To view video of Response to Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2009 http://bcleg-ds1.insinc.com/ibc/mp/md/open/f/8/8/20090922wv150en?f=w&m=v...
2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD
________________________________________
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
________________________________________
Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Hansard)
________________________________________
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2009
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 3, Number 2
Orders of the Day
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 2 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT (NO. 2), 2009
(continued)
G. Gentner: Madam Speaker, it was interesting to note how the Minister of Finance went off script — became quite defensive, actually — in his justification of this piece of legislation. He has a right to be defensive because, of course, despite all the rhetoric of the Minister of Finance, this government, the Premier and the Minister of Finance have introduced legislation that greatly weakens legislation that is already in force and is the law of the land here in B.C.
They weaken legislation. Isn't that a surprise? They weaken legislation on accountability. They weaken legislation on balancing budgets. The Minister of Finance has the gall to stand up and say: "It's what we promised. Shouldn't we be patted on the back for doing what we've promised?" In fact, that's not the case.
Throughout the tenure of the Minister of Finance, he has committed, over and over again, to ideology that deficits are anathema. Deficits are a disaster to the economy, no exception. Not one exception has this Minister of Finance ever labelled as a justification for a deficit. Deficits are bad. Balanced budgets are good. That has been the ideological mantra of the Minister of Finance, supported 100 percent by the Premier of this province.
What we have here today is a bill that says that the law of the land, which now requires a reduction in deficits continuously, is out the window. It's out the window, in fact. "We're not even going to tell you what we're going to do."
[1640]
So all of the great rhetoric about the great sacrifice that the ministers on the opposite side are going to make about their salary…. Well, guess what, British Columbia. They're not going to be affected one iota. All the bravado of the ministers opposite, and their paycheques keep coming in.
I'm sure British Columbia will be overwhelmed with the contribution this government is making, and they're doing it in the context of repealing such stronger balanced-budget legislation.
The next thing they try to do is to use the trickle-down theory. They say to voters during the election that tax cuts will stimulate the economy so vigorously that they'll pay for themselves. When asked if those tax cuts would pay in some fiscal year so the programs wouldn't be affected, they don't have an answer.
So there we are. They actually don't even trust their own theory. They can't even trust themselves to deliver on their theory, so they have to give themselves leeway. They have to say: "Oops, you know what? The theory of massive tax cuts for the wealthiest and the corporate backers won't actually restore the revenue. So we have to have a deficit."
"We have to have a deficit, and we are actually going to allow ourselves a deficit, so we have to repeal that terrible previous legislation that required us to balance the books. We have to repeal this legislation, give ourselves a lot more room. Because you know what? Maybe we're not so sure our theory will work — our very risky agenda of massive tax cuts actually delivering back to the taxpayers of British Columbia."
What we have is a schedule that required governments to reduce the deficit each and every year, a mandated, legislated, law-of-the-land schedule requiring reduced deficits and balancing the budget. Mind you, let's keep
[ Page 683 ]
in mind that the previous government actually did balance the books and delivered a surplus.
But that wasn't good enough for this government. They actually had to say: "Yikes, we're really taking a huge risk on behalf of British Columbia, and we don't want to be tied down to legislation that would test the risk or prove how risky we are, or we are going to repeal that legislation and really water it down."
It is interesting to note that the government sits there and pats itself on the back. Maybe one day next year or in a few years they'll take a pay cut, if they don't actually balance the consolidated revenue fund — another difference, an absolute other difference. They only have to balance the consolidated revenue fund. Not even the Crown corporations have to be taken into account within the Budget Measures Implementation Act.
Here is the great government that used to say that you have to look at government broadly, that you have to take into account all the Crown corporations, that you have to use the summary accounts to determine your balanced budget. The legislation has been watered down even further so the ministers opposite don't have to be held accountable at all for the Crown corporations. That goes against every single statement made by the Minister of Finance in this Legislature over the last ten years.
You know what? Maybe they think in their arrogance — and the fact that they have a hidden, extreme agenda — that they can get away with this. In fact, they're keeping everybody so busy in their haste that the media are not able to keep up.
We know that this is an extreme measure moving British Columbians backwards in terms of fiscal responsibility. I expect the reason why the Liberal government doesn't want to hold itself accountable, wants to weaken legislation, is because they secretly know, and are keeping it from the voters, that their risky economic agenda will not work.
I hope it does. I actually hope their risky economic agenda does work, because if it doesn't, all the hard work of British Columbians, through an economic downturn and putting the budget and the fiscal house in order, is at risk. Beyond that, our social programs are at risk as well.
The government plays chicken with the voters, the patients, the people needing child care, the people needing employment standards protection, the people needing environment protection. The government plays chicken with their needs, with their families' needs, the province's greatest strength.
That's why this legislation is here. That's why this legislation is weakening the standards that are already on the books.
I know that there will be much discussion about this legislation as the government uses its massive majority to pass it. I know, as British Columbians pay closer and closer attention to who this government represents and who loses because of this government's economic agenda, that people will turn to the Legislature and say: "Oh my God, what happened there? What happened that we are now put in a situation where we don't have the protection that we did before to keep our fiscal house in order?" That is what British Columbians will do.
I know there will be very little discussion of it in the next couple of months, very little discussion about it at all. But rest assured that the elimination of the need to take responsibility across the summary accounts will come back to haunt British Columbians.
The lack of accountability, in any form whatsoever, of this government for the next seven months will come back to haunt British Columbians. I can pretty much predict that it will be in the form of British Columbians saying: "Oh my God, what have we voted for? Why were we not told that this economic agenda was hidden?"
[1645]
The budget is risky. It gets no scrutiny whatsoever. There's no accountability for this budget they just introduced — zero, nada. I'm very saddened that the people of British Columbia are having to take a step backward today, that their fiscal protection is less today and that the risk under which they are now being governed has increased.
No matter how much this Liberal government wants to rise here today and defend their actions, they've got to come clean to British Columbians that they stepped backwards today. They took a step backward. I'm very, very sad.
I would just remind British Columbians that the budget brought in by this Liberal government a few weeks ago is a risky agenda. It has an economic forecast that exceeds anything anyone else is predicting. It has massive, massive tax cuts for large corporations and the wealthiest that were not contemplated nearly three months ago. There's no recognition by this government that health and education spending requires increased funding as the population demands more, as it increases and as people grow older.
Deputy Speaker: Member, we're not discussing the budget. We're discussing the Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2).
G. Gentner: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
"As our education demands the best and most highly skilled workforce…it requires extra funding." I've plagiarized everything. Those were the words of Joy MacPhail, August 8, 2001. She called it then, when she was addressing this ridiculous budget…. On August 8, 2001, Joy MacPhail talked about the Budget Measures Implementation Act, and she called it a farce then, and it's a farce today.
Back then, of course, it was Bill 4. It was of great importance. The government rammed it through. Today the repealing of this legislation is Bill 2. It's even of greater importance. It just comes after Bill 1, which recognizes the supremacy of democracy.
[ Page 684 ]
You know, they have got to rescind or postpone the need for balanced budgets. Seven out of 12 have been deficits. They went around with this scrap of paper, this ridiculous thing, this bill that we're now once again having to rescind, or at least amend, because it's a farce. I have to suggest to you, hon. Speaker, that when you do the comparison, Manitoba doesn't have to rescind its bills relative to balanced budgets, because they've had ten consecutive balanced budgets.
I'll leave it here, knowing that the House Leader wants….
Interjection.
G. Gentner: I can continue some time? Okay. Thank you for that encouragement.
When we started talking about not balancing the budget and the need to put this through….
We started this way back. The Liberal government, when it came out with this legislation in 2001, had a rider on it that they would run deficits till 2004 — for four consecutive budgets. It just shows you how ludicrous this legislation was. They introduced the legislation to balance the budget, but they were unwilling or unable to come forward with a Budget Measures Implementation Act until 2004.
And here we are. Once again going back on their word, they're now going to have to do it again and again and again. It's simply because this government is unable to run the economy, which they think they can.
We've seen a deficit here of 2009-2010. The Premier told us that it was only going to be $495 million maximum. He told us that on April 23. Lo and behold, with the stroke of a pen, magic just sort of evolves here, and suddenly we're into a $2.8 billion deficit.
The first time this government had to amend the Budget Measures Implementation Act, I remember very well. The Premier basically told everybody that he couldn't sleep at night. He was pacing the west wing. He had insomnia. He had sleep deprivation. How horrible this situation had become. He had lost sleep, and it would never happen again. Here we are eight months later, and they're having to eat crow once again. This act really is very ineffective.
[1650]
It's interesting too — as Joy MacPhail said, interestingly enough — that the Budget Measures Implementation Act doesn't address Crown corporations and all their budgets. It's all right and good when it comes down to dealing with the immediate ministries, but the ministries that are responsible to budgets somehow seem to be exempt from all this closed accounting system and the ability to be transparent.
Interestingly enough, the budget transparency and accountability act itself has become a farce. That was also introduced a day after this bill in 2001 was introduced.
But I have to say that when you look at why we have a deficit and why we have to amend this act, it's because the government doesn't have a handle on its finances. One example…. I mentioned Crown corporations. We can look at Partnerships B.C.
Partnerships B.C. — interesting, that one. Salaries and benefits, 2008-09, $5.9 million in bonuses. It's jumped up to $7.194 million. You know, there are no cuts there. There's no need to tighten your belt with this legislation on Partnerships B.C. Not a chance, hon. Speaker — not a chance.
There's a different rule for some, and there's a different rule for others. When you look at Mr. Blain, the chief executive officer, with all compensation, he's making well in excess of half a million dollars. For heaven's sake, he even has a car allowance worth $9,999.96. On top of it, he has a parking allowance of $2,670.
When you look at this largesse and you look at the select few, they certainly aren't tightening their belts, and they don't have to follow the dictates of this budget that we're hearing today. I'm sure we will try and bring forward over and over again the incredible high salaries of many who, in my estimation, are causing, part and parcel, some of the difficulties of balancing the books.
When you look at the need to deal with this Bill 2, it's in part because Warren Buckley, the president and CEO of the B.C. Pavilion Corporation, $597,000 per annum…. Bob Elton, president and CEO of B.C. Hydro, $549,000. Douglas Hyndman, chair of the B.C. Securities Commission, $549,000 per annum. Larry Blain. Oh, this is the guy who gives the store away. He gets paid to do this.
They're increasing their salaries and bonuses every year. So $509,000, the CEO of Partnerships B.C. — incredible. Everybody else in the province is told to tighten their belts. And we're going to have to rescind the Budget Measures Implementation Act because of it. But we certainly are going to honour big CEO fat-cat contracts.
Of course, we've talked about it before. The CEO of B.C. Rail, $489,810 per annum. It's incredible — absolutely incredible.
Just to wrap, hon. Speaker. I have to tell you, I did spend some time this summer visiting some of the border towns as part of my critic role — Grand Forks, Kingsgate. I had a lot of fun in Midway. I have to tell you, I did the tourist check. It was quite interesting, the vacancy rate on this side of the border, and they're all filled up on the other side. We're at risk here.
We have legislation here today where we're going to cut, cut to the bone, destroy Tourism British Columbia. It was a proud gem that was actually put together by the NDP. It's done some great work. It's been able to sell this province, market it internationally. The Americans…. I went to a conference in Boise, Idaho, and they quickly talked about how they're marketing their western states abroad. But that is being eliminated and destroyed by
[ Page 685 ]
this government in order to fulfil their need of the HST — in other words, the loss of the hotel room tax.
So with that, I will be voting against this bill.