When Premier Gordon Campbell appeared on Voice of BC with host Vaughn Palmer on February 9th, 2005, he was asked if he would he would offload more drug costs onto seniors by increasing user fees if he were elected to a second term. He answered that he didn't expect to do that. He was asked whether he would make changes to the Labour Code. He answered that he didn't expect to do that. It is significant that Campbell chose to frame his answers in terms of expectations rather than simply offering a promise that he wouldn't hurt seniors or change the Code. Campbell's history is one of failed expectations and changed plans. Why should he be trusted this time?

Before the last election Campbell promised not to rip up contracts; hospital workers know what happened to that promise. He promised not to sell BC Rail, not to expand gambling, to provide 5,000 long term care beds and to adequately fund services for children and families. Everyone knows what happened to those promises.

The Budget Transparency and Accountability Act requires the budget to include projections for two years beyond the year of the budget. Campbell frequently refers to the requirement as "rolling plans". In February 2002 the budget for 2002-03 was introduced together with plans for 2003-04 and 2004-05 (note that hyphenated fiscal years start on April 1 of the first year and end on March 31st of the second). The plan for 2004-05 was revised when the 2003-04 budget was tabled in February 2003, and it was revised again when the actual budget for 2004-05 was tabled in February 2004. This year the budget for 2005-06 included the third quarter financial report for 2004-05 which estimated what revenues and expenditures would be on March 31, 2004. That means for 2004-05 we have two plans which precede the budget, the budget and finally the estimated actual result. The audited results for 2004-05 won't be available until the summer of 2005.

The graphs show several key components of the plans and budget for 2004-05. The actual revenue or expenditure for 2001-02 is included for the purpose of comparison, but the other columns all refer to 2004-05 from the perspective of one of the plans, the budget or the current estimate of how the year will finish.

Recall that one of the big promises during the last election was that "tax cuts pay for themselves". In 2001-02, the first year of the New Era, personal income tax revenue was $5.38 billion, down from $5.98 billion the previous year. The February 2002 budget projected that by 2002-03 income tax revenue would be back up to $5.50 billion. The next year the "plan" for 2004-05 was lowered to $5.03 billion. By the time the budget was introduced for 2004-05, it forecast personal income tax revenue of only $5.01 billion. In February 2005 the forecast for personal income tax revenue for the year ended March 31, 2005, was increased slightly to $5.06 billion, down $444 million from the 2002 plan and down $921 million from pre-cut levels. Revision after revision, the plans showed that the pre-election promise was a failed expectation.

Part of the current Campbell song-sheet is the claim that the NDP ran surpluses in its last two years because of good luck that wouldn't repeat itself. Revisions to planned natural gas royalties show that the Campbell government now plans on that kind of good luck continuing for years to come. In 2001-02 revenue from natural gas royalties was $1.25 billion. The 2002 plan called for that revenue to be down to $1.07 billion by 2004-05; the next year the revised plan upped the estimate to $1.18 billion. When the 2004-05 budget was tabled the estimate for natural gas royalties was increased to $1.21 billion; the latest estimate is for $1.45 billion in royalties for the year ended March 31, 2004. That is up by $202 million from 2001-02 and up by 35% from the 2002 plan.

In 2001-02 the Ministry of the Attorney General spent $541 million on everything from legal aid to the courts. The 2002 plan called for it to reduce spending to $481 million in 2004-05; the next year the plan was revised and called for $10 million less in cuts by $2004-05. Two million was chopped again by the time the 2004-05 budget was tabled, but the third quarter financial report projects that spending will be down to $465 million when the year finishes on March 31, 2005. The Attorney seems to have outdone himself in the cutting department by finishing $16 million lower than the 2002 plan, 14% lower than 2001-02.

In 2001-02 the Ministry of Children and Family Development spent $1.53 billion protecting children and looking after developmentally disabled adults in the community living program. The 2002 plan for 2004-05 called for spending to be slashed by $334 million, 22%. Chaos was created for clients of the ministry resulting in the plan being revised the next year so as to call for "only" $265 million in cuts by 2004-05. When the budget for 2004-05 was tabled further revisions reduced the cuts to $143 million. The third quarter financial report estimates spending for the Ministry will be $1.50 billion, down $27 million from 2001-02. That is from a government that promised to increase funding for children and families; its revised plan produced chaos and confusion.

Whether you look at the big broken promises, or at the fine details of revised budget plans, the record of the Campbell government is one of failed expectations and changed plans. That pattern is likely to be repeated if Campbell is given a second term.