Hey All,
In yesterdays debate in Legislature, Michael addressed the Liberals economic record highlighting facts and undermining their assertion of being capable managers of the BC economy.
The transcript is below.
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.
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(HANSARD)
HOUSE BLUES
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2009
Afternoon Sitting
M. Sather: It’s my pleasure to rise and address second reading of Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2009. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1605]
Well, it’s been a rough road for this government over the last year in terms of budgeting, in terms of accountability… [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Krueger: And all other governments.
M. Sather: …in terms of being able to convince the people of British Columbia that in fact they have some idea, that they know what they’re doing when it comes to budgets. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Madam Speaker, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson says: “Well, all other governments, too, have had a difficult time.” I doubt that you will find many on this continent that have gone through the gyrations that this government has done, and the dips and doodles that have completely made a mockery of any sort of sound financial budgeting. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Here again we see the government going to the well to try to correct the sins of yesterday — or, shall we say, last winter’s sins — which were a budget that was put out…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The government said, “You know what? We’ve got to amend the act, the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act,” which said that British Columbia will never have a deficit again as long as we live. And my gosh, they decided that maybe that wasn’t going to be the case after all. They were going to have to amend that particular act, and they did. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Well, in addressing this bill, it certainly bears some examination of how it came about — this whole sad affair of saying one thing and doing another, of saying that there’s going to be a balanced budget, and then there wasn’t. It’s like this is, I guess, balanced budget 2.0. I mean, we had budget 2.0 last spring, and now we have follow-up 2.0. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If we go back a little bit and look at what happened a year ago…. Remember a year ago when this recession hit North America, including British Columbia? The government said very confidently at the time…. People were starting to express concerns about the future of our finances, about our ability to maintain a surplus, which was the thing that the people of British Columbia understood was the law so therefore had to be done. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What was this government saying at that time, around mid-October, late October of 2008? They were saying that British Columbia is a deficit-free zone. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Only a government that had a great deal of confidence about their surplus budget, which they were going to bring forward, would say such a statement as, “British Columbia is a deficit-free zone,” but that’s what they did. When you look back now at what the Finance Minister has said more recently, that becomes a rather peculiar statement. The minister said rather recently that he remembers the day, September 12, 2008, very well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Krueger: Lehman Bros. bank. Don’t you remember?
M. Sather: The minister opposite is taking the words out of my mouth. He’s heard the minister himself say these words, which was that that was the day they got word of the impending collapse of Lehman Bros., the global collapse of financial services. That was in September. By the minister’s own admission, it was September 12 that he said that, yet this government was still saying throughout mid-fall that British Columbia was a deficit-free zone. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I don’t know. Maybe the Finance Minister’s revelation didn’t get passed on to the Premier. It certainly couldn’t have got passed on to the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, because that is not the message this government was giving. It all leads us to where we are today and the sorry state this government has brought our finances to. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1610]
Again, with regard to Bill 2 we need to look at how we got here in order for us, the people of British Columbia, to have some understanding of why we are having a Bill 2 at this time — why we are discussing it, why the government has introduced it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If we fast-forward to the middle of January last year, before the spring budget, you will recall, Madam Speaker, that the Finance Minister was still strongly maintaining that there would not be a deficit in British Columbia, just short weeks before they were to introduce the budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But now again, if we look at what the minister has been saying more recently, fast-forward to this year. On August 29 he said: “We started putting our February budget together through the fall months and had to watch projected revenues erode week after week.” [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Finance Minister is admitting that through the fall they saw the finances eroding week after week — continually eroding finances. Yet that same minister, that same Finance Minister, said that we’re going to have a balanced budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One has to forgive the people of British Columbia, the voting public and all too many of the non-voting public, when they question what this government really knew and what they were saying publicly. Were they the same thing? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If they were not — and there’s ample evidence to suggest they were not — then any thinking person can only conclude what happened. We’ve heard many words to describe what happened. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Then we had the budget. The government finally admitted last February that there was going to be a deficit, albeit only $495 million. That seemed kind of interesting, rather small in comparison to the circumstances that we were facing with finances falling every week. But still this government was so arrogant that, if you will recall the budget debates we had last spring, they said that British Columbia is the best place in North America to weather the recession. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They had finally recognized or realized or were willing to share with the people of British Columbia that there was a recession. But hey, not to worry; British Columbia is the best place in North America to weather that recession. [Applause.] [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It’s interesting the member for Kamloops–South Thompson applauds, because we know, in fact, that it isn’t true — that British Columbia is not the best place in North America to weather the recession. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I said that to these members last spring. I said that it’s not going to be the best place to weather the recession for a couple of obvious reasons. This government has been depending…. I mean, the member from Alberni mentioned that commodity prices were high. They’ve been riding the commodity gravy train and the building boom, which burst, and they didn’t seem to notice that it burst. Everybody else did. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Consumer spending. What does consumer spending depend on? It depends on people working. It depends on them having a job. So our unemployment has scooted up to about 8.1 percent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Minister of Finance is still in denial, even though he is the one that’s brought in two creative budgets — the first one last fall and another equally creative one now. Madam Speaker, you would think that the minister would be a little bit more humble, considering the mess they’ve made. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1615]
Then we had the budget introduced, the latest 2.0 version. We had that introduced September 1, and I’m sure the members are probably going to cheer about this one too. What did the Finance Minister say on budget day? He called this latest budget one of B.C.’s best. [Applause.] [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That’s it. Come on, Members. One of B.C.’s best, he said. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know, it’s unbelievable. The Finance Minister had said on August 29 that it was only in the last month that we started to see signs of stabilization, and even then, it’s a question of whether it’s a bottoming out or a temporary reprieve. So the minister had no idea. He has no idea about what’s going to happen with the economy, yet he says that this is this is one of the best budgets in B.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
How can it be? How can the public of British Columbia have any confidence in a Finance Minister and a government that are so out of touch with reality? So now we’re back to…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Deputy Speaker: Member. Can I again remind all members that they are supposed to be debating Bill 2. While context is important, we have to discuss the bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: It’s my pleasure to debate the Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2). As we know, this bill is the second time that this government has had to come forward to this House to ask for permission to extend deficits — deficits that they said they were not going to have in the spring. It was going to be a small deficit. Now it’s a huge deficit, and it would be bigger, even, if they hadn’t accepted about $700 million from the federal government for the HST — upfront money. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The history of this government is that they just depended on a whole bunch of transfers from the federal government for a long time to keep the sinking ship halfway afloat. So what we have here is a tax-and-spend government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We all know about the HST that this government has brought in, and then if we look at…. Let’s look at the spending side that this budget bill — this Bill 2 — seeks to achieve exoneration for. What is it? What is the purpose of this bill? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The purpose of this bill is to try to cover up the excesses of this government and the mistakes this government has made and the misleading statements this government has made about budgets one and two of this year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The members opposite love to talk about the ’90s. Let’s talk about the ’90s for a second with regard to budgeting as it relates to Bill 2. Under the NDP — this is the ’90s we’re talking about here — tax-supported debt rose $17 billion over ten years for an average of $1.7 billion a year. Under the B.C. Liberals, debt is increasing by $26 billion over 12 years, or $2.1 billion per year on average. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In other words, the growth in debt under the B.C. Liberals is 20 percent higher than it was under the NDP, yet this government seeks to tell us…. They ran in the last election on being great managers of the economy. But we can see now…. I should say that most of us can see now. The member for Kamloops–South Thompson cannot or chooses not to, but the people of British Columbia can see the shemozzle and the mess that’s been left by this government, and they’re not happy about it one little bit. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1620]
Total taxpayer-supported debt is going to be $60 billion. That’s a lot of money — $60 billion — that this Bill 2 seeks exoneration for. That’s just the taxpayer-supported debt, so-called. Then we have the off-book debt, the so-called contractual obligations, which run to another $68 billion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We’re talking pretty big money here. This government has run up more debt through more spending than any other government this province has ever seen. They used to talk about us as being the big spenders. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Of course, it’s this government’s fondness for the P3 model that’s led to a whole lot of that off-book debt that’s leading us to the necessity to discuss the Budget Measures Implementation Act once again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As other members have said…. The member from Cowichan said that it’s an embarrassment to this government, big time, having to be faced with yet a second, in less than a year — in fact, about seven months — coming back to this House again, asking to extend the period during which they can run a deficit. Very embarrassing indeed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We heard this afternoon the Minister for the Olympics make another rather exuberant calculation, which was commented on by the member for Surrey-Whalley. She said — and wait for the claps here — that this province is going to lead the country in economic growth in 2010. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Let’s hope that for once this government gets it right, because in the bungling they’ve done so far over the budget in the last year, there is no reason at all that people in British Columbia should have any confidence whatsoever that that’s true. Who knows? Certainly, from what I’ve seen from this government, I can’t imagine that it likely would be true. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
M. Sather: Yes, I did hear the Finance Minister talk about Canada’s leading economists. Where was the minister when leading economists told them that their budget last spring was completely out of whack? He was quite willing to ignore those economists at that time, to his embarrassment, but it did serve its purpose. Its purpose, of course, was to get by the election. But the deception that happened as a result has left people in British Columbia mightily upset with this government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What is the upshot? You know, there are consequences. Government brings in a bill like this. It sort of has the superficial look of being kind of a housekeeping bill, but of course it’s nothing but housekeeping. We’re seeing day after day in this House the pain being inflicted upon the people of British Columbia as a result of the ineptitude of this government when it comes to financial management, which was supposed to be their strong suit and clearly is not. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We heard another minister earlier today say: “Oh, don’t worry about it. Don’t worry about those cuts to services. It’s discretionary.” [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Discretionary spending. That’s sounds quite harmless. It’s something you don’t really need. But we’re seeing, in fact, that these are programs that are very much needed — in my community, greatly needed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think of the seniors outreach program and the tremendous services they provide that have been cut as a result of this government’s ineptitude that this bill attempts to cover up. This bill comes to this House to seek forgiveness, I guess, for their mistakes, for the mistakes of this government. It’s somewhat galling. I think most people will find it so. I know we do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1625]
The ongoing escalating deficits that this government predicts…. You know, while the economy is supposed to be rebounding wildly, the deficits are continuing on, just miraculously ending again before the next election, for whomever wants to put their trust in that prognostication. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But this government has done nothing to stimulate the economy to help us out of recession. All they brought in was a tax at the worst possible time. So it’s a tax-and-spend government of the worst sort and at the worst time. Bad acts and bad timing equal bad government, and that’s what this government has been providing to the province, particularly over the last year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But as commentators have said too…. You know, they were able to pave over in the good years some of the deficiencies that have become so obvious lately, whether it was high commodity prices or fantastic transfers from the federal government. They had to have those transfers to post the surpluses that they did have for a while — while being a have-not province, getting on the gravy train from Ottawa far more often, again, than the NDP was in the ’90s, despite what these government members often say. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In Bill 2 they talk again about ministers losing half of the 20 percent bonus that they receive. Why should these ministers be receiving a bonus? Why would anybody get a bonus for bad acting? There shouldn’t be a bonus in the first place that they’re getting half of. Remove it completely. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Besides, we’ve seen this charade before about “ministers will be penalized if they don’t meet their budget,” and it’s never happened. In fact, that’s what this government thinks budget supplements are for: to cover the sins of ministers that don’t make their commitments. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I can’t imagine, looking at the past, that this bill — and that part of this bill — is going to result in any sanctions for any of those ministers in the future either. So the other thing…. That’s one thing the Finance Minister talked about a little earlier. He also mentioned — I had to write this one down because in the circumstances it’s so completely laughable — that this government is committed to living within its means. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If this is living within its means, I hate to see what happens when they start spending in a serious way. I mean, if about $120 billion in debt is living within their means, what’s it going to be when they really start living it up? It’s bound to be a complete disaster, and that’s what we’ve seen so far. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjection.
M. Sather: The minister is not happy about it, and I can understand that. Why would they be happy about it? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Madam Speaker, section 6 under the Continuing Care Act of Bill 2 says that certain subsections are added which allow the minister or a person authorized by the minister to require information to be provided in order for a person to receive continuing care. So I’ll be curious to see what kind of information it is exactly that must be provided in order for a person to continue receiving continuing care. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I’m sure that as we get to third reading, as we get to the next stage of this bill, the minister is going to provide us with all the answers, many of which they have not been able to provide so far. But we look forward to better things — certainly, better things from this government than we’ve seen so far. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1630]
The disaster over Tourism B.C., which this government eliminated. It’s hard to imagine anything worse. I was totally shocked by that one. If there’s any organization, other than maybe the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce, that has been supportive of this government, it’s been Tourism B.C. And yet wham — gone, just like that. The minister, who had a lot to say in this House over the last few minutes, the last half-hour or so, said: “Don’t worry about it. We’ll manage just fine.” [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They don’t have the expertise. They don’t have the structure. They don’t have the record, but that’s what they decided to do anyway — just axe Tourism B.C., take the 3 percent tax that Tourism B.C. got and kind of somehow magically use that to promote tourism. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, like the HST —which was brought in at the most inopportune time, during a recession — getting rid of Tourism B.C. comes at a most inopportune time, which has been pointed out to this government by that outgoing organization. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Olympics are coming up here, closer and closer, in a few months. You would think the government would be wanting to maximize tourism opportunities, would be wanting to use the organization that has the skill and the expertise. But no. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Minister of Tourism and the Arts feels that he is better qualified to take on that particular role, and boy, I can’t imagine that there’s a tremendous amount of confidence in the minister in that regard. But maybe he will pull a rabbit out of the hat, which so far he has really been spectacularly unsuccessful at doing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So I will be voting against this bill for the obvious reasons that I have explained over the course of my speech. I’m looking forward to speeches by other members of this House. I’m sure that some of the members on the government side will want to get up and defend this piece of legislation. They’ll want to get up and support their Finance Minister. I look forward to that as well as to speeches by my colleagues on this side of the House. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
