2009
Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HOUSE BLUES
This is a DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections, and will be replaced by the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.
(HANSARD)
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2009
The House met at 1:32 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Introductions by Members
Hon. M. Coell: Joining us today in the gallery is a constituent of mine, Randy Wilson. He is the co-founder and partner of the Liquor Plus stores here on Vancouver Island. Would the House please make him welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Tributes
NELSON LEESON
Hon. G. Campbell: I ask that the members of the House join me today in extending our prayers to the family of Nelson Leeson, who is the president of the Nisga'a Lisims Government. He is very seriously ill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
He has been an extraordinary leader in British Columbia, bridging the gaps between the first nations and nonfirst nations people. He played an instrumental role in advancing the interests of the Nisga'a nation and transforming the relationship between first nations and citizens all over this province. I would hope that the Legislature will send our best wishes to him and our prayers to him and his family. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Yes, I would echo the Premier's words. He's an extraordinary leader and has been an extraordinary leader for the Nisga'a government. I pass along our thoughts to the family as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Introductions by Members
C. James: I have four guests that I'm pleased to introduce today: Mary Desprez, the general manager of the Belfry Theatre; Maureen Bradley, a film-maker and fine arts professor at the University of Victoria; Bill Cowen, who is the curator for the Boucherat Gallery; and Lydia Kasianchuk, who is a board member from the Metchosin International Summer School of the Arts. They're all here to show their support for investments and funding for arts and culture. Would the House please make them very welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Black: We have a number of midwifery students from UBC who are with us today in the gallery. I would like to introduce them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Paula Hartley is the UBC midwifery student government president; Ilana Stanger-Ross, fourth-year student; Laura Willinhganz is a fourth-year student; Lauren McHattie, third year; Liz Morrison, first year; Ashley Porter, second year; Alix Bacon, second-year student; Lyanne Quirt, second-year student; Elisha Manson, a second-year student; and Deb Little is a registered midwife. I would ask the House to make them welcome today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I also have two other people to introduce, and they are from the UBC Alma Mater Society. Adrienne Smith is the policy adviser for the UBC Alma Mater Society, and Tim Chu is the president. I ask the House to make them welcome, please. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1335]
Hon. K. Falcon: Joining us in the House today is Susan Knott, who is a board member for the Canadian Society of Intestinal Research. Joining Susan is Gail Attara, the executive director for the CSIR. As November is Inflammatory Bowel Disease Awareness Month, they are in Victoria raising awareness about two diseases Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. I would ask the House to please make them both welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Popham: I rise in the House today to introduce Joey MacDonald, the art director at the University of Victoria Students Society. He's here with a group from ProArt Alliance. My two good friends Doug Much and Fiona Percy are also here. They're from the fine community of Willis Point, which is in Saanich South. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
H. Lali: I have the pleasure of introducing to the House three very energetic women from the community of Savona. They are here to support public education. Having known them, when they latch onto something, they don't let go. They see to the finish. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They'll also be meeting with some of the ministers and MLAs on both sides of the House. So when they meet with the ministers, all they have to say is yes, in terms of their demands. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They are from the Save the Schools committee in Savona. They are members of the pack there Adrienne Teague, Julie Reimer and Cara McKelvey. Would the House please give them a warm Victoria welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: I would like to add some welcomes to other members of ProArt that are here today: Lora McIntosh from the Victoria Jazz Society; Kathy Kay, director of the Victoria Film Festival and a constituent of mine; Dwayne Gordon, member from the Victoria Operatic Society; and musician Phil Hallman. Would you please give them a good welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Horgan: I, too, have guests in the gallery today. Joining us is Judy Scott, president of the Metchosin International Summer School of the Arts. She's here with the ProArt Alliance and doing good work, talking to legislators about arts funding and other issues. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I am also joined by two more citizens from Sooke, good Juan de Fucans, who have come, after purchasing a lunch at the Sooke rotary, to have lunch here at the Legislature and to see the actions and activities here on the floor. I'm certain that all members will be on their best behaviour and give a warm welcome to Allan and Fiona Poole. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Routley: I would like the House to welcome Rebecca Johnson. She's a lighting designer who is here today to show her support for reinvesting in arts, culture and heritage in B.C. She's a constituent from the Cowichan Valley. Will the House please join me in making her very welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I Chong: Visiting in the gallery today is a constituent of mine, Darryl Mar, who is the executive artistic director of the Victoria Jazz Society. Would the House please make him welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: I have a few introductions to make. With us today in the gallery is Heather Wood, who is a constituent of mine. She is a registered midwife currently practicing in my community. As well, Angela Spencer, who is a recently retired midwife. With her is Jamie Traynor, who is an interested member in the midwife clinics in our region. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Also with us today is a school group. Ms. Selena Jensen as well as 32 grade 11 students from Reynolds Secondary School are here. Many of them are here in the Legislature for the first time, even though they live in Victoria. It won't be their last time, so the House must make them feel welcome so they'll come back time and time again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
Bill M205 food safety amendment
(Farm gate sales) act, 2009
N. Simons presented a bill intituled Food Safety Amendment (Farm Gate Sales) Act, 2009.
N. Simons: I move this bill be read a first time now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1340]
Motion approved.
N. Simons: The Food Safety Amendment (Farm Gate Sales) Act restores the right of farmers to sell the meat they produce to local consumers. Laws and regulations designed to meet international cross-border trade agreements and designed to harmonize the North American food system have threatened the viability of small farms in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Legalizing local and bioregional meat production will help offset the disproportionate amount of greenhouse gas emissions which result from global meat production. Local and bioregional meat production will provide local, quality food; stimulate local economies; and strengthen the safety of our food systems. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Bill M205, Food Safety Amendment (Farm Gate Sales) Act, 2009, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
TRISH CHUNG AND
FOOD SECURITY INITIATIVES
B. Ralston: A few weeks ago I attended a community meeting and dinner in the village of 100 Mile House. The people at the Horse Lake Community Farm co-op catered the dinner, and I must say I was very impressed with the event. All of the foods and beverages, with few exceptions, were grown or produced within a hundred miles of 100 Mile, and that's obviously appropriate. While I enjoyed the dinner and the company, that's not why I have risen today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One of the many hard-working people involved in the dinner was Trish Chung. Miss Chung lives at 57 Mile House and is well known in the Cariboo. She is the food security coordinator and pregnancy support worker for the Cariboo Family Enrichment Centre. She led the work to develop the community garden and the community kitchen, where she teaches interested people how to choose and prepare foods, particularly locally produced foods. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Miss Chung also organized the Good Food Box program that provides and subsidizes the cost of fresh produce for families with young children. She has also offered cooking classes and cooks' training at the youth centre in Dog Creek. In addition, Miss Chung volunteers as a board member for the Horse Lake Community Farm co-op and sits on the board of the B.C. Food Systems Network that promotes food security initiatives. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
While I am delighted to recognize Miss Chung in the House today, she's also been recognized by another group: the Vancouver-based Minerva Foundation. This foundation advocates for empowering women and building stronger communities. Miss Chung has been chosen as one of the three women in British Columbia to receive an award for community leadership and excellence at a special dinner in Vancouver in December. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I ask the House to join with me today to recognize Trish Chung for this esteemed award and to acknowledge her contributions to her community. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
FLOOD PREVENTION IN FRASER VALLEY
J. Les: Over the last several weeks we have been watching with considerable interest as the snow has accumulated on our hills and mountains. This obviously bodes well for ski enthusiasts, but it has some of my constituents thinking ahead to next spring when all of this snow will melt and possibly cause high water and potential flooding on the Fraser. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In the Fraser Valley we have always been acutely aware of the need to ensure that we maintain our dikes and manage the river to ensure that we're protected from flooding and excessive seepage. My constituents were pleased recently when $5 million of infrastructure funding was provided to further improve the dikes in the Chilliwack area. However, dike improvement and maintenance alone are not enough. The river itself needs to be managed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Every year, on average, about 50,000 truckloads of gravel washes into the Chilliwack reach of the river. Left unaddressed, this inevitably raises the elevation of the river bottom, compromising the dikes and leading to more seepage of surrounding farmlands. In fact, in the Agassiz area, several farmers already have great difficulty farming their land because of this additional seepage, as a result of the elevation of the river bottom already having risen considerably. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Happily, over the last five years, working closely with first nations, engineers, river hydrologists and environmental consultants, an organized and thoughtful gravel removal program has been put in place. On average, 230,000 tonnes of gravel have been removed each year. This does not lessen the gravel accumulation to date, but it certainly helps to keep the seepage and other problems from worsening. Markets for this gravel are not great, but it is slowly being sold into the marketplace. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
These gravel removals are done with close environmental monitoring before, during and after work being done. Essentially, no work is being done in the water. Great care is taken to not affect fish habitat adversely. While the Fraser is home to all of the salmon species, only pink salmon spawn in this area, and I'm happy to report that this summer the river was literally teeming with spawning pink salmon. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My constituents are pleased with the work being done to keep their community safe, and I look forward to it continuing in the years ahead. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1345]
GUIDE-OUTFITTERS IN
NORTHWESTERN B.C.
D. Donaldson: In Stikine we love being out on the land, and we enjoy it in many ways: for recreational purposes, for spiritual purposes and for economic reasons, to name a few sometimes all at the same time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
For many, it is love of the land that keeps us in Stikine, and then people find ways to support themselves. Some would call it a lifestyle, but it's deeper than that because it involves stewardship and connection to the natural world. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That is why I am very happy to highlight today the Northwest Guide Outfitters Association and their annual general meeting taking place in Smithers this weekend, November 27 and 28. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Make no mistake. Guide-outfitting is an important business in B.C. It generates in the range of $116 million per year, with more than 5,000 hunters visiting our province, leading to thousands of direct local jobs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It is also a way of life that people are passionate about a remote, rural way of life. As one guide said to me: "It isn't something you get into to get rich, but it's a good way of living." What it does in Stikine, though, is provide another opportunity for people to make a living in a sustainable manner off the land base and to provide a means for younger people to stay in the area and make money as assistant guides. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Those in the guide-outfitting business are on the ground on a daily basis. They know the health of an ecosystem intimately and their dependence on it. A guiding friend of mine said: "It's a big industry, but any guide knows that if you kill all the animals, you won't have a job." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I know many participating in this sector and the positive contribution they make to educating those from faraway urban centres, often, about the role we all play by being part of the natural world, not apart from it. A guide told me recently about the thrill he got when a hunter client who didn't get an animal phoned him after getting back home to chat about the good time he had and how he will be back again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That is the nature of this sector and rural areas of the province. I wish the Northwest Guides AGM organizer Michael Young a successful weekend and a good fundraiser on Saturday night. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
YOUTH SPORTS ACTIVITIES AND
SCHOOL SPORTS INFRASTRUCTURE
J. Thornthwaite: Education, sport and physical fitness are closely intertwined. In my riding we see this daily, demonstrated on the field of Windsor Secondary School in North Vancouver. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is why I was so excited to attend an event on November 10 celebrating an over-$3.2-million investment for a new artificial turf and track at Windsor Secondary. This is especially significant for me personally. My son graduated in 2008, my daughter will graduate next year, and my little one will graduate in 2016 from Windsor Secondary. I was part of the PAC for several years as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Participation in sport and physical activity is valued and embraced as a way of life in British Columbia. According to Stats Canada, children who participate in organized activities outside of school such as sports, music or clubs tend to have a higher self-esteem, interact better with friends and perform better in school. As well, physical inactivity is a risk factor for many conditions including heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, osteoporosis and some cancers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As a former dietitian, I know that children especially need physical activity and healthy eating habits for healthy growth and development, and I believe that this has motivated the partnership between the federal, provincial and municipal governments, school boards and industry, the rec commission and sports groups to work together to see this substantial investment take place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With investments like this, we can continue British Columbia's longstanding tradition of sports excellence, and we can continue to be Canada's most physically active province. Investments like this are not just an investment as a facility for soccer, football, rugby or field hockey, but it's an investment in the future of our children's health. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
NEW WESTMINSTER POLICE DEPARTMENT
D. Black: I am pleased to speak about the New Westminster police department, who have a long and proud tradition in my community. A lot has happened since the department was founded in 1873, and New Westminster police continue to serve our residents with integrity and professionalism. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The department is noted for it strong community policing initiatives and for programs such as a domestic violence response team, which has served as a template for similar programs through our province and, indeed, through other parts of Canada. The New Westminster police department also has strong victim assistance services and works closely with individuals and businesses through its community policing programs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One member of the department who is noted for his community involvement was honoured recently with the Award of Meritorious Service at a ceremony at Government House. Const. Bruce Ballingall has been a street and community police officer for over 30 years. The primary focus of his career has been community policing, although he has also worked in school liaison, patrol and drug squads. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1350]
While Constable Ballingall has received a number of awards over the years, he continues to give credit back to the volunteers within the city who work on many of the programs which he oversees. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sir Robert Peel, the founder of modern policing, said: "The police are the public, and the public are the police the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen, in the interests of community welfare and existence." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm pleased that Constable Ballingall's dedicated community service has been recognized with such an important award. I join the residents of New Westminster in thanking all members of our police department who work closely with the public every day to protect our community. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
WORLD AIDS DAY
R. Howard: World AIDS Day, established by the World Health Organization in 1988, is observed on December 1 every year. This event provides governments, national AIDS programs, faith groups, community organizations and individuals with a valuable opportunity to raise awareness of the global AIDS epidemic. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
According to the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, approximately 11,000 British Columbians are HIV-infected, with close to 450 new cases reported each year. As well, more than 3,200 cases of AIDS have been reported in the province, a third of whom currently live with the disease. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This year the theme of World AIDS Day is "Universal access to human rights." I'm proud to say that in British Columbia we meet this ideal. Our commitment to reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS comes from a recognition that prevention, treatment and care are fundamental human rights. This is why we're working to ensure that British Columbians living with HIV/AIDS receive access to the very best treatment and support available. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A local organization involved in the fight against HIV/AIDS is the Heart of Richmond AIDS Society. They are active in providing support to those in Richmond living with HIV/AIDS and also do great work in raising awareness. Their education program for high school students is just one of their initiatives to raise awareness. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On December 1, I encourage everyone to take some time to become informed about HIV/AIDS, to remember those we have lost and to make a donation to a group such as the Heart of Richmond AIDS Society. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Oral Questions
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON CHILD POVERTY
C. James: Today we learned that for the sixth year in a row B.C. has the worst child poverty rate in all of Canada six years in a row. It's a shameful statistic, and it's an issue that demands the government's attention now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question is to the Premier. Will he commit today to implement a poverty reduction strategy to help those children and families? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. Polak: I know that the issue of child poverty is one that each and every one of us in this House takes very seriously. On our side of the House we've been working continuously to see these numbers decline. In fact, I am pleased that we've seen these numbers decline to the extent that now we have the lowest child poverty rate in British Columbia in almost 20 years. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I'd like to remind the minister and every member of government that these are not statistics; these are children 156,000 children living in poverty for six years in a row. I'm certain the minister's words are cold comfort to those children. The children don't live alone in poverty. These are families living in poverty. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, my question is to the Premier. Nearly one in five children lives in poverty in British Columbia. When will the Premier put forward a plan to help them? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. Polak: Again, our government takes the issue of child poverty very seriously. I would remind the member that six years in a row we have seen the number of children living in poverty in British Columbia decline. In fact, in this last year of the report we have seen the number of children living in poverty decline by 25,000. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1355]
Those children that the member speaks of need a real plan that involves things like rental assistance, things like child care subsidy, things like eliminating the MSP premiums for their parents, eliminating income tax things that put hard dollars back into the pockets of those low-income earners so that they have the empowerment to rise to their greatest opportunity. That's what we're doing in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Child poverty is a critical issue facing British Columbia. The minister can play all the numbers games she wants. But six years in a row, the worst child poverty rate in this country here in British Columbia is a shameful statistic. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's not simply the opposition raising this issue. In the words of the Premier's own Progress Board: "All children, irrespective of their social background, should have an equal chance to succeed in the province." That quote came from 2006, shortly after British Columbia was named number one in child poverty for the third straight year in a row. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's been six years. Report after report after report has come forward. Children and families living in poverty, and this Premier has failed to meet his own Progress Board standards. Again I ask the Premier: how many more years will it take before we finally see a commitment to address children living in poverty in British Columbia? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. Polak: Our commitment is to go far beyond child poverty and address childhood vulnerabilities in every area. That's why our plan includes things like rental assistance. That's why our plan includes the child care subsidy. That's why our plan includes eliminating the MSP premiums. That's why our plan this year alone provides $450 million in housing supports. None of that is considered in the current report by First Call. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: Well, the government is just not credible on this topic. In the words of Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the Representative for Children and Youth in British Columbia: "I think the alarm bells have been ringing, and they're ringing very loudly. Not only do we have a large number of children living in poverty, but what we have to help them is not enough." Not my words; the words of an independent officer of the Legislature. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question is to the Premier. Will he heed the warnings of the children's representative and commit to a poverty reduction strategy? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. Polak: It would be interesting for the member to know, I'm sure, that you have to go back to 1991 to find a time in the province of British Columbia when child poverty rates were lower. In fact, the reason for that is because in the 1990s child poverty rose, and I'll quote the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which said: "There was an increase in child poverty by any measure in the 1990s." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This government has worked continuously to see those numbers decline, and we have succeeded. In each and every one of those six years mentioned, the child poverty rate in British Columbia has dropped to what is now the lowest rate in almost 20 years in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: For the sixth year in a row British Columbia has the highest child poverty in the entire country sixth year in a row. Again I'll go back to the words of the independent Representative for Children and Youth, who says: "B.C. needs a proper child poverty plan with real targets and real measures." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, Ontario has done it; Manitoba has done it; Quebec has one; Nova Scotia; New Brunswick just passed one. Even the federal government is getting on board but not British Columbia. How shameful is that? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question again is to the Premier. When will he follow the lead of the children's representative and other provinces in this country and put together a child poverty reduction plan? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1400]
Hon. M. Polak: Well, not only do we have the lowest rates of child poverty in B.C. in 20 years, but our child poverty rates have declined at a rate double that of the national average. That is because we've taken a holistic approach, including things like rental assistance, child care subsidy, eliminating MSP premiums and eliminating income tax. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This year alone we will invest more than $1 billion in child care, in early childhood development and in services to special needs students. Those are real, tangible benefits for our most vulnerable in British Columbia, and we will continue to see the child poverty rates decline. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Poor families are poor kids, and for the 156,000 children in B.C. and their families, this government has done less than anybody else in this country to deal with the issue of poverty. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker, six provinces have adopted poverty reduction strategies. The B.C. Liberals have said no. Everybody in this country knows that affordable family rental housing is needed to reduce poverty. The B.C. Liberals have said no to building that housing. And 55 percent of the families identified in this report have at least one adult working full time, but the B.C. Liberals have said no to increasing the minimum wage condemning those families to poverty. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Will the Premier commit today to introducing a poverty reduction strategy with targets and timelines for British Columbia? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. Polak: Let's talk about affordable housing, which over the last eight years has seen a more-than-$2-billion investment by this government. I can tell you what we've achieved, even according to the First Call report. From 2003 to 2007, the period covered by this report, we've seen the number of children living in poverty drop by 40,000 across British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: This minister should know that this government has done nothing to build affordable family housing in this province. Hon. Speaker, this minister talks . [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Continue, Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: We hear the prattle from the Housing Minister, who has failed British Columbians time and again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But let's talk about the statistics that this minister talks about. From 1980 to 2001, British Columbia's poverty rates mirrored the national rate. In 2001 they spiked by 20 percent. They have stayed at that rate since then. That's the B.C. Liberal legacy 20 percent higher than anyplace else in the country. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The children's representative called on the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition to meet with her and bring forward a bipartisan strategy to deal with poverty. My leader accepted that offer, and the Premier refused. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question is to the Premier. Will he finally reverse himself, show some leadership, meet with the children's representative and the Leader of the Opposition, and bring forward a policy on poverty that British Columbians can be proud of, instead of ashamed of? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. Polak: I know that the members opposite don't like to hear that the plan we have in place is working, but here are the facts. We now have the lowest child poverty rate in British Columbia than we've had in almost 20 years. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1405]
Mr. Speaker, according to the most recent report produced by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, in the year 2006-2007, the last year they kept statistics for, our child poverty rate fell in that one year by 17 percent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Kwan: B.C. children's representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond's response to the poverty report card states: "I think it is really attributable to one thing. We don't have the social policy supports in place to lift those children out of poverty." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question to the minister and to the Premier is this. Is she wrong, or is it this government that is wrong, and it's time for this government to put forward a coordinated, comprehensive child poverty reduction strategy? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. Polak: We have continued year upon year to lift more and more families out of poverty, off of income assistance, into employment. These are real families who want to be able to provide for their needs. That's why it's so important that in British Columbia we've seen real average disposable income rise to its highest level in 20 years. We've seen the average hourly wage in B.C. rise to a point of $22 an hour, the third-highest in Canada. Due to income tax cuts since 2001, an additional 325,000 low-income British Columbians pay no income tax, which was not the case under that government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
REPLACEMENT OF
OLIVE DEVAUD RESIDENCE
N. Simons: The doctors of Powell River are once again raising alarm bells around the state of the Olive Devaud seniors care facility. In a recent letter to the Minister of Health, they described the facility as a danger to residents and staff. Will the minister do what his government has been promising for years and replace the facility with a new one? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, I met with a couple of regional district directors over that very issue in my office a number of weeks ago. We had a very good discussion. They informed me of the condition of the facility. I do know that it is one of the priority items for Vancouver Coastal to deal with. We actually explored some innovative ways in which that could be brought forward. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I suggested that they definitely should be looking at private sector involvement. I think that's one way we could move the project forward. In fact, one thing we agreed on is that we need to move the planning process and the design process for that forward immediately so we can get moving on Olive Devaud. That's exactly what we're going to do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Simons: A room in the facility was recently closed because of rot in the floor and fears that someone or something would fall through to the level below. The health authority says it has one of the worst ratings in the province and has made it the number one priority for replacement in successive years. It cannot be renovated. Doctors, health professionals, the health authority, the city, the regional district, residents and families all say that a replacement is urgent, because residents and staff are unsafe. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The land is there. The plans are in place. The local government has the money available. When will the minister simply do what's necessary and say that the province is ready to back that plan? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, since 2001 we've invested a record $5 billion in capital right across the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, as you would know and as the member would well know, in terms of seniors housing the whole continuum of housing, whether it's assisted-living or residential care housing over 12,000 brand-new or totally renovated and rehabilitated units right across the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That does not mean that we've done every single one of them. As we go through, there are new ones that come in. Regretfully, unfortunately, when we got elected in 2001 there was a huge underinvestment that had taken place in the seniors sector. There's no question about that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We are doing more than catching up. Olive Devaud is on the radar. We're going to work to make sure that project also moves ahead as soon as we can get the appropriate planning and design work done. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1410]
FUNDING FOR UBC MIDWIFERY PROGRAM
D. Black: My question is for the Minister of Advanced Education. The University of B.C. has the only midwifery program in western Canada. Despite more than a hundred applicants, the program only admits ten new students each year while demand for these birthing professionals is growing. But the program is in a dire funding crunch and may not admit any new students next year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question to the Minister of Advanced Education is: will she ensure that UBC gets the funding it needs to continue to train midwives to meet the needs of women and their families in British Columbia? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. Stilwell: The UBC midwifery program is part of the government's commitment to educating the skilled health care workforce that British Columbia needs. There have been no funding cuts and no reduction to the funding of this program. Furthermore, the funding is unchanged, and the ministry's expectations are unchanged. This program is funded by the province to the tune of more than $600,000 a year in annual operating costs, and I am confident that UBC will continue to deliver the program as per our agreement. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Black: Midwives practise cost-effective, evidence-based, women-centred maternity care for 10 percent of the province's births every year. The waiting lists for parents-to-be are growing, and any cut to the UBC midwifery program would only make the situation worse, particularly in rural B.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Will the Minister of Advanced Education ensure that adequate funding is provided to continue training the midwives of B.C., and will she say today that the funding will be there to ensure that the program takes in new students in the 2010 academic year? Will she make that guarantee today? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. Stilwell: The midwifery program is part of our commitment of over $850 million of health-related capital and operating funding spent at B.C.'s public post-secondary institutions by this government since 2001. In 2001 UBC was the successful proponent for the opportunity to provide this program, based on their budget and their program. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, I am confident that UBC will continue to provide this program. UBC is having an internal review, which I expect and I am sure, in fact is usual practice at any institution, to continually be evaluating the program to see how they can most effectively offer the program to students in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A. Dix: Just a supplementary to the same minister. In 2010-2011 the risk is that there's going to be no students admitted at a time when there's a serious shortage of midwives. So my question to the minister is simple. Will she take the steps necessary to ensure that the UBC program will admit the students in 2010-2011? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. Stilwell: I reiterate. The province funds this program at greater than $600,000 a year. I am confident that UBC will provide this program as per our agreement. The ministry's expectations are unchanged. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A. Dix: Well, hon. Speaker, that's no yes. The government says . [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A. Dix: The government says that even though those places in a critical health area, an area where we absolutely need . You know, I think it speaks volumes. It speaks volumes that the Minister of Health . [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1415]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat for a second. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Continue, Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A. Dix: It speaks volumes that the Minister of Health and the former Minister of Health are speaking negatively about an outstanding profession in health care. It's a valuable profession in health care, all the more needed with health care funding challenges. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question to the minister is very simple. My . [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjection.
A. Dix: Well, listen to the former Minister of Health. Listen to the former Minister of Health go, hon. Speaker. Listen to him go. Listen to him express his contempt for yet another group of health care workers. At least they keep it to one group a day. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question to the Minister of Advanced Education is simple. There is a risk here to this program. The government has an interest here too, because they're presumably running the health care system. Will she take steps to ensure that students are admitted to this program in the 2010-2011 year? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. Stilwell: The midwifery program is unique in western Canada. We've made it clear that this is a priority profession. The funding is unchanged. The ministry's expectations are unchanged. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR
RATES FOR TRUCK OPERATORS
H. Bains: Hundreds of concerned truckers tonight are meeting to decide a course of action needed to bring to the attention of the contractors that the lower than prevailing rates, under the blue book, offered to them are not acceptable. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One estimate suggests that the contractor of the Port Mann/Highway 1 expansion will pocket over $240 million as a windfall profit at the expense of the taxpayers and the workers on that site. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question to the minister is this. Will the minister ensure that the truckers are paid blue book rates as agreed between the province of British Columbia and the B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: We're certainly aware of these circumstances. We believe that the contractor, Peter Kiewit Sons, is actually an internationally reputable company. This is a discussion between a contractor and its subcontractor. Those discussions are underway, and we expect them to be resolved between the contractor and the subcontractor. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
H. Bains: The minister has to understand one thing. When the rates paid to those truckers do not cover the operating cost to operate that truck, what goes? It's the maintenance of that truck, and the road safety of the public is put in jeopardy. Let me remind the minister of some sad realities under this government. The sad reality due to . [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Continue, Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
H. Bains: The sad reality of this government's failure to protect the workers in this province. The national average for the roadside inspections: 18.2 percent of trucks failed. In one recent B.C. road check, 41 percent of trucks failed, and they were taken off the road. So it's that serious. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I ask this minister one more time. For road safety and for the safety of the public on the road, will the minister ensure that the contractors live up to the government's own guidelines under the blue book and that truckers working on the project are paid accordingly? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1420]
Hon. S. Bond: Let's just talk a little bit about our record. In fact, this project alone will mean that there will be 8,000 jobs in British Columbia for British Columbians. For the member opposite to stand on the other side of the House and imply that there are not rigorous safety inspections done and, in fact, that contractors and truckers alike ensure and are responsible for the safety of those vehicles is irresponsible. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Finally, we wouldn't actually be having this discussion about the Port Mann bridge if the member opposite was in charge because, in fact, they didn't even support the building of the Port Mann bridge. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX
ON TOURISM INDUSTRY
N. Macdonald: Last week this government tinkered with the HST, but I think most British Columbians would agree that a better idea than no HST on an additional $100,000 for a new house would be no HST at all. No HST that is something that British Columbians could vote for. In fact, I think most British Columbians did vote for that. They did vote for that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What you're left with is industry after industry trying to deal with this tax. The tourist operators know that the HST is a job killer. I'll just quote from Mr. Porter. Mr. Porter of Great Canadian Heli-Skiing has written the minister. He's written the Premier. He's written the Minister of Finance, and he says: "The HST will not make our service more competitive. It's going to instead buckle our knees." He goes on to say: "HST, no matter how it is spun" and everyone knows that this government is a master at spinning; we've seen it again here today "it will be an increase in cost. The HST is going to devastate heli-skiing." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This government, this minister, this Premier campaigned on a promise to not introduce the HST. Why is the minister betraying that promise? Why is he bringing in a job killer of a tax? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: I think if the member has followed the writings of some of the leading economists in Canada, he will know that this is actually the number one job generator in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Continue, Minister. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Hansen: Yesterday we were visited by representatives of the mining industry who said that this is the single most important measure we can do to create jobs in the mining industry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would suggest that that member, the member who asked the question, is totally out of touch with the forest sector of which he is the Forests critic, because what the forest industry tells us is that the shift to the harmonized sales tax will actually make a difference in the export price of our lumber of $7 per thousand board feet. That is the difference between international sales and no international sales. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1425]
I would add, again, to this member in his capacity as Forests critic, that our move to the HST is going to make the difference between mills staying open in his constituency or being forced to close. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[End of question period.]
Petitions
N. Simons: I present a petition with the signatures of over 1,300 people calling for the re-reconfiguration of traffic in the Gibsons area. I present that today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Tabling Documents
Hon. M. Coell: I'm pleased to table the annual report, 2008, of the Labour Relations Board. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Petitions
M. Farnworth: I'm tabling a petition with over a thousand names of people who are opposed to the hated, disgusting, despised, detestable, duplicitous HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member. Reminding the member . [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Black: I'm pleased to ask for leave to present a petition. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Proceed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Black: I have postcards in a petition format from thousands of UBC students who ask the government to please reduce and reverse the cuts to student aid from the Alma Mater Society. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A. Dix: I rise to present a petition on behalf of 1,136 British Columbians in support of ambulance paramedics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I also present a petition from residents of Kamloops and across British Columbia opposed to the government's plan to reorganize and diminish the number of beds at Ponderosa Lodge. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
H. Lali: I'll be presenting two petitions. The first one is from my constituency with hundreds of signatures of folks who oppose the introduction of the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The second petition is actually from the residents of Lac La Hache in the constituency of Cariboo-Chilcotin. It's almost 300 names that were gathered by Hazel Parker, who is 80-plus years old. She went door to door collecting hundreds of signatures opposed to the introduction of the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: I seek leave to introduce a petition. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Proceed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: I would like to table a petition from residents, constituents of mine in VictoriaSwan Lake hundreds of names to stop this government's HST tax. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Simons: I have a petition signed by approximately 700 people opposing the sinking purposeful sinking of the Annapolis warship off the coast in Halkett Bay on Gambier Island. Further details to come. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Health. In this chamber, Committee of Supply for the information of members, the estimates of the Office of Premier. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1430-1435]
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER
The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Reid in the chair.
The committee met at 2:40 p.m.
On Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $11,535,000.
Hon. G. Campbell: I am pleased to rise today to introduce the estimates of the Office of the Premier. I'd like to introduce the public service representatives who are with me and thank them for their contributions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Allan Seckel is the Deputy Minister to the Premier and cabinet secretary. He is also head of the British Columbia public service. Lorne Brownsey is the deputy minister of corporate initiatives and intergovernmental relations. Debbie Fayad is the executive financial officer, and Michelle Leamy is director of executive operations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As we begin these budget estimates, I'd like to just speak briefly about the challenges that we've had to confront over the last year and the opportunities that we can embrace as we go forward. There's no question that we do live in globally challenging times. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We're facing the single largest economic downturn we have experienced in almost three decades. That has had a significant impact on our revenues in British Columbia, but it has not had an impact on our goals and objectives as a province to assure that we provide the best quality of life for the people that live here. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have continuing concern about building a new relationship with first nations that creates opportunities for first nations and aboriginal people in our province, that closes the gaps in health care, in education and in social and economic development. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We continue to strive to be at the forefront of dealing with the challenge of our generation, which is climate change. It will affect not just those of us who live today but those who live tomorrow and decades hence if we are not willing to embrace the challenges that are in front of us and do so with action. Our government has been concerned about pursuing that action and assuring that we can move ahead. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We've all been challenged by the prospect of the H1N1 pandemic. Again, I think British Columbia's public service, our B.C. Centre for Disease Control, has done an exceptional job of dealing with a very challenging and, in many ways, new situation, I think, for all of us. This has been the largest national immunization program in the history of the country, and British Columbia, once again, and our public service and public health officials are seen for their leadership and the efficacy of the work they do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I also recognize, as I'm sure all members do, that within a very short period of time, in just 80 days, the eyes of the world will be on us as we host the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. It represents an enormous opportunity for British Columbians to invite the world and to display our character and our spirit as a province, the character of our country as we move forward into the 21st century. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Our goal is obviously to use that as a launching pad into the 21st century, with new green technologies, showing the possibilities that exist for using new wood products to further our environmental agendas, which are shared around the world. I think that all of these initiatives are critical to our economic and social well-being as we move ahead. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With those comments, I am pleased to take any questions with regard to the estimates of the Office of the Premier. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I thank the Premier for his opening remarks, and I'll just make a few opening remarks and then also move into the questions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As we all know, these estimates are an opportunity to engage the Premier in a very serious discussion about the opportunities, about the direction that the government's taken, the policy direction, and to be able to have answered questions that the public is asking about the direction that the government's going. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm certain it would be no surprise to the Premier that people have grave concerns about the policy direction of his government. British Columbians from all walks of life, in fact, have expressed to me their growing concerns with the credibility of this government, and we'll get into some specific questions around that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Specific promises that were made over the last number of months that were casually tossed aside have raised huge concern on behalf of the public. This includes promises about the province's financial situation, which, as the Premier has said, is one of the most critical situations facing British Columbians the economy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There certainly is a great deal of question around the government's credibility when it comes to changing the tax system, when it comes to plans to cut vital services. Everyone will remember the Premier's commitments around protecting health care and education, and we've certainly seen the results since then. We'll be exploring that and asking some questions around that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Each of the areas that I'll touch on and each of the promises that have been thrown aside really have, in turn, served to break the bond of trust between the public and this government. These estimates are an opportunity for the Premier to be upfront with the public, to answer some of those very serious questions that they have. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1445]
I approach this process in the spirit of openness, in the spirit of transparency. I'm sure the Premier will do the same, and I'm very much looking forward to hearing from him on those issues. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd like to start with a very important area, and that's the whole area of the deficit and the direction the Premier took during the election campaign. On September 2 the Premier was being questioned about his election claim that the budget deficit would be "$495 million, maximum." In responding to those questions, the Premier revealed for the first time on September 2 that he had been briefed by his deputy minister during the election. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That briefing included comments about the government's weakening revenue and the impact that would have on the budget. Here's a statement that the Premier made under questioning by the opposition: " I did have conversations with my deputy minister. They were largely with regard to H1N1. In one of those conversations she did raise the subject of the budget. That was in May. She told me that there were revenue pressures." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, media reports suggest the briefing regarding the province's weakening revenues occurred on the Thursday before the election, so that's May 7. Could the Premier confirm that was the day he received the briefing from his deputy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I will confirm that I did have a conversation with my deputy in the days prior to the election. Frankly, I had probably two or three conversations I'm not sure how many during the election period. They were fundamentally focused on H1N1, as I mentioned. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There was one of those days a few days before the election where, in fact, I was informed that there were revenue pressures. I was also informed that our staff believed those revenue pressures were manageable and that we were going to be able to accomplish the goals we set in the February budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Did the Premier ask for any more information when he was told this information by his deputy? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: Candidly, it was a passing comment and part of a conversation that was basically consumed by H1N1. I think it's fair to say that there are ups and downs in every budget year, every budget period that we go through. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I often get briefings. I knew that there would be a detailed briefing that would be scheduled for following the election. That has normally been the case, regardless of who's elected. It was not something that I pursued to any extent whatsoever, as to say, "Thank you very much," and that was it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: This is concerning information that the Premier has just received. This is a week or so before the election. The Premier isn't exactly sure of the date this conversation took place. It's been reported in the media that that was May 7, but the Premier himself says that he isn't quite sure when that occurred. This is very concerning information that has just been passed along to him by his deputy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, my question to the Premier is: did he not feel that it was important to ask questions about what the deputy meant by revenue dropping? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: The Leader of the Opposition, like myself, was involved in an election campaign at that time. I think that everyone in the spring realized there were challenges with regard to the economy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Those challenges were starting to be reflected. We'd actually had a relatively good month in terms of employment, but we know that the employment numbers were going down, so I was not surprised that there were pressures. Therefore, when the comment was made that, yes, there are pressures . I think the comment was made they could be $200 million to $300 million. At that time there was also a sense that we could actually meet our budget targets. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1450]
To put it in context, a $200 million to $300 million shift in revenue projections is about a 0.5 percent that's 0.5 percent challenge. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We meet those challenges on an ongoing basis have in many budget years where one component might be offset by others. In fact, I think one of the things that's important is that we have been able to manage those in a way that has allowed us to meet our budget targets. In fact, in 2008-09 this government exceeded its government target in terms of a surplus in spite of the fact there were huge challenges that had to be confronted through the fall of 2008 and the spring of 2009. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So yes, I understood that there were revenue challenges. I also understood that we could actually meet our budget targets that had been set in the February budget, and as has been the case in the past, I had every expectation we would not just meet those expectations but we had an opportunity perhaps to exceed them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I didn't verbalize that to the deputy. There wasn't a discussion about it. I was just informed there were revenue pressures that our staff felt could be offset by the ongoing management and cost-reduction strategies that we had already put in place as a result of the February budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: The Premier says that he didn't share those thoughts with his deputy minister. He unfortunately didn't share those thoughts with the public either. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, the Premier says that he didn't verbalize that to his deputy, that he didn't have a discussion, that he simply received the information from his deputy. Yet he says he was confident that measures could be taken and that this could be dealt with. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Could the Premier tell me then, what he did base that on? If he hadn't had a conversation with his deputy about the details, if he hadn't looked at the kind of revenue pressures that were there, what did the Premier base that information on? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: My confidence was really based on, as I mentioned, the size of the challenge that we faced, which was 0.5 percent of our revenues at that time. I think it's also important to note that it was really based on our record. It is not unusual to have some volatility in both revenues and expenses as you go through a budget year. This was something that we had known. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We were facing a challenging time. We had been very conservative with our February budget. We had said that we were going to look for $1.9 billion of discretionary spending savings as we went through the budget year. That was something that was going to have to take place, obviously, following the election. But I can tell you that our public servants were working diligently on that throughout. So there were no alarm bells set. It was really, frankly, a statement of information. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know, the confidence really comes out of the fact that we have managed to manage our fiscal frameworks in British Columbia under this government successfully. We have exceeded our projections in terms of our fiscal management over a number of consecutive years of balanced budgets eight consecutive budgets, in fact, with significant balanced budgets and significant surpluses to pay down the debt, and we have typically found ways that we can manage through small variations that take place within the budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think it's also important to note, when you look at the budget frameworks that we have in place, that even the opposition said at the time that they felt our projections for February were prudent and were financially at least worthy of them building their projected budgets out of that. We were all subject to the same discussion that was taking place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The economies were having a great challenge in front of them. We knew that. But I also knew that we had outperformed our colleagues across the country in the past. We had performed beyond expectations, as I mentioned just a minute ago, in the 2008-09 year while others were facing significant deficits. We actually managed to have a surplus over 40 percent in excess of what we had projected the previous year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's what my confidence was based on a very small variation on the one hand and a record of success and performance on the other. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1455]
C. James: Everyone knows, including the Premier, that this was an unprecedented year, that this was an unprecedented economic time. In fact, as the Premier said at the start, this was an unprecedented economic time. The kind of global challenges we're facing are unprecedented. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We'd also seen that the forecasters had downgraded their predictions, and we'll get into that discussion a little bit further along, but the Premier had had every indication, going into the election campaign, that in fact revenue was plummeting, that the situation was much worse than the February budget had showed. Yet when the deputy informs the Premier that revenues are falling off . [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'll quote the Premier from a Vaughn Palmer article: "At that time the deputy told me there were financial pressures. She had been informed by the Deputy Minister of Finance that there were measures we could take to allow us to meet our February budget." I just want to get this clear, so I'm clear. The Premier says that he did not ask at all what any of those measures were? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I'm sure the opposition has had a chance to canvass this during the Finance Ministry's estimates, but let me just go back on a couple of issues. We all recognize that we face global challenges. In fact, we recognized that we faced global challenges in February of 2009 when we introduced our budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The forecast panel are independent forecasters we brought together 12 forecasters brought together. Their average forecast was zero percent economic growth for this year, for 2009. We actually suggested that it would be minus 0.9 percent. That is a fairly significant step in terms of being conservative in terms of what we were looking at for our future. We were clear about that as we put together our budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I note that the opposition's budget actually called for $600 million more dollars in revenue coming in. They were basing it on our fundamental budget and, evidently, the world as they saw it at the time. I think what's important to note is that no one is pretending in our government, or I don't think any other government, that they knew exactly what was going to happen with the economy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We tried to be conservative in terms of how we were dealing with it. We were upfront and transparent in terms of how we had to deal with it. As I mentioned earlier, we actually identified in February that it would require us to make some . [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think that through the campaign I pointed out that this was going to require some very difficult decisions. These were difficult decisions that would have to be made, no matter who was in the government, if we were going to maintain the financial credibility that was important. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The importance of that financial credibility, I think, is reflected in the fact that when we have a triple-A credit rating, we save significant dollars for the taxpayers of British Columbia as we move into a major capital program, as we have over the last year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think the fact is, again, that the public service was hard at work in terms of finding those discretionary savings. This was a 0.5 percent challenge in terms of the revenue challenge, if you looked at $200 million to $300 million, and it was a revenue challenge that we felt, in view of the experience we've had and in view of the work that was being done, could be met. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Frankly, the discussion wasn't nearly as long as the discussion between the Leader of the Opposition and me. It was much shorter than that, but that was the essence of the discussion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Just to remind the Premier that in fact during the election campaign the Premier did not say that difficult decisions would have to be made. He in fact told the public that health care and education would be protected. Those are the fundamental commitments that were made to the people of British Columbia, including the fact that the deficit would be $495 million, maximum, and we'll get into a little more of that discussion as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In fact, it was the opposite that was told to the public during the election campaign. The public was led to believe that those numbers were the numbers when the Premier had received information on May 7 that in fact revenue was plummeting. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Just a question around the meetings. The Premier mentioned he had two or three discussions during the election campaign. Previously, it took us until September to get the Premier to admit that he was briefed by his deputy on May 7 or around that date. Now the Premier mentions two or three other discussions during the election. Could the Premier please tell me who those discussions were with and when? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: First, I want to acknowledge what the Leader of the Opposition said. We did say we would protect health care funding. We did say we would protect education funding. In fact, we increased both. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1500]
We increased health care funding substantially, and education funding has increased by $84 million. I don't remember the exact amount for health care, but it's in the hundreds of millions of dollars. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I know this. Over the next three years the health care budget is increasing by 19 percent at a time when we're looking at very low economic growth throughout the province. We, in fact, have more than met the commitments we made with regard to health care and education. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In terms of protecting the services and making sure that those services are sustainable, we talked a great deal during the election about sustaining our services for the long term. We talked a great deal throughout the election about the challenges of meeting our service requirements at the same time that we were managing our financial requirements and maintaining a financially prudent stance as a government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think it's important to note that with this budget, in fact, there are significant increases of expenditures that are taking place not just in health care and not just in education to provide people who require income supports. Obviously, substantial increases in expenditures were required for the forest fire season, which was a record forest fire season this year budgeted, this time, at over $400 million. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We had additional expenditures that we have recognized and reflected in terms of H1N1 and dealing with the challenges of that public health problem that we have in front of us today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think in terms of what we said during the election, we were very clear that we wanted our economy to be in a position where it was stronger as we came out of this economic downturn. We were going to continue to provide support for health care and education. In fact, many of the discretionary expenditures where we were able to actually find savings . Those savings are directly funding those health care and education services that are so critical. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I could argue with the Premier around protecting health care and education. I would suggest that if he spent some time talking to teachers and parents and sports groups and arts groups and Special Olympics and children living in poverty that, in fact, there would be a differing opinion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But I come back to the question I asked the Premier, which was related to how many discussions he had with staff during the election campaign. The Premier refused to acknowledge until September of this year that he had actually had a conversation with his former deputy minister around the budget, that he had actually received information that revenue was plummeting. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
He now today has said that he had two or three calls. My question, again, is to the Premier. When were those two or three calls, who were they with, and what subjects were discussed? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I thought I was clear earlier with regard to those issues. I believe . I can recall having two discussions with my deputy. It was with my deputy. I think it's important to note that the public service only deals with the members of the cabinet when there are issues of particular import as we go through an election period. The discussions I had with my deputy focused on both H1N1 and the challenges. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think that it's kind of easy, in some ways, to forget how people felt about H1N1 as it started occurring in the spring. I can tell the Leader of the Opposition and the public that there were many, many parts of government that were directly involved in dealing with the challenges of H1N1. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There was a time during the election where I was requested by the medical health officer to make the point of talking to people about H1N1 and the challenges that we faced with H1N1 and how individual citizens could help. I don't remember the day, but it was done on a day during the election, one morning during the election. I had a briefing prior to that meeting the night before, and I had another conversation with my deputy, who I've mentioned. Those are the two that I recall. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think that it is important to recognize, again, that when the . At the tail end of a conversation with regard to H1N1, it was mentioned that there were revenue pressures. Those revenue pressures were between $200 million and $300 million, which is a 0.5 percent change in the revenues that we had. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In the same breath, it was pointed out that our officials had been working very hard on the cost containment strategies we had identified in the budget in February. As a result of that with the difficult decisions, obviously we'd be in a position where we could secure the budgets that we had talked about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1505]
C. James: I just want to be sure I'm clear, because I've heard the Premier say a couple of different things here. I heard, "Two or three discussions" whether that includes the discussion on May 7, which he finally admitted to in September, that occurred around the briefing with his deputy on the revenue plummeting. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, my question is to the Premier. Just so I'm clear, and I think it's important for the public to know how many conversations the Premier had during the election campaign. Were those conversations with his deputy, as he says, and what was discussed at each of those discussions? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: As I said earlier, I recall two to three discussions that we had. As I said earlier, those discussions primarily focused on H1N1. There is very restrictive interaction between the senior public service and anybody that's running for office. The members of cabinet if there is an emergency that comes up, they are informed about that if there's a requirement for government to act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I can recall that there was a discussion, as I mentioned earlier. The public service was very engaged in trying to deal with the challenges of H1N1. That's, frankly, the primary discussion that I remember having with my deputy as we went through that period of time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Did the Premier request those briefings, or did his former deputy? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned, the public service and a deputy's committee were deeply involved in the discussions with regard to H1N1. My recollection is that I was contacted by my deputy, but I can't say that I didn't call her back sometime. I don't recall all those details, to be candid. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I do recall that the conversations were relatively quick. They were, frankly, on what the deputies needed to know. If they needed a direction, they asked. It wasn't very often that I was called as I mentioned, I think maybe two or three times. But I think the important thing was that this was about trying to meet a public health initiative, and it may have been required that they have some direct political direction. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1510]
One specific one that I do recall is that I was asked specifically about the acquisition of additional Tamiflu vaccine, which was important, I think. Frankly, the direction was pretty simple. It was: do what we need to do to make sure that we provide the most we can for the public health. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: As the Premier knows, often we receive the Premier's calendar through FOI requests. In the Premier's calendar for the May 7 date when the Premier says he had the conversation with his deputy where she talked about the falling revenues there was not any indication of a meeting on that date with his deputy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So my question would be to the Premier. Are there other times that the deputy is briefing the Premier where it wouldn't be entered into the calendar? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I don't recall the calendar for May 7. I don't, frankly, during an election campaign or a non-election campaign, record every telephone conversation I had. You know, I had a conversation. I don't think it was a specifically organized meeting with my deputy. Frankly, I'm not certain of the date. I know it was sometime in that period of time, but I don't recall the date specifically. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Just to, again, touch on May 7 or the date . The Premier says he doesn't recall exactly that date. I recognize that it was the middle of an election campaign or getting to the end of an election campaign, but I would imagine that, in fact, it would be even more important to make sure those dates were written down. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We all were running busy schedules. We all had very, very full days and evenings. I can't imagine that it wouldn't be booked into the Premier's schedule to be able to have a briefing with his deputy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Just to follow on with that, would the Premier say that briefings on the financial situation in the province were a regular part of his deputy's duties? The briefings on the economy and the fiscal situation of the province were a regular part of his deputy's briefings? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: First, I think that it's important to note that I did not get regular briefings during the election campaign. I think what's critical in terms of my schedule is that if there was a requirement for the deputy to discuss with me, she was put through wherever I was in the province at the time. So they were conversations. They weren't detailed briefings. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When we are not in an election campaign, it is not unusual for the deputy to be in attendance with the Minister of Finance if he's giving me a briefing with regard to the finances of the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Did the Premier's chief of staff, Martyn Brown, also sit in or brief the Premier during that May 7 call? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: No. As I mentioned, it was a phone conversation. The answer is no. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: When the Premier received this information he received the information on or around May 7, he recalls that the revenues were in trouble in the province, did the Premier phone his Finance Minister and have discussions about this issue? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: No. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Again, I think the public really will be scratching their heads. This is a difficult economic time. These are challenging times in the province. Revenues are plummeting. Forecasters have been downgrading their predictions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1515]
The Premier receives information on May 7, or around that date, that tells him that revenues are plummeting in British Columbia, that revenues are falling, and the Premier didn't think it was important to talk to his Finance Minister to get a little more detail about those revenues? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: Again, I have to reiterate that we were looking at a challenge of between $200 million and $300 million. That is about 0.5 percent of the provincial revenues. It's the kind of number that we have managed in the past. It wasn't something that I was particularly concerned about. I believed that it was going to be controllable. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Our staff had said to me that this is manageable. They said the revenues are taking a hit, and it's manageable. I felt confident that we'd be able to go through this period and maintain the budget levels that we set in the February budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Did the Premier talk to any other cabinet ministers about the information that he received on May 7? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: Not that I recall. As I went through the campaign, I didn't have that much contact with any of our candidates except for when I was in their riding. I was, like I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition was, travelling all over the province of British Columbia. We were, as she mentioned earlier, busy all the time with the campaign. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, the information to me was not something that set off anything except for that we were in a challenging economic time. I think the Leader of the Opposition and myself both recognized that as we went through the campaign. We talked about it as we went through the campaign. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I felt we had a budget strategy that was achievable. It did call for the finding of savings of up to $1.9 billion. The opposition, in fact, thought they could find $3.2 billion. It did say: here's what we think our revenues should be. The opposition thought their revenues would be $600 million larger than that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We're all working with the information that we have available. We went through the campaign. It is important, I think, to note that our staff had been working hard on the restrictive spending regime that we had in place. They were looking for savings. They felt it was a manageable number, and I felt it was manageable. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It did not in any way take away from the challenges that we knew we would face when we introduced the February budget. It actually simply reiterated the fact that we were going to have to make some very difficult decisions, as we went through this very challenging economic time, so we could come out on the other side of this economic downturn as a stronger economy, a more productive and more competitive economy that was able to provide excellent public services in a whole array of service departments across government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Just again to quote from the Premier about what he was told on that call with his former deputy: "At the time she told me there were financial pressures. She'd also been informed by the Deputy Minister of Finance there were a number of measures he felt he could take that would allow us to meet our February budget." Could the Premier tell us what those measures were? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: We did not have a detailed discussion about the ways that the deputy minister felt that we could deal with this. It was a general discussion that said that we believe we can meet these challenges. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1520]
So yes, we did have revenue pressures. I was clear about those. They were about 0.5 percent of our revenues. We did have revenue pressures. We also had management in place and opportunities in place to actually meet those. Many of them were identified in the February budget, and they have been reflected in the September budget for example, a 24 percent reduction in travel expenditures. That was about $18 million. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I want to be clear. This is what we got in terms of the briefing after the election. This was not something that was part of the conversation that we had. The conversation was very high level and relatively short. It was simply: "We have revenue pressures." I recognized that. "We believe that there are ways we can meet those revenue pressures with savings, and they would be in areas of travel savings, professional services, business and office expenses savings, advertising and publicity savings, and other areas of discretionary spending." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In fact, my recollection was that it was simply: "We believe that we can meet those." The Deputy Minister of Finance felt that he had a number of ways we could do that. We had highlighted those in the budget in February. We've continued with those as we've gone from the February budget on to the September budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I just want to go back to this issue again with the Premier, because it's, in fact, his words that say there were a number of measures that he felt he could take that would allow us to meet the February budget. The Premier says that it was a general conversation, but I ask again. That's a very specific phrase: "A number of measures." What were those measures? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I have to reiterate some of the things I've said. It was a short discussion. It was a challenge, but it was a manageable challenge, and it was, frankly, a relatively small amount of money. We had the public sector at work on looking at those areas of discretionary spending that we had identified in the February budget, and that was effectively the extent of the conversation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As I mentioned earlier, it was a much, much shorter conversation than this discussion. It was based on, I think, what we laid out in February and what had taken place and what our experience was from the past. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I'm just taking the Premier's words back to him, which were that there were a number of measures. I think it's important that the public understand the kind of information that the Premier was receiving, the kind of information that he didn't share with the public just a few days before the election. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know, the Premier says in his quote that there were a number of measures he felt he could take. So there must have been some dialogue and some conversation with his deputy for him to be able to make the quote to say that there were a number of measures. So I ask again if the Premier could please tell me: what were those measures? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I want to reiterate that this was a short conversation. The measures were identified in February: savings and discretionary spending. A number of areas similar to some of the areas that the opposition identified when they said they thought they could find $3.1 billion in savings they were travel savings, professional services savings, office and business expenses savings, advertising and publication savings and discretionary grants savings. That's five broad areas that probably in my head I thought about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1525]
We did not have a discussion about how much more or whatever. That didn't take place. It was: "We're having a challenge with revenues, about $200 million to $300 million, and we have the management in place so that we think we can handle it." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: The Premier says it included travel savings. Did the deputy, then, mention travel savings to the Premier? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: The deputy did not articulate a series of savings. She said there were things that we could do that would manage these costs, and that was the extent of the conversation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Yes, we were having revenue challenges. We felt that they could be managed and that they might require challenging decisions. We knew that in February when we announced that we would have to find $1.9 billion in discretionary spending savings. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[H. Bloy in the chair.]
C. James: Again, just so I'm clear, the Premier says that it wasn't a discussion about specifics. The deputy minister had just told the Premier a few days before the election that there were financial pressures in British Columbia, and the Premier says there were a number of measures, but he didn't have a conversation with the deputy about what those measures were? The Premier was just making them up? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I want to be very clear about this. Yes, I was told that there was between $200 million and $300 million of revenue challenge that we had. There were a number of measures that could be taken. They had already been identified through the February budget. The staff was hard at work on those. I did not get a detailed briefing on those measures, but it was part of what the overall budget was in February. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, I have to reiterate, the conversation was primarily about H1N1. Any conversations that I had in that period of time were primarily about H1N1 and how we dealt with that public health risk. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Just again for the public, because I think it's important, the Premier received information about falling revenues on around May 7, as he recalls, and just to be clear, the Premier didn't do anything with that information. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: Again, if I can just reiterate, the conversations were generally about H1N1. There was a brief comment with regard to revenues and the potential to meet the challenge of those revenues. I didn't have a discussion with people about it. I didn't have a discussion with any other members of the staff. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I wasn't in a position where I could follow it through. There are very limited discussions that take place between the public service and those of us who are running for office at the time of an election. I really don't have much more that I can do to try to elucidate this for the Leader of the Opposition. I hope that's clear. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: It appears that the Premier received the information that there were falling revenues, and the Premier didn't ask any questions, didn't ask any specifics, didn't ask for more information, didn't think that that information was important to share with the public and didn't feel that he should share that information or talk about the concerns with the Finance Minister. I think that's concerning and disturbing, I have to say, because of the kind of economic situation we're in and the worries that the public was having. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1530]
Just another question around that May 7 briefing or the date that the Premier recalls. Was the HST talked about in that call? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: At the end of a discussion with regard to the H1N1, I was informed, with regard to the revenue pressure, that they were manageable. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I did not discuss that with anyone else. Why didn't I? Because I had confidence in the public service. Their record of performance with this government, I think, has been exceptional. It is recognized by outside agencies not something that I claim for them. It's something that they have earned when they get a triple-A credit rating and are recognized internationally for the work they have done. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I did have confidence in them. It wouldn't have been appropriate for me to give them any kind of policy direction. It wouldn't have been appropriate to have a detailed, full-blown review. That wouldn't have been appropriate for me; it wouldn't have been appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Finally, with regard to the HST, the answer is: no, that was not discussed at that time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Just to the Premier, then: did he not feel it was appropriate to share with the people of British Columbia the concern around falling revenues? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I actually did talk with British Columbians about the challenging economic times that we were confronting. I was very clear that the February budget was going to be a difficult budget for us to meet as we went through that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It identified $1.9 billion of discretionary spending decisions that would have to be made. Again, I would note that we were not nearly as aggressive with that as the opposition was who claimed, I think, $3.2 billion of discretionary savings. They also thought the revenues would be higher than we did. We were very conservative in those estimates. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I don't think anyone in May or from April through to May, through the election campaign didn't believe and didn't recognize we were in challenging economic times. This is a relatively small amount that was manageable, and the advice . Frankly, from my perspective it's the kind of thing that takes place in our budgets every year. So yes, we could manage it. I think we have an exceptional public sector that is able to manage those things in a way that's not just helpful but actually that British Columbians benefit from across the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: No one disputes the wonderful people we have working in the public service. We have exceptional people who work in the public service and provide support to all of us in British Columbia. This is an issue around the public and what the public had a right to know. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
These were difficult economic situations, as the Premier has said. Revenues were plummeting. The Premier had been informed a few days before the election that the revenues were plummeting. Didn't the Premier feel it was important for the public to hear that his $495 million deficit could be at risk? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I guess what the challenge is, is that at that particular time I didn't feel and the public service didn't feel it was at risk. Yes, there were revenue challenges. Yes, they could be met. They were manageable. I think that was really the message: "Yes, we have revenue challenges; yes, they're manageable." That's what I knew. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1535]
C. James: How would the Premier know that the public service felt that they could manage those challenges? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned earlier, I was told by my deputy that we were facing some revenue challenges. She also told me that she felt, and she had been informed by the Deputy Minister of Finance, that those revenue challenges could be managed, and they were manageable. That did not mean it would be an easy budget. It was going to require difficult decisions, but they were manageable. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I'd just like to read a quote to the Premier: "It's dishonest to try and portray the books differently, and it's fundamental in our democracy that the taxpayers who elect us have a right to know what the bottom line is. They have the right to know what the true financial position of the government of the day is so that people can be held accountable." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Does the Premier agree with this statement? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I think, obviously, it's important for the public to know what the bottom line and what many of the lines leading up to the government's bottom line are. The fact of the matter is that the bottom line didn't sound to me like it was going to change at that point. I think that it's been recognized, in fact not again by people necessarily in government, but outside government that we have managed our finances well in the province of British Columbia. That's why we've had successive credit rating upgrades through this last number of years. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think it's also important to note that both before and after the election, before and after the September budgets, our triple-A credit rating has been recognized. Those things are because we do have a very transparent set of books. We are clear about the direction we're going in. We're clear about the initiatives we've undertaken. Our budgets are recognized for their transparency, and they will continue to be. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Just to remind the Premier, the quote actually said speaking of the public: "They have the right to know what the true financial position of the government of the day is so that people can be held accountable." Those are the Premier's own words, spoken in this very House in 1996. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So I'd like to ask the Premier again, because this is an important and fundamental question for British Columbians: didn't he feel it was important to let the public know, as he says in his quote, the financial position of the government of the day and that the $495 million deficit could be at risk? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: Let me say that I've tried to relay the conversations that I've had as best I can. I did not believe that the $495 million deficit was at risk. I felt that what we had put forward was achievable. I felt that for a significant period of time after the election. That did not mean that we didn't require to make difficult decisions, but it did mean it was achievable. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So the bottom line: the $495 million deficit, I believed, was achievable. I was clear with that with British Columbians. I was also clear with British Columbians that it would require us to make difficult decisions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I guess, to sum up, the Premier says no, he didn't feel it was important to share the information with British Columbians. No, he didn't feel it was important to be up front about the fiscal situation of the day. I think that certainly leads to the cynicism and the kind of concern that you have out there in the public around budget issues. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1540]
This was a difficult economic time. The public saw revenues shifting. They saw forecasters downgrading their predictions, yet the Premier continued up until the day of the election to say to the public: "It's $495 million maximum; protect health care and education." Yet he had information, on or about May 7, as he says, that told him revenues were in trouble. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think it's very concerning that what we've heard here today is that the Premier didn't feel it was his job or his role nor important to share that information with the public. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In fact, that's part of the reason we brought forward a resolution, a private member's bill, around an independent budget officer. I've heard the Finance Minister's response. I'd like to ask the Premier to give a response around whether the Premier supports our call for an independent budget officer. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: In estimates, if I can remind the Leader of the Opposition, we do not allow the discussion of legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I'll just remind the Leader of the Opposition that this fall we had a full review of our budgeting process in British Columbia. It was a report that was authored by Douglas Enns and other people with regard to our budget process. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The process and the practices actually got a very strong review, a very positive review, from Mr. Enns. That was set up as a result of earlier legislation that had been passed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's important, also, to note that the budgets are signed off by the deputy of Finance. To reiterate the words of the Leader of the Opposition just a few minutes ago, we have excellent public servants in British Columbia, and their professionalism is beyond question. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have a transparent process. We are GAAP-compliant. It's because of all of those things that we actually have a triple-A credit rating in British Columbia, the highest credit rating you can get in the country and the highest credit rating that's received among other provinces. That credit rating has just been confirmed for British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I believe we have an open, transparent budget process. As I mentioned earlier, in the 2008-09 fiscal year, a time where we were suddenly buffeted by substantial winds of change in the global economy . I can recall in 2008 having a briefing from the governor of the Bank of Canada, at the Council of the Federation, where he pointed out that he felt British Columbia was going to grow throughout the economic downturn. In fact, right up until September of 2008 we were informed that our province, unlike many others, was going to be able to go through this economically challenging time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think that we had a very clear budget statement in February. We have reiterated the directions we're trying to take in the budget that we are dealing with today. I think that budget is not just transparent and open, but it's my goal and objective to outperform our projections this year as we have in other years. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1545]
C. James: Just to continue on and to comment on the Premier's comment about the civil service. Again, these aren't questions around the openness and transparency of the civil service. These are questions around the openness and transparency, or lack of, by this government and by this Premier. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I want to talk a little bit about how we got the information around the May 7 briefing, because I think this goes to the concern the public has around the lack of information that they get from this government on when they knew what, why they didn't share that information with the public. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We hear the Premier talking about being open and accountable, but we see just the opposite when it comes to finding information like this out. Even as late as September of this year, when the Premier was confronted with questions about the knowledge that he had around revenue pressures and the effect on the budget, the Premier denied any knowledge at all. This was all the way up until late September. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In fact, this is what the Premier said to reporters when he was first asked, and it's a quote from the Premier: "Well, I didn't know that. Did you know that? I did not know that. I was not frankly aware of what the impact was in terms of the revenue." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So, again, my question is to the Premier. Why did he claim ignorance at that point in time and claim he didn't know anything about changes in revenue? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: Let me start by pointing out again that the review that was done was done in September with regard to the budget process that had taken place. If I was asked a question in September, I can tell you candidly that there were lots of things that I knew in September that I did not know in May or April or March or February. In fact, I think it's clear that most people didn't know what was going to take place between May and August and September of 2009. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Most people didn't know that the Canadian dollar was going to start a rapid climb between May and August of 2009. Most people didn't know that there was going to be a decoupling of natural gas revenues from oil revenues, which has been the traditional way that natural gas revenues have tracked. They decoupled this year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Most people didn't know how corporations and personal individuals were going to use their tax losses in terms of the revenues that we would generate as a province. Most people didn't know what was going to be happening directly with regard to a number of our resource and commodity prices that we have depended on in our economy in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I never claimed in September that I knew everything that was going to happen by September back in May or in April. I don't think anyone does. I've been very clear. I have been as clear as I can be with regard to the discussions I had with regard to the potential challenges with revenue and the fact that they were manageable. I've been clear that it was a very short conversation. There's not much more I can offer to elucidate that in terms of these estimates. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I can say this, though. When Mr. Enns, who is a recognized expert in this field; David Baxter, a well-known British Columbia economist; Don Calder, who participated in the 1999 review of the budget processes; Colin Kinsley, a highly regarded municipal elected official; Jim Cutt, an economist and someone who's been recognized in not just British Columbia but across the country; Jill Leversage; and Alison Morse all say that we have a very transparent and open budget process, I think it's important to note that they're not passing a comment on the decisions that are made within the budget. They are passing comment on how the budget is presented to the public and whether those who would like to know can find out and discover what's taking place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Similarly, with our September budget we are very open with the challenges we faced. We were very open with the revenue challenges which became apparent as we came from the end of June out till August. I think that that's a critical component of any budget process. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's clear when we had discussions with the public, with the legislative Finance Committee, that there are a number of ideas about how we could make better decisions or different decisions or encouraging us to make decisions. All of those are part of our budget process, all of which I think include the public, provide the public with information and allow people to make their choices about who is best able to manage our economy and our budgets as we go ahead. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1550]
C. James: I have to say that the public will be scratching their head at that kind of response when, to use the worst example, the HST was not even talked about with the public. There's nothing open and transparent about the HST. There's nothing open and transparent about a government that said they weren't going to do something and turned around and did it, that said they were going to have a deficit of $495 million and ended up in the billions. There is nothing transparent about that. I think the public really will be wondering at that kind of response. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But just to take the Premier back again. On May 7, or thereabouts, the Premier has told us that his deputy told him that there were revenue pressures, that revenues were falling. When the Premier was asked in September about revenue falling, he said: "I didn't know that. Did you know that? I did not know that. I was not aware of the impact in terms of revenue." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question, again, is to the Premier. He had a call on May 7. He did not acknowledge that call in September, when he was asked this question. In fact, it took a few weeks before he finally admitted it. Why did it take the Premier so long to be upfront about the briefing he received from his deputy? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I've tried to relay what I knew and when I knew it, to the best of my ability. This was a manageable situation that we had. I believed that we could meet our budget projections of February 14 with a deficit of $495 million. I believed that because I was led to believe that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1555]
I think it was correct in terms of what took place between the time in May and later. There were a number of things that took place that I couldn't predict in May and that I didn't predict in May. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I don't have the entire conversation that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to, but my recollection of that conversation, as I said, had very similar comments to what I've had today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Just to close off on this section before we move on to the information the Premier had between the budget and the election, to ask the Premier again, then. He received information in May from his deputy. He was told that revenues were plummeting, that there were revenue pressures. He was asked in September, and he said he didn't know that he didn't know that and he was not aware of the impact in terms of revenue even though he'd received information in May. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, just to ask the Premier: why didn't he tell either the public or the press, when he was asked, that he in fact had received a briefing in May and had been told that revenues were pressured? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I've tried to relay this as well as I can. From what I was informed, revenues were taking a 0.5 percent reduction. Those were manageable within the context of the budget that we'd set. That's what I knew at the time. That's what I said at the time. I've done the best I can to relay what I knew and when I knew it in the best way that I could. The bottom line wasn't changing. We were expecting to be able to meet the revenue targets that we'd set in the February budget in May. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I want to take a little bit of time now to go backwards in time, to be able to take a look at how the Premier was dealing with news that he received from the February budget until the election time period. We've now confirmed that the Premier was told that revenues were plummeting in May by his deputy and that he didn't release that information until September. Now let's take a look at some of the forecasts and revisions that were being made during the time the budget was being formed and the election time period. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Some of these are public statements that came from forecasters, and some of these have come through freedom-of-information documents. I'll just start off with the first one for the Premier. On February 3 Helmut Pastrick of Central 1 Credit Union stated, in communications with the Ministry of Finance: "If I could, I would lower my 2009 forecast. I am now at negative 1.5 percent real GDP. I trust the forecast allowance and contingency reserve are large." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So my question is to the Premier. You've now received information it came in from Helmut Pastrick that said you should have a large contingency allowance. Could the Premier tell us why there was not a large forecast allowance and contingency reserve in the February budget as recommended by Helmut Pastrick? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1600]
Hon. G. Campbell: I'm glad to try and highlight this for the leader. I note that the Finance estimates have just concluded, so I imagine this was canvassed at that time, but let me try and do as good a job as I can for this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have a forecast council that's made up of 12 independent forecasters that comes forward with its recommendations. In February of this year the forecast council made a recommendation that their belief was that we'd have zero percent economic growth through the year. It was identified at that time by the Minister of Finance that we were being far more conservative than that. We projected for the February budget a 0.9 percent reduction in our forecasts. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'll get this confirmed, but I believe that we have the forecast council come and meet and go through their forecasts sometime in December and then again sometime in September so that we can see how we're doing and how we're tracking in terms of our budgets. It may be more often than that, but those are the two times that I recall. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As one of them said, some of them are right some of the time, and most of them are wrong some of the time. No one has it dead right. That's why we have 12 independent forecasters that come together. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We average those forecasts, and typically, this government has been on the conservative side of that. In February we were particularly conservative by saying that we expected that our economic growth would be minus 0.9 percent, as opposed to flat. We felt that provided some cushion for us as we went through the year. At that time, again, I can tell you that not just rating agencies but a number of commentators said that it was a conservative budget and that it was a sensible budget for us to move forward with. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The information that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is information that was available to her as she put forward her proposed budget for this year. Her proposed budget actually was based on ours, so she obviously felt we'd made sensible forecasts as well, basing on the forecast council that we had. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: It's just interesting that the Premier mentions our election platform. In fact, we had predicted a larger deficit, a longer period of time, more revenue coming in, because we felt the situation was going to be much worse than the Premier was predicting and worse than he was telling the public. But many of these documents are in fact documents that we received through freedom of information, so they weren't public documents but were documents coming to government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think it's important to walk through these, because the Premier has said that he was looking at the economy. He was looking at the challenges in the economy that it was his primary concern, that he as Premier was taking on that issue as a primary concern. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Just to read, again, another FOI document to the Premier that was received on February 6, which was 11 days before budget day. Robert Hogue of RBC e-mailed with a plea to change their forecast. He said: "Is it too late to submit a revised forecast? This morning's awful labour force survey numbers have changed the picture. We could do a quick update. We could send in a new table by the end of today. The outlook is increasingly dismal for B.C., unfortunately." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question is to the Premier: what did you do when you received RBC's concern around downgrading their prediction? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1605]
Hon. G. Campbell: I don't know if that letter was written to me or to the Minister of Finance. Typically, the forecast council deals directly with the Minister of Finance, not through the Premier or the Premier's office. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I know that the budget was set for February 17. It was probably out being printed at that time. I don't know all of the vicissitudes of that, but that's why they have Finance Ministry estimates. That would have been the time to discuss that. I'm sure that they did canvass those items under the Finance Ministry, which is the appropriate place for them to be discussed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Yes, I'm sure the questions were asked in the Ministry of Finance. I believe it's important to ask the Premier what knowledge he had. As we know and as the Premier made in his statement, he is responsible for the economy, the budget that the government prepares and the impact that it has on the economy, so it is important for the public to know what knowledge the Premier had. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It also goes, again, to the questions we're asking around credibility, around what the Premier knew when, about what information was shared with the public. I believe that's part of the Premier's duty and responsibility when it comes to openness and transparency to share that information with the public. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd ask the Premier, then: with this information coming in, with a change in RBC's forecast, did the Finance Minister share that information with the Premier? Did you have discussions about the ever-changing forecasts? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I think that it is important. The Leader of the Opposition has asked what I knew. What I knew was that our forecast council had reported. What I knew was that we were actually being very conservative in terms of what the world looked like in February of 2009. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What I know since is that in fact, when that budget was put out, it received good reviews as being prudent and thoughtful in terms of what we were doing; where our additional expenditures were going to health care and to education; where we thought we could do well in terms of managing our costs in terms of the discretionary spending. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think it is important to note that these discussions and decisions are made by the Minister of Finance. In fact, they are signed off by the Deputy Minister of Finance to sort of reiterate the fact that we want to be sure that this has a professional eye in terms of the public. They should know that that's done. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The budget was presented to the public on February 17 to fairly significant reviews not that there weren't people that said things were going to be worse. There were some people that said they were going to be better. On average, the forecast council said they expected zero. We projected for our budget a reduction in our economic growth by 0.9 percent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I thought that was conservative, and we were very upfront and transparent about letting the public know that. I think that is why we had the kind of positive response to our budget that we did. It's likely one of the reasons why the opposition felt they could use our budget, which they called a fiscally prudent foundation, to build their budget on. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1610]
C. James: I want to come back again to what the Premier knew. I understand that the budget is signed off and the forecasts are signed off by the deputy and the Finance Minister. I understand that, but this was a difficult economic time in British Columbia. The Premier was, I'm certain, involved in taking a look at the budget numbers, taking a look at the forecasts. This was a budget that was coming forward before an election campaign. I would imagine that the Premier would have been directly involved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It wasn't simply one forecaster who was coming in, before the budget was finalized, with changes in their predictions. In fact, there were a number of forecasters who were bringing forward changes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Just to let the Premier know another one. On February 10 again, this was before the budget was finalized a senior economist with CIBC World Markets wrote, again to say that they requested to revise a section of the budget. I'll read it: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
"Clearly, things are moving quickly in the wrong direction. While we can still see B.C. moving ahead, the weaker Canadian outlook includes a softer outlook for British Columbia in the coming year. We're shocked by the recent scale of job losses, the steep housing start drops in the province. We'll be lowering our B.C. forecast as a result.
"We haven't put anything in print, but we want to let you know that it's going to drop. If it's not too late, please change our forecast as described."
I understand, as the Premier said, that these forecasts went to the Finance Minister and that the Finance Minister took a look at them. But my question is: during this difficult economic time and the preparation of such a critical budget for our province and, for the Premier, going forward in an election was the Premier informed by the Finance Minister of these changes that were occurring in the forecast through these e-mails that were coming in? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I've tried to answer this in the best way that I can. I was aware of the fact that we had a forecast council. I'm not the person that is involved with dealing directly with the forecast council. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I don't think either the opposition leader or myself didn't understand that we were facing a difficult and challenging economic time in 2009. We both did that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In our budget we projected a reduction of 0.9 percent of our economic growth compared to what the forecast council had said, on average, across all 12. I do think it's important to note that our February budget was generally perceived to be relatively conservative in terms of those things. I actually operated on that with the . [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Finance Minister set his budget. We knew we were facing challenging economic times. That's exactly why, in the budget, we had to be clear with people and transparent that we were expecting we were going to have to face about $1.9 billion of discretionary savings if we were going to protect health care and public education funding as we went ahead. That's what the budget reflected. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think it is important to note that the economic forecasters and our projections, obviously, for February were wrong. Sometimes they go down, and sometimes they go up. When they're going up quickly, you're generally looking back and saying, "Well, we didn't meet that" right? I think everyone would look back at the year and say: "Gee, we wish we knew everything we know in November of 2009 in January or February of 2009." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The preparation of the budget is a challenging program to go through, as anyone who's been in government would tell you. It is prepared. Many difficult decisions have to be made by the Ministry of Finance and the Minister of Finance. It is then put forward to the public. All of the forecast allowances were clear there for the public to see. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Then we proceeded to make our choices. We chose to be more conservative than the average of the forecast council would have suggested. I can't speak to the specific letters that the opposition leader is referring to, but again, that's why we do have Finance estimates. That's why the Minister of Finance is available to make sure that he can answer those questions. I'm not in a position where I can. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1615]
What I knew was that we were actually being far more conservative than the economic forecasters were. What I knew was that we had to make some challenging decisions as we went forward if we were going to protect health care and education funding, and that's what our budget reflected. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Just so I'm clear. This isn't talking about the forecast council to the Premier. These were changes that were being recommended to predictions that had already been put in by the forecast council. These were CIBC, RBC, BMO and Central Credit Union, which had all asked to downgrade their predictions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I understand that the Minister of Finance would receive these and that the Minister of Finance would deal with these when it came to the budget, but my question is to the Premier, because I think it's fairly important. People expect and, particularly with this Premier, they understand that he's directly involved in decisions that are made by government. Did the Premier not have discussions, and was he not aware that many of the members of the forecast council were in fact downgrading their predictions before the budget was tabled? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I'll just reiterate to you, hon. Chair. These would have been preferable discussions to have in the Finance Ministry estimates. This was not covered in the Finance Ministry estimates, and I think it would have been far more informative to everyone had that taken place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Let me say this. On December 4, I understand that the forecast council met. They discussed the economic situation in December. They were given a deadline by which they had to have their forecasts in so that we could finalize our budget numbers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Three forecasters evidently came in after the budget that asked if they were able to change their numbers. Those numbers would not have changed our estimate, which was the largest single reduction in terms of forecasts that we'd had. We were projecting, as I had mentioned, a minus 0.9 percent economic growth, whereas the average had been zero. It was the largest measure of prudence that we'd ever had in the province because we recognized the volatility. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In January of 2009, I had been quite explicit with people that there were significant revenue hits that we had already taken when we announced that we were going to have to put ourselves in a position where we had to go into a deficit. We knew there was volatility. We knew there were changes. The forecast council knew the deadline date, and we set our budget following the deadline date having been met with a level of prudence that far exceeded what had been there in the past to reflect the world we lived in, in February of 2009. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: Before I recognize the Leader of the Opposition, I wanted to remind her that under Standing Order 61, debate in Committee of Supply must be strictly relevant to the items under consideration. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1620]
With respect to Vote 10, the Premier's estimates currently before the committee, it has been the practice of this committee to allow some latitude in debate on governmentwide policy and administration, but debate will not be allowed to canvass details associated with other ministries. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Leader of the Opposition, continue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I appreciate the Premier providing the detail, but in fact, it wasn't the detail in my question, hon. Chair. The question was around what the Premier knew and how he was involved in these discussions not the details around the budget, not the details around the forecast council. I understand that those are details that are dealt with in the Finance Ministry by the Minister of Finance and the Deputy Minister of Finance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question to the Premier was: did he have discussions with the Finance Minister about the fact that there were changes being sent in, before the budget was tabled, to downgrade the forecasts? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I tried to answer that question before. I pointed out that I was aware of the fact that we were in a volatile economic time. I was aware of the fact that the forecast council had come forward and said that they were suggesting zeros. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Finance Minister was not explaining to me the correspondence that he was having leading right up to the budget. The budget was set in an orderly, thoughtful and deliberate manner, including the forecast council. That was all very transparent when the budget was presented. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, I would say that the comments we received on the budget were that it was a responsible and conservative budget. It provided for a smooth transition from the recession to better economic times. It was a realistic budget for tough times. It was a responsible approach to dealing with a very difficult situation. Those were the sorts of comments that we received from people who looked at our budget subsequent to it being brought in. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There was a very conservative minus 0.9 percent forecast that was in place. That was very conservative in February. I'm the first to admit that it's not necessarily very conservative in November, when we know what we know today. When we knew what we knew then, it was conservative. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I knew there was a range of opinions from the forecast councillors. There always are. I was not informed directly that one or two might have wanted to change their positions after the deadline. I was aware that we were, in fact, still more conservative with our projected forecasts than the forecast council was significantly more conservative. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think the really important part of this was that those assumptions were there. The situation taking place in the world was there for all of us to see. We can all read economic reports, and we can all see the different banking institution reports or investment institution reports. The opposition, I'm sure, does that kind of homework, as we do as a government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The opposition felt that we had prepared a responsible budget. They used that responsible budget as the foundation for their budget. The difference was that they actually were far more optimistic, suggesting that they could generate $600 million of additional revenues, and were far more, if you want to call it, optimistic in the savings they could find in government. They thought they could find over a billion dollars more in savings in the government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, I'd love to hear what they think we should do that would add that billion dollars. We've been very rigorous in looking at our budgets as we came to September. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I also think it's important to note that our budget actually increases spending this year. In spite of the economically challenging times, it increases spending. It increases spending on health care, education, income supports, forest fire fighting, H1N1 flu. Overall, it is an expense-increasing budget, not a reduction budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It is something, I think, that was important as we went through the February budget period to decide what's a reasonable forecast, given what we know today, and what are reasonable expenditures, given what we know today. That resulted in a $495 million deficit. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As much as I would not have liked to go to deficit, we felt we had to go to deficit, because of the rapid change that was taking place in our economy, if we were going to protect vital public services. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I want to talk about that rapid change that was occurring. The Premier has now said that no, he didn't know or wasn't aware or didn't have the information shared with him that there were changes occurring to the forecasters' estimates, the predictions that those were being downgraded. The Premier says that he wasn't aware of that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I just want to read, for the Premier, another economist. Scotiabank economist Mary Webb made a point that I think is very important, and I want to talk to the Premier about this information. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1625]
Ms. Webb sent in an e-mail that said that "a number of participants since early January have revised down their forecasts again, underlying the current high level of risk. I think it's important that you acknowledge the further downward slide in the current environment." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question is to the Premier. Did he not feel it was important, when he spoke to the budget, as he did often after the budget was delivered, to acknowledge that downward slide so the public was aware of the kind of situation we were facing economically? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: Again, let me take the Leader of the Opposition through this. We do have a forecast council that did meet on December 12. Actually, unlike in the past, they were provided with additional time to actually survey what they thought and provide the ministry with their ideas. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[C. Trevena in the chair.]
We did reflect the fact that it was a very volatile time in terms of the economy. That resulted in a minus 0.9 percent estimate in our budget of February with regard to economic growth. I'm informed by the Minister of Finance that had he taken in all the changes that were suggested, you still would not have had an average that did not provide for a substantial degree of prudence when you look at minus 0.9 percent of economic growth. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Now moving on to the budget being tabled. As we know, the budget was tabled, and the Premier put forward the claim of a $495 million deficit was very clear about that number. But on the very day the budget was tabled, we saw that BMO once again downgraded its forecasts. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question would be: did that downgrading forecast, which was public and came out on the day of the budget, cause the Premier concern about his number of $495 million? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1630]
Hon. G. Campbell: First of all, I believed that the $495 million deficit was attainable, as I've mentioned as we've gone through these discussions so far today. Secondly, we had a substantial amount of prudence built into our budget, because we expected that there would be some challenges in place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Was I concerned about the economy in February? Of course I was concerned about the economy in February. I've been concerned about the economy far prior to February, and I'm sure we'll all be concerned about the economy for some months to come. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Having said that, we built in a significant amount of prudence to assure that we could get through this as well as we could while we protected our health funding, our education funding and that we had some resources for other critical services of government and front-line services of government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: According to the Premier's calendar, there was a meeting with the Finance Minister on February 24. Now, the Premier said previously that he hadn't discussed the changes that economists were putting in, the downward slide, the downgrading of their predictions. Did the Premier on February 24, a date that was in his calendar, discuss the downward slide? Did he discuss those changes in forecast with the Finance Minister? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: Yes, we did discuss what was taking place in the economy on February 24. We recognized that there were pressures in the economy. We were actually confident, with regard to the forecast allowance that we had been set, that that was still going to be achievable. We recognized that we had to take a number of steps, which were identified in the budget, with regard to discretionary spending. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In the meeting of February 24, we discussed a whole range of issues. Most importantly, we felt that our budget was something that could be achieved, and we were going to have to get on with that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Did the Premier and the Finance Minister discuss specifics that would have to change based on these new forecast numbers? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: We did have a meeting. We did discuss what was taking place with regard to the budget. I did not get specifics about different forecasts, different forecasters or different approaches that had been taken by different economists. We were confident in the framework that had been established in the budget, including the minus 0.9 percent in terms of the economic front. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We were confident that we had been conservative in that estimate. We were aware or cognizant of the fact that we had to get on with finding the $1.9 billion of discretionary expenditures, but we were confident in the framework of the budget that had been set. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Just continuing on with the Premier's calendar, the Premier met the Prime Minister in Vancouver on February 26, according to the Premier's calendar. Was there discussion of B.C.'s economy at that meeting? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1635]
Hon. G. Campbell: I think the Leader of the Opposition is referring to a meeting with the Prime Minister on February 26. At that time I'm sure we talked about the federal budget, which had called on provinces to match the federal stimulus spending. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We were fast off the mark with regard to that. We'd called for an accelerated capital program in October. We had encouraged the federal government to provide for that kind of a program. We were supportive of the federal government's program at the time, and I wanted to be sure that we were not letting anything get in the way of those investments flowing as rapidly as they could. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I don't recall the details of the meeting or the agenda for the meeting other than to say that we were looking to try and maximize the benefits of federal investments in British Columbia by partnering with British Columbia in a number of ways that would assure that we got as much money on the ground to create as many jobs as possible in as many communities across the province as we could. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Was the HST discussed at that meeting with the Prime Minister? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: No. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Just continuing on in the timeline, this is post-budget. The budget has now been tabled. The Premier has put forward a budget with $495 million, and the forecasts continue to be downgraded. We saw on February 27 that in their weekly briefing, the Central 1 Credit Union came out to say that it was another week of uniformly negative economic indicators, no floor to the unfolding recession in sight. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
According to the Premier's calendar, he had two meetings on Saturday, February 28, at the Premier's Vancouver office one with the Finance Minister at 11 followed by another meeting that happened at 2:30. I'd like to ask the Premier whether the deteriorating economy and the budget came up at either of those meetings. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1640]
Hon. G. Campbell: I am racking my brain. I am seeing if I can discover exactly what was discussed on February 28, but I don't recall. I could speculate on what it may have been about with the Finance Minister. February 28 is getting close to year-end. It would not be unusual for us to discuss what was happening as we went towards year-end, and it wouldn't have been unusual for us to discuss how we could maximize the benefits of the federal investments that were coming out of the federal budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I actually don't recall. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition could tell me what the times were. She has the morning and the afternoon. I don't recall. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Perhaps I can ask the Premier to bring the information back tomorrow. We have a continuation of estimates tomorrow. Perhaps I can ask for more specifics tomorrow. The times are 11 a.m. on Saturday, February 28, and 2:30 p.m. on February 28. I'm asking a question around whether the economy and finances were discussed at those meetings. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
To continue on, we're now moving to March. We're getting closer to the election time period. We've continued to see numbers being downgraded. RBC predicted, again, growth rate downgraded by half a point than the number the government used in their budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
RBC predicted a GDP decline of 1.5 percent for 2009 and said in their report that the swiftness with which the housing market, the labour market, consumer spending and capital investments have deteriorated had thwarted prospects that the onset of a global recovery later this year might help us in the short term in this province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is now at March 15. We're now halfway between budget and the start of the election. I'd like to ask the Premier: did he now, in taking a look at these downgradings, have discussions around his $495 million deficit number, and was he concerned about the number in the face of these downgrades? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I think it's important to note the difference between calendar years and fiscal years. In fact, many people thought that we were not going to be able to secure a balanced budget for the fiscal year of 2008, which ended on March 31, 2009. We were able to not just have a balanced budget, but we actually generated a surplus that was over 40 percent higher than we had projected. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Most forecasters were saying, well into the year, that although we would have a challenging time, since the first quarter of 2010 is part of the 2009 budget, because of the economic stimulus that would come from the Olympics, they expected us to do better than many other parts of the country. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We were still confident in spite of the fact, as I said time and again, that we would have to make difficult decisions that the projected deficit for the 2009-10 fiscal year would be achievable. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1645]
C. James: I understand the Premier saying the numbers that he had received . He was feeling that it was still doable when he looked at the numbers. But it wasn't simply one forecaster. It wasn't simply one forecast that was being downgraded. These were the months of February, March, April, where you continued to see numbers coming in that showed that the economy was much worse than the budget that had been put in place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I want to read to the Premier another piece of information that came in just before the election campaign. Again, this comes back to the $495 million deficit number that the Premier was very clear about just to remind the Premier of his infamous claim in which the deficit would be "$495 million maximum." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It wasn't that the Premier gave room for discussion around more difficult economic times. The Premier was emphatic about the deficit number and about the fact that that number would be there. We saw the Conference Board continue to come in, bringing changes forward. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Premier said earlier that he hadn't discussed the changes in forecasts with the Finance Minister. Now that he'd received the BMO change, now that he'd received the Conference Board change, now that we're getting close to the beginning of April and going into an election campaign, when the public expects that the Premier is upfront about what's going on in the economy, could the Premier tell me what conversations he had in April, in those two weeks leading into the election, with the Finance Minister around the downgrades, around the risk of the $495 million deficit? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I think that the important thing here, again, is to get the differentiation or the distinction between a calendar year and a fiscal year. If you look at the calendar year for 2009-10, you will see that it includes from April 1 of 2009 until December 31. The fiscal year goes all the way to March 31. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The reason that's important is because the first quarter of 2010 is recognized, I think universally, as a time when we are going to have significant additional economic benefits that are going to come to the province. We felt that we had a prudent budget forecast in place and, in fact, I think that many economists did as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If you look at the budget document on page 111, in terms of the overall budget document, you'll see that economists look at a challenging 2009 and a far more hopeful 2010. Those budgets will change. I'm sure those projections will change over time, but to give an example to the Leader of the Opposition, we are projecting a 1.9 percent increase in economic growth. The Conference Board is projecting 4.2 percent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1650]
It would neither be prudent nor wise for us to say: "Well, we're going to go to 4.2 percent." That's why we go to a whole series of forecasters. There will be a range of forecasts. They are identified in the budget document so that we can see it. As we set our financial framework in place, we set that in a way that is deliberately prudent, that provides for some flexibility and that may call on us, as the budget in 2009 did, to make some significant and difficult decisions. It does call on us to do that. We felt that we were able at that time to meet that framework that economic and financial framework that we put in place in February. We felt that way through most of the spring and, as I said earlier in this discussion, right through the election. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I'll lay the statement out. Would the Premier agree that the economic situation changed drastically between February and April? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: There is no question that we were facing challenging economic times, changing economic times. That's why we had a forecast that was the largest ever area of prudence that we'd provided into a budget in terms of our forecasts. That's why we were spending as much time as we were, dealing with the potential to restrict spending in areas of discretionary spending. It's why the public service was working so hard to try and make sure that we could manage those things. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's why we continue to do that. We remain in challenging economic times. I think it's why, again, when outsiders looked at our budget, they said we had a conservative, prudent budget. We actually worked very hard to try and make sure that we could meet those targets and felt, indeed, that we could meet those targets not just up to the election but right through the election. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Having said that, I recognize that other people could take a different approach. I think the most noteworthy thing in terms of this discussion is that if the Leader of the Opposition was aware of all of those challenges that we faced and felt that we weren't reflecting them appropriately in our budget, then surely she could have reflected them appropriately in her budget, which was two months after the budget in February. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Had she done so, she probably wouldn't have added $600 million in revenue from what our government budget was. I would imagine she wouldn't have suggested that they couldn't save even more money in terms of discretionary spending than we did in terms of our strategy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We were open and transparent with regard to what we were facing. We had a strong framework and a conservative framework in place. We felt that we could meet the challenges that we faced in these very volatile economic times, right through the first part of this year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I'll remind the Premier again that our budget included a deficit over a longer period of time, because we recognized that the numbers the Premier had put forward were rosy and that we needed more revenue coming in. In fact, we recognized that in our budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Just again, back to the numbers for the Premier. The Premier has now admitted that the fiscal sand shifted from February until April, that it was a much more challenging time than the Premier had recognized when the budget was tabled, that economists had downgraded their predictions between February and April, that the world was changing. Yet the Premier continued to be very emphatic about his $495 million deficit maximum, in fact, as he said repeatedly. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1655]
The Premier did not say that the situation was changing. The Premier did not tell the public that the fiscal situation was worse than it was when he tabled the budget in February. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, my question is to the Premier. I used the quote earlier that talked about accountability and openness and the importance of the public being aware of the fiscal situation of the day. Those were the Premier's words. Does the Premier not feel that not being upfront with the public, that not talking about the changes that occurred in the fiscal situation in British Columbia was not being upfront and accountable, as he talked about earlier, with the public? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I do think it's important for people to understand the economic framework, the fiscal framework, the financial framework that we have as government, the assumptions we've made as we look to deal with the challenges in front of us. Throughout the year, in fact, as long ago as . Let me think of the year. In 2008 in September we were talking about the challenges that we were going to face. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There was a first ministers meeting where I went and we talked about the challenges we faced and what we could do together. I had a special television opportunity to explain to the people of British Columbia about the challenges we faced and what we intended to do that we called the ten-point plan. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We had a budget in February. We talked about the challenges we were going to face and created a financial framework that would allow us to deal with those challenges. They did call on us to make some difficult decisions, but they allowed us to deal with those challenges. Throughout that time I think it's important to note that I believed, and I believe the government believed, that we actually had a financial framework that would allow us to deal with the challenges we were being confronted with. We continued to believe that for a number of months throughout 2009. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, I would say that the opposition believed that we had dealt with them appropriately. Had they not believed we were dealing with them appropriately in view of all the information that was available from the Conference Board, from different financial institutions, from different economists who were pointing out we were in difficult times, as we had said for months then they would not have used the budget numbers and the assumptions that we made as they prepared their budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I recognize the Leader of the Opposition suggested it would take longer to take care of the deficits that they were projecting. She also projected that the opposition would actually find an additional $1.2 billion in savings in a challenging economic time. They also, for some reason, in spite of the fact that we were expecting our economy to falter through the year according to our projections, a minus 0.9 percent economic growth . Somehow or other they were going to discover how they were going to get an additional $600 million of revenue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm glad for the opposition to come forward and say, "Here's our plan," which was different than ours. That's great. That's what the election should be about. We were both living in the same world. We were both having to deal with the same sets of changes. We both laid out what our assumptions were, and we said that we felt that ours was going to be able to manage the deficits that we faced, according to the numbers that we'd set out, which was $495 million as a deficit. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1700]
I said throughout the campaign that that would require difficult decisions. I said throughout the campaign that we had identified $1.9 billion in savings that we were going to have to find. I continue to recognize that that is a challenge we face in terms of our budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think that I always did the best job and always have done the best job I can to explain where we are. We believed that our fiscal framework was not just manageable, but it was something that we could accomplish. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I just should, if I may, bring back some information to the Leader of the Opposition that she asked for earlier that I didn't have a recollection of. In the February 28 meetings we discussed the Olympic village and the status of that, and we discussed the recognition and reconciliation act and the work that was being done on that as we developed the concept paper. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: While the Premier has given his explanation, I have to say that I don't think anyone in the public would take that kind of information as believable when they know that the information that the Premier had and he's now admitted that he had on May 7, where he was told that revenues were plummeting, that that information wasn't shared with the public. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As I said, that flies in the face of the quotes I used earlier, where the Premier talks about openness and accountability and the importance of the public knowing the fiscal situation in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I want to move on now to the February 14 finance meeting. This is the meeting post-election about which the Premier, again, in September finally admitted that he received a briefing on revenue pressures and that there had been a meeting on May 14 in which the Deputy Minister of Finance briefed both the Finance Minister and the Premier. So could the Premier please tell us who attended that meeting? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: Just so we're clear what we're talking about, there was a meeting on May 14, not February 14. So May 14 my recollection was that I had a meeting with my deputy, the deputy of Finance and the then Minister of Finance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Could the Premier tell us who gave that briefing and what was discussed at the briefing? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1705]
Hon. G. Campbell: The meeting I had on May 14, frankly, was a relatively casual meeting. It was two days after the election. The presentation was given to me by the Deputy Minister of Finance with regard to some of the revenue challenges that we faced. It was really done on the basis of work that was prepared by the Ministry of Finance for the incoming government, regardless of who the party was. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Just to ask more specifics, then, around the information that the Premier says was presented. Were new budget numbers presented to the Premier, and what was the impact on the government's deficit? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: There are two things that I would say. The first is that I think we have to remember that these were forecasts. It was not hard data. They were forecasts that there were going to be some additional hits to revenues. My direction coming out of that meeting was: "Go and find out how we're going to meet our budget targets of $495 million." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: The Premier told us earlier in our discussion that on May 7, when he had his discussion with his former deputy minister, that she informed him about the revenue pressures. The Premier used the number $200 million to $300 million off that he felt that was doable. Did the Premier receive new numbers on May 14, and what were those numbers? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1710]
Hon. G. Campbell: The revenue projections were the first detailed revenue projections that had been run through the programs that we have in the previous number of months, and in fact, there was a considerable challenge, in terms of revenues, that was identified. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I said at the time that our goal was to come in as close as we could to the $495 million. I wanted to know the ways that we could actually achieve that. It was a relatively rapid meeting. We didn't go through all the policy alternatives. That was something we sent off to look at. We knew that there were significant additional revenue pressures, and the Finance Minister and his ministry were set to come back with suggestions for how we could meet the budget targets that we had set. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I'll use the Premier's quote, and he mentioned it as well. The quote that the Premier said came out of that meeting is: "We have a budget we're trying to meet. We'd better go back and try and find areas where we can act and what we can do and how we can meet the February budget." The Premier must have based that on some information other than just that revenues were challenging. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
He said that on May 7 he was told $200 million to $300 million was the challenge. What was the number on May 14 that the Premier was told was going to be a challenge to British Columbia? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1715]
Hon. G. Campbell: During that meeting was the first time that I heard that the projected, forecast, deficit was going to be probably in excess of a billion dollars between $1.1 billion, I think, and $1.3 billion if we didn't do anything else. At that time, I gave direction to the Ministry of Finance to find ways that we could close that gap and get down to a $495 million deficit. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: The Premier must have been shocked at the number from $200 million to $300 million on May 7 to a billion dollars on May 14. Why did the Premier not inform the public of these revenues tanking? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: First, I want to say that the Leader of the Opposition is correct. I was very concerned about getting those numbers. I actually said to them: "Why am I getting these numbers now?" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The reason was quite straightforward. They didn't run the numbers until election day. They ran the numbers on election day so that they would be prepared with a full array of information for whoever was the incoming government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It would not have been appropriate for me, actually, to suggest to the staff that they should take additional measures prior to an election. It was appropriate for them to prepare that for us and to provide us with it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Having said that, it is still about 2 percent to 3 percent of our overall budget. In a $40 billion budget, that would be a 2 percent or 3 percent savings. So the direction to say to people, "Go and see how we can manage this," I would suggest, was a legitimate direction in view of the fact that we said to people that we expected to have a $495 million deficit. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In generating that deficit, we expected that deficit to allow us to protect health care funding and education funding as we moved through a very challenging economic time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Surely, in hindsight, the Premier when he looks back and sees that it was $200 million to $300 million on his May 7 call with his former deputy and goes to $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion on May 14, just a week later perhaps might have asked some questions. Does he not think it might have been important to ask some questions on May 7 about the numbers and the kind of concern that might have been there around revenue? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1720]
Hon. G. Campbell: Again, you know, no one's trying to suggest that these weren't significant challenges that were in front of us. I actually don't think it's possible for people to see very far into the future. I've got a lot of confidence in the people that develop our financial modelling and provide it to us. They don't run it every day, and they don't run it every time there's a change in a forecast or a change in our circumstances. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It was fully run on May 12. It was presented to us on May 12. What we had discovered as we'd gone through the work to try and find ways that we could, first, not have a deficit in the beginning of 2009 and then minimize the deficit in 2009 . We found that we actually were outperforming in a number of areas that we thought we could continue to do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When I heard the challenging number with regard to revenues, I said: "Well, what do we have to match against that? What are the policy decisions we can make that would allow us to do it?" I did not go back and candidly say to them: "Why didn't you predict what's happened in the world when no one else did?" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The fact of the matter is that our Finance officials have done an excellent job. Our public service does an excellent job of providing us with the best information they can, and we do the best we can to make decisions based on that information and make that information available to the public. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: The Premier mentioned that this was the first full run of numbers. Could the Premier tell me: what was the previous date where a full run of numbers was done? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I can't give you the specific date, but it was done in advance of February budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Again, I have to express concerns, not simply from this side of the Legislature but on behalf of the public, for a constant watch that needed to be there around how things were going economically. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I come back again to the Premier's comments, and he mentioned them again. "You need to go back and try and find areas where we can act, what we can do to meet the February budget." That's a huge gap when you've gone from $200 million to $300 million on May 7 to $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion on May 14, as the Premier says. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd like to ask specifics, then. The Premier, I'm sure, in that briefing on May 14 must have had discussions about areas when you're looking at that kind of gap. What kind of suggestions did the Premier make on areas to act, as he says, to address this kind of gap in revenue? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1725]
Hon. G. Campbell: At that point, we took a number of steps on top of the steps that we had already identified in February. We froze all access to contingencies. We said that there would not be any approval of any non-statutory grants until we had sorted out where we were going. The Deputy Minister to the Premier convened a meeting of the Deputy Ministers Council to look for other measures that may be possible to close the gap, and we asked for a report back by the end of May. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Can the Premier tell me whether the HST was discussed at the May 14 meeting? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: No, it was not. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Could the Premier tell me ? He mentioned that the last full run of numbers, as he describes it, was done in preparation for the February budget. What is the routine run of numbers? How often is this routinely done, and did the Premier feel it would have been important to ask for a full run of numbers when we were seeing the kinds of changes in forecast allowances that were coming in? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: Again, this is the kind of detail question that . It would be, I think, preferable to have that at the Finance Ministry estimates. It was evidently not canvassed at all. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Having said that, there is a detailed budget done for the first quarterly report, for the second quarterly report and for the third quarterly report in concert with the preparation of the budget that takes place in February of the following year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: These questions pertain to information that the Premier has shared that he had in his May 14 briefing, which is why I'm doing a follow-up on these questions. The Premier was the one who raised the run of numbers and the importance of that when it came to looking at the new revenue numbers of $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion, as he acknowledges. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Just a question around the May 7 call when the Premier was told, as he said, that $200 million to $300 million was the pressure at that point. Did the Premier ask his deputy about whether a full run of numbers had been done and whether these were updated budget numbers that she was sharing with the Premier? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1730]
Hon. G. Campbell: First, let me just reiterate. I know that I had a conversation in May. I'm not sure of the specific date. The Leader of the Opposition keeps referring to a specific date. I'm not sure it was that date. I want to be clear about that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Secondly, in terms of: did I direct them to run the numbers? No, I didn't. In fact, I don't believe it would have been appropriate for me to do that at that time. Those numbers, had they been run, would have been made available to either the Leader of the Opposition or myself following the election. That was appropriate. It's the professional staff who decide when they're going to run those in an interregnum period. It's not the politicians who pick the time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The other thing I would just say is that it kind of sounds like, when I hear the conversation, that someone goes in and types out some numbers, and we run it. This is not a simple process. It takes a lot of work from Finance officials to put these forecasts together. They have to go to a whole array of indicators throughout the economy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As I mentioned, in May I was informed that we had revenue pressures and that those revenue pressures were manageable. When the final detailed numbers were run and presented to me on May 14, it was clear that we had some significant challenges with regard to revenues. The direction I gave was to ask for those people who were involved to get out there, to get involved in looking at where we could find some alternatives that would allow us to actually meet our budget targets for February. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: I'd like to remind members about the issue, about relevancy, and to ensure that the debate is around the Premier's estimates and not other ministers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Continuing on with the May 14 meeting. This is from the Premier's calendar. This is a meeting in the Premier's calendar, so directly related to his office. Again, I want to touch just on . [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[L. Reid in the chair.]
The Premier mentions the people who work in the Ministry of Finance and the civil servants. Again, I want to say that these questions are not related to the civil servants. These questions are related directly to the Premier and information that the Premier was receiving and whether he shared it or didn't share it with the public. That's very critical in all of this, and that's why the questions are being asked. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The public has a right to know what information the Premier was receiving, what information was being shared with the public, how aware the Premier was of the difficult economic times that were coming up, and why the public wasn't informed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
To come back to the May 14 meeting. It took until September before the Premier admitted that he'd had this briefing on May 14. Could I ask the Premier why? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1735]
Hon. G. Campbell: The meeting on May 14 was two days after the election. As I've said as I've gone through this, I was surprised by the revenue projections. I suggested that we go back and look at ways that we could deal with them. I felt that we actually should look at ways that we could deal with them. I wasn't going to jump to conclusions about what was going to happen or wasn't going to happen. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My direction was clearly to try and make sure that we could meet our February budget targets, and the deputy ministers went to work on trying to deal with some of that and say: "Here are some of the options that you deal with." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I do think it's important to note that the budget process is a dynamic process. It's not something that's static. It's not something that happens on one day and is finished the next. It's always a dynamic process, and particularly on May 14, it's based on forecasts of what may happen through the year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You'll recall, I'm sure, hon. Chair, and I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition will recall, that sometimes even the opposition said that we were not going to be able to balance the budget for the 2008 fiscal year. We were able to balance the budget in the 2008 fiscal year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We had been clear that we had to meet a number of objectives. We were waiting to get the results of those objectives. Quite candidly, I don't actually have press releases or conferences after every meeting that I have. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
No one was in any doubt in the spring of 2009 that we were facing significant fiscal challenges, significant economic challenges. As is often the case, there was some good news and some bad news. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What we were trying to do was put together a budget that we could bring to the House as quickly as possible, that would again reflect the characteristics of prudence and protecting critical services like health care and education. We had to look at what the options were, what the opportunities were, and that work was commenced immediately on May 14. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: I would caution the member on the repetitiveness of the debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Just continuing on. The Premier says that we recognize it was a difficult economic time. Well, the public knew that better than anyone. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The public was very concerned about the economic times. The public was feeling the impact of the economic times. They were seeing it firsthand. The concern and the reason that the question is important is that the public had a right to know what the economic situation was. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I go back to the Premier's quote, himself, where he said: "The public has a right to know what the bottom line is. The public has a right to know the fiscal update and situation of the province." Those are the Premier's own words. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, I would ask the Premier: when he received this information and I would say it's, again, his information $200 million to $300 million on and around May 7 . I appreciate that he's not sure of the date. To go to $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion with the pressure on May 14 is a huge number. That's a huge change when it comes to revenue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Did the Premier not feel it was important to give an economic update to the public after that meeting? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: First of all, I believe the public should know the information, but I think they need to know complete information. I don't think it would be appropriate in fact, I think it would be damaging for partial information to be there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When a government is elected, and if there has not been a budget, there is a requirement that the budget be placed before the Legislature, the public, within 90 days of the swearing-in of the new cabinet. I knew a budget was going to be prepared. I knew we had part of the information. I was interested in getting all of the information. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We had been clear throughout the election campaign that we intended to put British Columbia in a position where it could come out of this economic downturn in an even stronger position than it was when it went into the economic downturn. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1740]
We had been clear that we were going to protect health care and education with additional funding, and we'd been clear that we were going to continue to try and deal with the issues in front of us in a financially prudent way that would protect something that British Columbians have earned over the last number of years, which is a triple-A credit rating, which saves them literally millions of dollars a year when we're trying to improve and increase our infrastructure. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There was never a suggestion that we shouldn't provide the public with complete information. We have provided the public with complete information, and I think that's what's important: open, transparent information that meets and allows for public scrutiny of the decisions that a government has made. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Just to ask the Premier about the specific meeting of May 14. As I mentioned to the Premier earlier, we receive his calendars through FOI. Could the Premier tell me why this May 14 meeting wasn't included on his calendar? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned earlier, this was a meeting that was actually a casual meeting. I came into the office. The deputy minister suggested to me that the Deputy Minister of Finance was meeting with the Minister of Finance, and she thought it would be worthwhile for me to be there. We don't normally retrospectively do the calendars, as far as I know. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I can't imagine if, as the Premier says, the May 14 meeting was going to be held with whoever won government to be able to receive an update, that it would be a casual meeting. This was an update on the fiscal situation from the Deputy Finance Minister, as the Premier himself said. I can't imagine receiving the information of $1.3 billion was a casual meeting. I would expect the Premier would see it as more than a casual meeting. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We know from the Premier's calendar in the previous year that there were a number of meetings often marked in the Premier's calendar, meetings that he'd had with the Finance Minister or forecasters or business councils that were often labelled as finance meetings. That was the term that was used in the Premier's calendar between September '08 and March '09. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But since the election in receiving the calendar, again, through FOI there are no records of any finance meetings. So could the Premier tell me why, following the election, his calendar doesn't note any finance meetings from the election time on? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: Hon. Members, the committee will recess until ten minutes to six. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The committee recessed from 5:43 p.m. to 5:53 p.m.
[L. Reid in the chair.]
Hon. G. Campbell: With regard to my calendar, regularly scheduled meetings are put in my calendar. Scheduled meetings are in my calendar. I actually can't speak to what it has been in the past. I'm paying attention to my calendar in the future. I do know this: our calendar is made available under freedom of information, and it is full and complete when it's received. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Well, as I mentioned earlier, in fact, the May 14 wasn't in the calendar. We did receive the calendar, but the May 14 meeting was not in it. Nor were any other finance meetings, right through from the election, in the calendar that we received. There seems to be a gap there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Just a question around two other comments the Premier made regarding briefings. Again, I'll quote. These are comments that were made in June by the Premier: "One of the problems is that the updates change every day. We've had three different forecasts last week, which have been quite a bit different from the ones we had this week. The updates change every day. It's better this week than it might have been two weeks ago." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Premier is talking in these quotes about updates that he's receiving. Could the Premier please tell me who presented him with these updates and forecasts that he was talking about in June? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1755]
Hon. G. Campbell: My recollection of that discussion was about forecasters coming forward with new updates, not with our forecast. Forecasters. Different forecasters do updates. They do reports. They do whatever they do. They answer questions to people in the public with regard to what they're thinking and what they're not. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I mentioned earlier to the leader that one forecaster suggested sometime during the summer that all the forecasters are right some of the time, none of them are right all of the time, and most of them are wrong most of the time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I'll move on in a moment to some of the boards and councils that the Premier has put together that provide him both with forecasts as well as other areas. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think it's just important for the public to take a moment to reflect on the afternoon we've spent and the questions that we've gone through, because it really is important. When the public is taking a look at the economy and the challenges in the economy, they expect openness and accountability. They expect that when the Premier says that he is going to provide information, that he will provide information. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Yet what we've learned through this process is that the Premier was told during the election campaign that the numbers, the revenue, was falling. The Premier himself says the numbers he was told were $200 million to $300 million. He's then admitted that on May 14 he was told that revenue was plunging $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion, which is a huge gap, and yet the Premier didn't feel it was important to tell the public. The Premier didn't feel it was important. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: Hon. Member, that material has been canvassed extensively. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I think it's important that the public be aware of those kinds of issues. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I now want to move on, as I said, to the advisory groups that the Premier has put forward, and we have a large number of these. We know that the Premier tends to put advisory councils, groups, boards together. Just to name a few that I want to run through: the Economic Advisory Council, the Progress Board, the Competition Council, the Technology Council. We also know that the Premier, and he's mentioned it himself, discusses things with the Economic Forecast Council. I would like to explore each of those bodies and perhaps start with the Progress Board. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When the Premier put together the Progress Board, here's what he said its role would be. "The B.C. Progress Board will provide a new level of accountability for our government by establishing specific economic goals for the tax, regulatory and fiscal reforms we undertake. The B.C. Progress Board will play an important role in helping us renew prosperity and opportunity for all." That's a news release from the Office of the Premier in 2001. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would like to ask the Premier: does the Progress Board still play an important role for the Premier in guiding government's economic policy and reforms? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I believe the Progress Board provides a valuable sounding board for the public. I think it provides valuable information for the public. They report publicly, and they report independently of government. They are supported by government, but they report independently of government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: My question to the Premier was: does the Premier believe that they're an important board in helping him guide government's direction around the economy? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1800]
Hon. G. Campbell: I believe that the Progress Board provides valuable input. It's not always agreed to by government, but they provide valuable input. I think the critical component of the Progress Board's contribution is that it is independent of government. They look at a range of issues that they feel are of interest, and in good faith they make recommendations to government, which the government can either agree to or disagree to. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's not like they're shaping all of the government's policies. They're suggesting that there are things the government should look at and may be interested in pursuing. They also provide an annual update in terms of the economy and indicators, and I think those updates are valuable for the public to look at and to reach their own conclusions with regard to the endeavours the government has undertaken. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: The Premier says the Progress Board plays an important role. It's independent and provides advice to government. The Premier put the Progress Board together, and earlier I read his quote. During these difficult economic times, you would think it would be important for the Premier to receive information or engage with the Progress Board, but in fact the Premier's calendar shows no meetings with the Progress Board. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In an FOI that the opposition did regarding the Progress Board and its December '08 report, which was called Current Realities and the Way Forward, and any communication that may have occurred between the Progress Board and the Premier's report, the FOI came back that said there were no records. There were no meetings between the Premier or any of his staff and the Progress Board between November 1, 2008, and February 20, 2009. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would think that the Progress Board . If it plays an important role, as the Premier said, the Premier would have met with them. My question is to the Premier. Does he not meet with the Progress Board anymore? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: As I've said, the Progress Board provides valuable input. It writes independent reports, and those reports are made public. They are available on the Web. The Progress Board itself reports directly to the Ministry of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development. I have met with them in the past. I did not meet with them in that period of time if it was not in my calendar. I intermittently may meet with them. It's not something, evidently, that I did at that time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Just to follow up again on this piece, the Premier used to meet with the Progress Board two to four times a year in previous calendars, if we take a look. The Premier says he didn't meet with them. His calendar points out that he didn't meet with them from November 1, '08, to February 20, the key economic time in the building of the budget as well as the economic statement that the Premier made. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Does the Premier receive any communication or advice from his own Progress Board? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1805]
Hon. G. Campbell: The Progress Board reports on more than simply economic matters. They report on environmental matters; they report on social issues. There's a whole series of them that I can go to their reports and point out. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The reports are made available publicly. They are accessible to the opposition, to the government. I think it's a valuable service that they provide to the public when they're looking at things like tax burdens, like economic indicators. Those are things that independently they put together and say to the public: "Here's the progress that we're making. Here are the areas where we may not be doing as well as we could, and here are the areas where we're doing very well." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I do think it's important to have an independent group that's doing that, and that's, in fact, one of the functions that the Progress Board performs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: So the Premier is saying, then, he doesn't meet with the Progress Board on a regular basis. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Just moving on from the Progress Board, in the same month that the Premier's Progress Board brought forward their report, which I mentioned before, Current Realities and the Way Forward which, by the way, recommended the HST the Premier then created a whole new body. This body was the Premier's Economic Advisory Council. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question to the Premier is: why did he feel it important to set up that advisory council, when he had the Progress Board in place? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I always think it's important to actually have the opportunity to hear from people who are involved directly in the economy, not necessarily with government. The Progress Board is one way of doing that. Another way of doing that is to establish an economic advisory council that will provide information directly to cabinet. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Economic Advisory Council has a membership including David Emerson, who is the CEO and chair of B.C. Transmission Corporation; Sarah Boatman, who is the chief financial and operating officer for a technology company called BigPark; Barry Marsden, who has been a very successful business person in the aerospace industry in British Columbia; George Melville, who is the chairman and co-owner of T&M Management Services; Peter Misek, who is the director for global technology and global technology strategist for Canaccord Adams; Sean Morrison, who is from Maxam Opportunities Fund; Christopher Philps, who is an executive vice-president of Polygon Homes; Yuen Pau Woo, who is the president of the Asia Pacific Foundation; and Paola Yawney, who is with Tricor Pacific Capital. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What we actually specifically asked the Economic Advisory Council to do was look at a broad range of opportunities that we may be able to take advantage of in a very challenging economic time. These include energy and the environment, the Asia-Pacific, natural resources and forestry, human resources, and streamlining federal-provincial government processes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One of the challenges that we like to present people with is: "Think outside of what the regular government response is to these problems. You know, be willing to challenge us, to task us with various things, and give us your rationale why, and tell us how you think the people in British Columbia will benefit." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think that the Economic Advisory Council, who will be reporting directly to cabinet and have made some suggestions to cabinet, will add valuable insights to all of us who are working, frankly, around the clock. We're working within government. I think it's always good to hear from people outside government as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: The Premier mentioned one of the appointees to his new Economic Advisory Council, Yuen Pau Woo. He's quoted as saying that the council members were told the Premier wanted "a fresh perspective from people not involved in government machinery." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1810]
My question to the Premier would be: how is that a different role than the Progress Board that the Premier has just described as independent from government? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: There's actually . At least, I differentiate between the Progress Board and the economic council. I think the Economic Advisory Council is asked to look at broad areas of concern in an integrative kind of way. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Let me just use the member of the council that was raised by the Leader of the Opposition. He's the head of the Asia Pacific Foundation, and he comes forward with recommendations that suggest that it's very important for us to think broadly about how we deal with the Asia-Pacific. That could touch a whole range of areas. They're looking prospectively. They're looking out. They're saying: "These are the steps that we could take as we go forward." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Progress Board is actually not dealing with as much prospectively as they are looking at what we have found, what we have been able to measure, what we do see in terms of our progress and a whole range of information. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I refer the member to the Progress Board report of 2008. There are measures on the economy, innovation and education. There are measures on the environment, health and safety. There are measures on internal performance reviews. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
All of those things are added. They continue on over a period of years. They reflect what we've done in the past as well as what we've had with the last period of measurement. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As the Progress Board themselves will say, it's often difficult to put these things together, because there are different measures that are used and that they are trying to pull together so that we have an index that people can use. They've got a level of consistency for example, where B.C. ranks in cardiovascular mortality; where B.C. ranks in terms of air quality; where B.C. ranks in terms of environment, health and safety. There are six targets there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Performance index on air quality, greenhouse gases, protected areas, life expectancy, cancer mortality, cardiovascular mortality, infant mortality, potential years of life, low-income cutoffs, low-birth-weight rates, crime rates, income assistance, long-term unemployed those are all under the area of environment, health and safety. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's one area that I think provides people with information. It allows them to see the context of it, allows the public to look out over a period of time and say: "I see we're making progress." I think it's important to note that no one is suggesting that everyone's job is done. I'd be surprised if we ever get to the point where everyone's job is done. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On the economy, they give us measures on economic growth, personal income, employment rate, hourly wages, productivity, exports, debt, debt tax burden, tax rates, surplus deficits, migration, business investment, public school graduates, university completion, research and development, science employment. Those are measures that they feel are important for us to know about. We can decide to use them or not use them, as we decide. They may have a project that they set aside for themselves that they'll report out on. That's made available to the public as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Economic Advisory Council, on the other hand, we ask to look at the broad range of economic opportunities that are in front of us, as I mentioned earlier, in some areas where British Columbia has a real, I believe, competitive advantage. We have a real competitive advantage with regard to clean energy. We can become the clean energy powerhouse of North America. That's a good goal, I believe, for us to have. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1815]
It's also good to know the steps that we can take as government to help nurture that goal, to help make sure that we can be successful as we pursue that goal. I have every expectation that the Economic Advisory Council will have some advice to give us, to give cabinet, on that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They will come and report to cabinet. In their reports to cabinet, they will suggest the things that they think, if we really want to accomplish these goals, we may want to do. Cabinet will then be in a position where they can decide whether they want to pursue or not pursue that advice, as they do with advice that we get from any advisory council. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
None of this is providing people with the opportunity to make decisions. It's to have input to decisions, to make recommendations to government, to provide advice to government so that we can try and assure that we take the right steps in improving the quality of life for British Columbians through a strong economy and excellent health care and education opportunities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: While I appreciate everything the Premier said that the councils are there and the Progress Board is there to provide him with advice, to provide information in fact, as the Premier said himself, he didn't meet with the Progress Board between November and February. In fact, in his calendar the only scheduled meeting of the Economic Advisory Council between December and May was December 16 one meeting. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would like to ask the Premier: what was that December 16 meeting for, and what was the agenda? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: Again, let me go back for a second with regard to the Progress Board. The Progress Board looks back ten years so that people can see the progress that's been made. They may decide in their analysis that they want to look at some place in particular. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I can recall them doing a report with regard to post-secondary education, the importance of expanding university opportunities around the province. That advice was taken by government, and it's why we see a number of new universities being created and new additions that have been added in terms of investments and the number of spaces, etc. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That wasn't because they did it, but it was an idea that they had that the government felt was one that was worth pursuing. It was not as a result of a meeting that I had. It was a result of a report that they did. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Economic Advisory Council is different. I should just say that members of both the Progress Board and the Economic Advisory Council serve without compensation. They serve as a public service. So we actually decided . I had a meeting with the people I think I read them out earlier who are members of the Economic Advisory Council. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One of the important things I think people have to know when they're asked to serve on an independent board is that they are independent. I don't say to them: "Please come back and give recommendations that I would like or the government would like. Don't come back and feel that you have to make our decisions for us. You give us your best advice, unfettered by interference." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's not necessary in fact, it may be counterproductive for me to be consistently meeting with people who are willing to make a contribution to public life without compensation, on the basis that they can provide advice. We reserve the right not to accept it. We reserve the right to disagree with it. If they provide the advice and we want to disagree with it, I would give them the courtesy of meeting with them and explaining why I am in disagreement. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They'll know that because, in terms of the Economic Advisory Council, they'll be providing their advice directly to cabinet. I think that's important. That independence is important. The amount of times that I meet with them is not important in terms of their ability to render independent advice to the government and to the public, in the case of the Progress Board. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Just to come back again to the Premier, since we didn't get a response around the December 16 meeting and what that meeting was for. Was the Economic Advisory Council providing economic advice to the Premier about the upcoming budget? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1820]
Hon. G. Campbell: I'm not certain of the dates, but my recollection was that we appointed the Economic Advisory Council and made a public declaration about the appointment of the Economic Advisory Council in early December of 2008. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If I met with them . The only time I have met with them, I met to say: "Thank you for taking this on. This is a legitimate request for unfettered advice that will come directly to cabinet." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: The Premier mentioned that was the only meeting he's had with the Economic Advisory Council. Is it still an active council, and if so, when was the last meeting that the group had? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I don't know the number of times the Economic Advisory Council has met together. I know they are still in the process of developing their report, and they will provide advice to cabinet when that report is complete. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, hon. Chair, in light of the hour. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:23 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Hansard Services
publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.
TV channel guide Broadcast schedule
Copyright (c) 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada