keep referring to him as Kamloops–North Thompson, as he's moved south of the river. I know that much.

He at the time said that this was the single most important thing that the government of the day could do to promote tourism in British Columbia. Twelve years later he has the good fortune, by a contest of the tallest person on that side, to sit at the executive council table with his colleagues, and he is now responsible for Tourism B.C. And what's the first thing he does? He repeals the act. He fires the CEO and takes control of all of the programs and dollars that go into that former Crown corporation and government agency and puts it into central government.

"Absolutely the wrong way to go," say all of the experts in the field. Absolutely the wrong way to go for people in my constituency of Juan de Fuca, very much dependent on tourism as we shift from the resource economy into the service economy on southern Vancouver Island.

For the minister to now say that there are efficiencies to be had somewhere in the order of maybe $100,000 or $200,000…. To fire that expertise, as we're welcoming the world to Vancouver for 2010 and the Winter Olympics, is inconceivable to me.

This is the good management on that side. This is the good management on this side of the House. How can you justify saying before an election: "The deficit will be X. There will be no significant tax increases. Go with us; we're the best managers in the universe"?

Well, the Liberals were returned. The Liberals were returned to government, and what did we get? We have the second amendment to the balanced-budget legislation in six months. We have the introduction of the harmonized sales tax which will see $1.9 billion funnelled out of taxpayers' pockets, shifted over to the corporate sector — which I know makes my friend from Abbotsford very happy.

No mention of it during the election campaign. No mention of it during the tabling of Budget 2009,

part 1, back in February. Not one mention of it at all.

Talk to tourism operators here on southern Vancouver Island. Go out to Butchart Gardens, say you're a B.C. Liberal and see how that goes over. Go out and tell them you're a B.C. Liberal. They'll be throwing tulip bulbs at you. I'll tell you that much.

[1535]

The tourism sector on southern Vancouver Island has benefited greatly from Tourism B.C. The rocket scientists on that side of the House on a whim to save a hundred

[ Page 673 ]

grand that's now going back into luxury boxes for fat cats at the Olympic Games…. Somehow that's good management. It's atrocious.

Again, I go back to the hubris, because that's the really galling part about this. There's a sense of entitlement for the Liberal, Social Credit, Reform — whatever you guys want to call yourselves, whatever you're going to be this month. This sense that members on that side of the House, whether they be Liberals, Socred, Conservative, whatever they do when they go into the polling place at federal campaigns…. They think they're the only ones fit to govern. It's offensive to me, and it's offensive to people right across British Columbia.

I mentioned the balanced-budget legislation being written on an Etch A Sketch, and I want you to just close your eyes for a minute and contemplate that. You remember the little red plastic device that had the little dials. This was high-tech at the time when I was a young person. What I liked about it is that I could make things up on a whim to suit my own fancy, very much like the Minister of Finance has done since he was returned after the last election.

He said he never met with any officials during the campaign — business as usual. "I'm out knocking on doors in Quilchena. I wasn't talking to anybody. Nope, not talking to anybody. Well, a couple of phone calls where we heard that maybe there was a bit of a shift in revenue. Maybe we're losing a couple hundred million dollars here or there — several hundred million dollars."

Well, I used to work within the Ministry of Finance, and I know that the Treasury Board analysts spend every minute of every day going over trends, going over projections, looking at forecasts, looking at the revenue coming in. What's the dollar at? What's the impact going to be this week? Where are natural gas prices? What's lumber selling for? They do it every day all day long. That's what they do. They love it and do a very good job of it.

Now, I can't imagine the deputy minister to the Minister of Finance not telling him at some point during their casual conversations that revenues had gone into the tank — can't imagine that. It's inconceivable. He knows it; all of British Columbia knows it.

Had the government come clean, had they come clean with the people of British Columbia, we may not be in a position today watching B.C. Liberal poll numbers free-fall faster than the deficit is going up. It's quite extraordinary. There's an inverse relation, it seems to me. As the deficit goes up, Liberal numbers go down.

It's not because British Columbians don't understand and recognize that these are challenging times. That's not the case at all. We're not stupid people, not on this side of the House, not throughout British Columbia. People can sense that there's a change; there's a shift.

What really galls people is that those on that side of the House, led by the member from Point Grey and his colleague from Quilchena, refuses to accept responsibility for a deception that is mammoth in its proportion. We have it manifest today in Bill 2 through the rewrite on an Etch A Sketch of the balanced-budget legislation. It's ridiculous. It's tragic.

I want to talk about two other things. Again, I know the members don't like to go back to the 1990s when facts are being brought forward. They would rather just talk in terms of mythology. But members will know — and I know the member from Quilchena will know — that in the mid-1990s, the federal government led by Jean Chrétien and his Finance Minister, Paul Martin, set about solving the deficit problem at the federal level. How did they do that? Well, they clawed back money from provincial governments right across the piece. There were massive holes in provincial governments from British Columbia to Prince Edward Island.

What happened in British Columbia when the federal government created massive holes in the billions of dollars for social service transfers, for higher education, for health care and so on is that the government of the day, led by Premier Mike Harcourt and then by Premier Glen Clark, filled those vacuums with provincial tax dollars. We protected the people of British Columbia from the draconian cuts that were coming from Ottawa.

That was the right thing to do — unless you're the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, who at the time said the federal government should cut deeper. That was his comment at the time. I'm not one to throw quotes back at the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, because I know that would take me all of the 30 minutes that I have at my disposal.

[1540]

However, the transfer payments were slashed by hundreds of millions and to the point of billions over time, and not one word from that side of the House when Paul Martin decided that he wanted to be Prime Minister. How do you do that when you're the Minister of Finance at the federal level? You start throwing money all over the place.

So federal transfers started to increase to the point that in this budget, Budget 2009, federal transfers are among the highest they have been in 20 years, not counting the blood money for the HST. Federal transfers are at record levels.

You don't hear that from the members on that side of the House. You don't hear them giving credit to Mr. Harper and Mr. Flaherty for restoring the cuts that Mr. Martin and Mr. Chrétien did in the 1990s. You don't hear anything about that.

You don't hear a lot from that side of the House about the establishment of the Oil and Gas Commission and the putting in place of policies and programs that accelerated development of oil and gas developments in the northeast, which are now keeping our hospitals open and our schools funded.

[ Page 674 ]

We've had a drop in resource revenues. We're all aware of that. Certainly, the Minister of Finance was aware of that months and months ago, but now the public is aware of it. We know that we're short on natural gas revenues, but we would have not had the revenues at all were it not for NDP policies in the 1990s.

So those are just two little nuggets I want to leave with the Harvard MBAs on that side of the House, the divine-right-to-rule party. I don't know why you don't just change it to that right now. Let's make it official. "We're not B.C. Liberals; we're not federal Conservatives. We're the divine-right-to-rule group, the divine-right-to-rule party."

Hubris, hon. Speaker. I don't like it, and my constituents don't like it. I'm going to give the floor to my friend from Fraser-Nicola. I want to thank you very much for indulging me. With that, I'll conclude my remarks and take my seat.

B. Routley: You know, it's interesting. You listen to the other side, and there's no accountability whatsoever. Yet they're here today introducing their Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act.

Unbelievable, Madam Speaker, that here we are — the second time in nine months, I believe it is — back amending what was originally trumpeted to be that they were going to bring in the balanced-budget act. They were going to hold firm, they were going to show British Columbians how to do things, and there was a certain arrogance in that they could never preside over a deficit situation.

All of a sudden they found themselves in a situation where they had to do something, and they were forced by the events. Unfortunately, they didn't see the first time they amended their bill.

An Hon. Member: Or the second time.

B. Routley: Or the second time.

Really it should be called…. I've got a suggestion for those people on the other side of the House that are having trouble with renaming these bills. I think it should be renamed the "not quite sure we know what we're doing act." That would be a more accurate description.

The "not quite sure exactly what we're doing act" would be absolutely transparent and clear. This is a second time. Or how about a more transparent name would be the "We're going to be making things up as we go along act," because clearly that is exactly what this government is doing.

The next time they have a crisis in some kind of budget…. Of course, the claim is now: "Oh, this is going to be good. In four years we're going to get back to balanced budgets, and everything is going to be rosy then." And they'll never have a problem again. So they're actually amending this thing instead of trying to be clear and transparent and honest with British Columbians.

This government said, before the election, $495 million. The first time, I would remind you…. It relates directly to the bill because that was the first time…. When they were announcing the amendment to the bill the first time, that was the announcement at that time. Back in February, at the beginning of this year, they were saying that it was going to be $495 million — not a problem, that they would handle it.

[1545]

It was difficult. They were then saying that things were coming upon them. Unforeseen events were coming upon them, and they had to make amendments to $495 million.

The people of British Columbia understand this is jiggery-pokery and bafflegab. That's what it is. My mother used to use that word, and I often wondered whether I'd ever get to use that in my entire lifetime. But here I am — jiggery-pokery and bafflegab. It's another example, under Bill 2, of exactly what we've got.

We had great fanfare telling the people of British Columbia how they were going to be taking action to balance the budget. I would like to know how they intend to be held accountable. They had originally some kind of clause in there that they were going to punish ministers. I understand that's been amended, just tweaked a little bit too. So things are going….

Basically, we've got a merry-go-round philosophy that this government has. They're just prepared to push the people of British Columbia off the ride at any moment when things are not looking good for them. The people of British Columbia can get thrown off the ride, and they're just going to keep riding the merry-go-round.

This is a government that says they will do this at one point, and now it's a new day. They talk a good game, but clearly it's shifting sands. Under this bill, the deficits can run from two years to four. That's what this does. It amends the opportunity to run deficits from two years to four.

This is a waste of the important time here in British Columbia. Here we are spinning our wheels, redoing a bill yet another time in just months.

I see the mean-spiritedness in this. It's another part of the pattern. All of a sudden the tourism operators throughout British Columbia are shocked and surprised by the announcement of this government that Tourism B.C. is going to be cancelled. They fire the CEO, basically throw him out of the door and replace all of the board — kind of a shock-and-awe approach to that as well. It's definitely a pattern.

When you look back at the pattern, you can't help but see over and over again…. It's transparent for all British Columbians. I don't know how everybody could think that this government doesn't say one thing one day and change totally — 180-degree turn on things.

It was B.C. Rail they said they wouldn't sell off, and health care contracts they said they would rip up. Now

[ Page 675 ]

we've got HST. Nobody talked about HST. In fact, prior to the election when they were talking about HST, they said that it wasn't going to happen. Now B.C. consumers are going to be the collateral damage in this government's half-truths and unspoken real agendas.

The real agenda of this government only comes clear after they're elected for another four years. I heard one journalist say: "You know, the Premier of the province could be caught shooting puppies, and he would still hold the chair for four more years."

That's a pretty graphic example, and I love puppies, by the way. I've got this wonderful golden retriever. I dearly love puppies, so that's an alarming kind of statement to hear, that kind of thing, but it's all so true.

The other side kind of thumbs their nose at us. There they are. They've got the position, and we should just go pound sand when it comes to raising these important concerns from British Columbians.

Tourism operators are writing letters, very concerned about what's happening. Here they were sold this bill of goods that it was going to be wonderful. The Olympics were going to come, and B.C. Tourism was going to be taking care of things. Suddenly they pull the rug out from underneath it, and nobody knows what's going on. No consultation, no discussion with tourism operators whatsoever — just unilateral actions.

[1550]

You go back and look at it. They did all this privatization and outsourcing of health care — food, laundry, janitorial, seniors care. They believe in a philosophy of for-profit businesses. That's their whole philosophy. Education cuts — 177 schools they've closed. B.C. Hydro — they've sold off parts of B.C. Hydro. Ferries — huge salary increases, and we've got the million-dollar man now. We've got all kinds of corporate tax cuts.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

B. Routley: I want to go back to the bill here.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

B. Routley: On the bill. This particular

section here is of real interest. Right after tourism there are a few sections that get into it. It says that they're going to double the training tax credit for employers, up to $4,000. Isn't that interesting? We've got the Ministry of Forests running around encouraging training to get out of the forest industry, and now we find out why — just the other day, by the way.

That's another example of how this government seems to say one thing one day and then the next, right after election time, a total reversal. Let's have a look at what was said before the election. "What we're finding now is clearly that we're going to have a much longer shelf life, and we think the opportunity to continue to harvest these stands in the central interior part of the province extends well into the 2020s before we'll see any significant downfall."

Interjections.

B. Routley: Yes, and that's exactly right, Minister Bell. Those were your words, March 5, 2009.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member. Member, one moment, please. Please remember. Do not use names.

B. Routley: The Minister of Forests — right.

Deputy Speaker: And I would also ask you to restrict your remarks to the bill. There are many areas to the bill to discuss, and I would hope that you remember that you're discussing Bill 2.

B. Routley: Well, we're talking about the

section of the bill in

part 1,

section 2 — particularly in (1.1), which is repealed. It establishes expenditures out of the B.C. Timber Sales account not being included in the calculation of operating expenses. We're referring specifically to timber, so I think that gives me the latitude to speak out on issues about timber, Madam Speaker.

Anyway, as a result of the mountain pine beetle and decisions that have been made around species-at-risk recovery strategies and land use planning, there's a very real possibility we're going to run out of trees. That's the new statement that we're hearing from this minister.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order.

Member, I would ask you to restrict your remarks to the bill. There are a lot of areas in the bill to be discussed, and I would ask that you restrict your remarks to Bill 2.

Interjection.

B. Routley: They've got a lot to say, and I would like to hear particularly this part about ministerial accountability.

I think I'm talking about ministerial accountability. That's what the name of this act is. It's called the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, and it's unbelievable that there is no accountability for what's going on in this province.

This government has no problem giving huge corporate tax cuts to corporations, and when you look at what's happening to families…. We had triple the MSP. We've now got HST. We've got hydro rates, gas bills, ICBC rates, fees and licences, tuition fees and ferry rates all climbing. We've got cuts to services in health and education, social services, agriculture and ranching, forestry, environment, tourism, children and families.

[ Page 676 ]

All of this is about the balance of so-called…. This is the second time that this government has trotted in, to this Legislature, some kind of bill suggesting that they need to amend, of all things, the ministerial accountability act. Where is the accountability in all of this? Absolutely none — no accountability in the province of British Columbia and certainly no balanced budget.

[1555]

No balanced budget. The first time around they were talking about how they were going to have a balanced budget of $495 million. That was the first amendment to this bill — wasn't it? All of a sudden the applause has stopped from the other side. They don't want to talk about that. They're not looking up. Suddenly they're real busy.

They have no time to be accountable and to talk about what happened at the beginning of this year when this government came in absolutely convinced that they could sell the people of British Columbia and come into this Legislature and declare that they were going to have a $495 million deficit — and no more. They had a plan, and we should all trust them. That was what was in the first amendment.

Here we are with Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2009. I don't know when Nos. 3 and 4 and 5 will be coming, but you can be sure that if there are more shifting sands, they'll be back at it again.

It's really a meaningless document in so many ways, because at the end of the day it really is just the government's attitude. We can say something in February and be absolutely sure and convince the people of British Columbia this is exactly what we're going to do and then months later and, interestingly, right after the election….

I talked about this government finding this economic tsunami. It was absolutely amazing how we have heard speaker after speaker after speaker get up and tell us how it was this terrible event, and they had no idea — no idea at all. They were totally caught off guard and totally surprised by what was going on. And now we are back here amending the bill so that yet again….

Now they're going to stretch it out. The first time around they were going to stretch it out for only two years. Now: "Oh well, we need four years." What's next? What's the point? Again, it's a revolving-door approach to legislation, and it really isn't going to stand the test of time. This is just another attempt to put a little massage on and try to indicate that there's still some reality to what they're talking about. But everybody knows — the people of British Columbia know — that it's just more of the same stuff from this government, that they say one thing one day and something totally different the next — absolutely, totally different.

So, yeah, we've got the amendment in

section 1 here. Let's talk about that for a minute. It says that it's going to extend the period in which deficits can be run from two years to four. It amends

section 2.1, which was created January 2009, to give an exception to the prohibition against deficits. Can you imagine the prohibition they announced? They were going to have a prohibition, and apparently that just wasn't able to hold water. They saw that it was just like a runaway train coming at them. They had no idea. They were caught totally by surprise.

But here they are now, and the accountability part seems to be missing — totally missing. In fact, other than the heading, I don't think there's another word called "accountability" anywhere in this act. I've looked high and low. We're having trouble finding anything more about what kind of accountability we're going to get. Again, you know, they're changing things on the fly.

Tourism. Let's talk about what they had to say about tourism. In

section 18…. Actually, let's go back to

section 17 and have a close look at that. I think the tourism operators throughout British Columbia would be interested in knowing that

section 17 repeals the Tourism British Columbia Act, effective April 1, 2010.

Interjection.

B. Routley: Well, yeah, I guess after you threw the CEO under the bus, everybody in British Columbia knew that was what was going on.

[1600]

section 18 it establishes that on the repeal of the Tourism B.C. Act, Tourism B.C. is dissolved and the appointments to the board are all rescinded. All rights and assets of B.C. Tourism are vested in the government. They're vested in the government. Just take them all back. A government that says they're going to have this hands-off approach to tourism and all of a sudden, again, another item.

Something like this, tourism…. Surely the people of British Columbia, the electorate, were grown-up enough to be told the truth about what their plans were. Why not come out to the people of British Columbia and say: "You know what? We've been thinking about it. The Olympics are coming, and we want to get rid of Tourism British Columbia. We're going to take things over. We have got a better vision for the Olympics, and we don't think we need this CEO and the rest of these characters. We're just going to do away with it, and that's the truth about our plan."

But no, no consultation with the people of British Columbia. One day they're there, and it's the reality for British Columbia. They would stand up and, I'm sure, support Tourism B.C. just weeks or months before the announcement that they're done — done like dinner. They're no longer a relevant thing, because somebody had some kind of an epiphany and decided that they had a grand plan to deal with the whole issue of tourism in the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 677 ]

Well, it is a sorry record indeed, when you look at the accountability. Where is the accountability? This government continues to have a record. The highest rate of homelessness — it's tripled since this government took office. Highest child poverty rate in the country in the last six years. The lowest minimum wage in Canada, and the worst record of full-time job losses in the last year — almost 100,000 jobs. The highest tuition fees in the country. We've had hospitals closed, 177 schools closed. Forestry is in shambles, agriculture abandoned.

Apart from this act here, this balanced budget and ministerial act, which seems to be the only thing they want to talk about in the Legislature…. They want to talk about…. We've spent a lot of time, apparently, in this House. I don't know. How many hours did you spend at the beginning of the year appealing your act?

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, Member. Through the Chair.

B. Routley: Well, Madam Speaker, it must be quite the thing. This government doesn't seem to be able to make up their mind. At the beginning of the year, in February, they had a plan. It was going to be certain, and the people of British Columbia were told when they go into election: "You can trust us, because this is the plan. We're revealing that things aren't as bright as they seem."

It is very interesting when you go back and read some of the reports, because the Premier and Finance Minister back in February were saying that they were surprised by the events, and things had overtaken them, and they had to take action. They were going to have a two-year plan, and that was going to work, and that was exactly what the province of British Columbia needed.

But here we are again, just months later. Here we are amending the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act yet again. I guess we've got a government that has a plan to have…. We've now got these massive Liberal deficits.

I got a lecture the other day. I'm still not sure what his constituency is, so I won't go there, but I can see him from here. He gave me a lecture about debt, and I just want to remind, through the Speaker, that when you have P3 debt in the province of British Columbia, when you have commitments to 30 to 40 years of payments…. I don't know. If that was you running your household, and you had signed contracts, and you had committed yourself to millions of dollars for 30 or 40 years, that would be debt. So we can call it something else.

Again, it follows the same pattern. No accountability. No balanced budget. No accountability in this act whatsoever.

[1605]

The people of British Columbia are frustrated. They're right, and they're talking about the tourism situation. I've heard from tourism operators. This Tourism Act has been amended, and they're now complaining about the impact of what is being planned that they had no idea about. Where is the accountability in that?

An Hon. Member: None.

B. Routley: None. There's no accountability. They want to come into this Hou