2010 Legislative Session: Second 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)

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 14, Number 5

[ Page 4377 ]

THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 2010

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

M. Farnworth: In the gallery today we have visiting us — during, I think, an important week, this being the 30th anniversary of Terry Fox's run, the Marathon of Hope, which started in Newfoundland — students from Terry Fox Secondary School in my constituency. They are here to see our proceedings and tour the buildings. I would ask the House to make them most welcome.

L. Reid: I have the absolute pleasure today of welcoming to this place Carla and Mike Cuccione. They have joined us. Michael Cuccione is the president of the Michael Cuccione Foundation. Some of you will know that Michael visited here prior to his death. The work they continue to do in terms of fundraising on behalf of pediatric cancers is extraordinary. I'd like the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Coell: I am pleased to introduce a group of grade 3 students visiting us from Salt Spring Centre School. They're here with their teachers and parents. I met with them earlier and made a point of telling them how respectful and quiet question period will be this afternoon. So please make them very welcome.

[1335]

Tributes

GENE KINISKI

M. Farnworth: I'd like to take this opportunity in introductions to recognize the passing of a prominent British Columbian, particularly for those of us of a certain age who grew up in the '60s and '70s in British Columbia, who on Saturday afternoons would turn on one of three television stations in the Lower Mainland. You would watch All Star Wrestling hosted by Ron Morrier, and one of the key attractions was Gene Kiniski, who was billed as Canada's greatest athlete.

He was an individual who was known to legions of fans across B.C. and across this country as the ultimate heel in professional wrestling, but more than that, he was a very community-minded individual who left a mark here in British Columbia. I think all of us should recognize his contribution to British Columbia.

I would ask the House to recognize his passing and send our condolences to the Kiniski family.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Yap: In the gallery today is an old friend, mentor and constituent, Tung Chan, who all members will know as not only a great Canadian but also the chief executive officer of the great social service agency, the organization known as SUCCESS — one of the most successful immigration, settlement and social service agencies supporting all communities, including the Chinese-Canadian community in Canada and British Columbia.

Would the House please join me in offering a great B.C. Legislature welcome to Tung Chan.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I have the pleasure of welcoming His Excellency Justin Brown to the House today. He's the High Commissioner of Australia to Canada. He is here to have meetings with the Minister of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development, myself and the Minister for Climate Action.

Would the House please make him feel welcome.

J. Kwan: I'd like to just add a welcome to Tung Chan, who is the CEO of SUCCESS, who earlier, actually, also made an announcement that he'll be retiring from SUCCESS. I'm sure the board and the staff there will miss him very much, in terms of his leadership for the organization.

In addition to that, today we have a busy day, I think, in the legislative building for school tours. I had the great pleasure of just meeting with a group of students and adults from Britannia. There are 22 students in the group, and they're accompanied by Jane Belanger, the teacher, and the youth workers Barry Skellen and Mary Beth Sullivan.

They're here to visit the Legislature and learn about what we do, what the hot issues of the day are. I know they'll be watching question period as well, although I don't see them at the moment. Maybe they are seated behind me. If they are, maybe wave to the folks on this side. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

D. Horne: It's with great pleasure today that I acknowledge in the gallery Mary Collins, former Member of Parliament and someone who held a number of portfolios federally and who really does contribute a great deal to the community. I want the rest of the members to join me in making her welcome.

Hon. B. Penner: I have the honour to introduce to members present Mr. John Hansen, president of the North West CruiseShip Association. He's somebody I got to know a number of years ago when I was working with the Pacific Northwest economic region.

He's joined here today by Mr. Tom Dow of the Carnival Corporation. He's a vice-president with them.
[ Page 4378 ]
As well, Andy Nelson, vice-president of tour operations for Royal Caribbean Tours, and Mr. Bruce Bustamante, vice-president, community and public affairs, with Princess Tours.

Would the House please make these gentlemen welcome. I note that the first cruise ships of the season are just weeks away.

L. Reid: Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour of making an introduction on your behalf. In the precinct today we have a delegation from the Bermuda House of Assembly. They are here to observe our Hansard broadcasting and transcription operations.

Joining us in the Hansard broadcasting studio are Mr. Eugene Bassett, Mr. Norris Ebbin and Mr. Robert McRonald. With them is Mr. Nic Côté of the Montreal-based media technology company which developed the digital audio recording and transcription system in use in our Legislature today.

I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

[1340]

Hon. M. de Jong: The government/non-profit initiative is comprised of senior representatives from the non-profit sector and the public service. They are here today conducting joint meetings in an attempt to ensure that we are working together to best serve the non-profit sector. I hope all members of the House will make them all feel welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

DAVID THOMPSON HERITAGE LANDS

N. Macdonald: David Thompson is one of Canada's most fascinating historical figures, and in the Columbia Valley he is particularly celebrated. In January 1811 he travelled up the Whirlpool River in what is now Jasper National Park and over the Continental Divide down to the upper Wood River, which is a tributary of the Columbia River. This followed an established First Nations route.

Next summer the communities of Revelstoke, Golden and Invermere will celebrate the bicentennial of David Thompson's initial journey through the Athabasca trail. This 200-year anniversary is an ideal time to commemorate his legacy through the creation of the David Thompson Heritage Lands. The upper Wood River is an area largely untouched by people. In fact, Wood River Forest, which has cutting rights in the area, has voluntarily surrendered those rights to keep the area protected. Back-country users in Golden and Revelstoke have also agreed that this special place should remain wild.

My wife Karen and I hiked the Athabasca trail a couple of summers ago. It is true wilderness. We saw wolves, which was special, and a lot of mosquitoes, which was less exciting. Currently the Minister of Forests has signed off on a change to the Kootenay-Boundary higher level plan to protect the area because of its historical and environmental significance.

Now the hope is that the Athabasca trail will be made a national heritage site, and the provincial government, of course, has a role in that designation. People in Revelstoke and Golden certainly hope that this area's pristine environment and ecological integrity can be safeguarded, along with recognition of the historical significance of the Athabasca trail. The David Thompson Heritage Lands will make a fine addition to Canada's national historic site system.

CHRISTINE MORRISON HOSPICE

M. Dalton: Last Friday I had the opportunity to visit the Christine Morrison Hospice, occupying the entire third floor of Mission Memorial Hospital for the past seven years. As you step off the elevator, a waterfall mirror welcomes you in. The warm lighting, colours and comfortable furniture create an atmosphere that helps you forget that you're even in a hospital.

At the front desk you will meet one of the many dedicated volunteers or staff who will be there to greet you, people like LPN Joanne St. Pierre, RN Jane "Spikey" Godfrey or Joanne Halligan, coordinator of volunteers. You may also talk with Dr. Potter, who has been in the Mission Hospice for many years.

Founded in 1985 to provide compassionate care and support to the dying and the bereaved, the hospice emphasizes care, not cure, for those who are in the final stages of life. Executive director Kim Skinner believes that aligning oneself with the Mission Hospice Society means working with a team of dedicated professionals, committed volunteers and generous donors who share the vision of quality hospice care for everyone in the community. Her predecessor, Stephanie Ediger, and people like past president Diane Kruger have spent years building the hospice from a small society into the wonderful place it is today.

Not only does the hospice offer a comfortable place for patients, it also offers tremendous support for families and friends. Kimberley Thompson, the coordinator of bereavement programs, and Kate McCandless, the child, youth and family program coordinator, help people deal with the loss and find renewed meaning in life. The commitment of hospice staff, doctors, nurses and volunteers is invaluable and is greatly appreciated in the community.

TERRY FOX’S MARATHON OF HOPE

M. Farnworth: This week we mark the anniversary of an astonishing achievement by one of our greatest
[ Page 4379 ]
British Columbians and Canadians. Thirty years ago, on April 12, 1980, Terry Fox began his Marathon of Hope by dipping his artificial leg into St. John's harbour.

[1345]

All of us know the rest of Terry's remarkable story. His goal was to run across Canada to raise money for cancer research, and he pursued his goal for 143 gruelling days. He eventually had to stop outside Thunder Bay, Ontario, because he was too sick to continue. The cancer that he had been fighting had returned.

It was a remarkable achievement, and I'd like to put those numbers into a bit of perspective for all of us in this room and in the gallery. Running for 143 days straight with no day off, running an average of 42 kilometres each day. Just so we can all appreciate that, that's like each of us getting up tomorrow, putting on our sweats and running shoes and then going outside to run a marathon, and then the next day and the next day, and doing it over and over and over again for 143 days.

Are you tired even just thinking about it? But Terry did it for 4½ months. His run was a testament to the spirit of the individual, but more important than that, it showed us that it's ordinary people who achieve remarkable and extraordinary things.

I was at school with Terry. We were in the same class in junior high school. He was just a regular kid like everybody else in that classroom, but he went on to achieve true greatness — greatness that wasn't thrust upon him, but greatness that came from inside him.

He had a heart and a determination to achieve his goal and his dream. He did that day in and day out, and that is why his legacy lives on. But more important than that, and just as important as the battle to fight cancer, is the lesson for us that it's within each of us with our determination to make dreams like his a reality.

BUSINESS AWARDS
FOR CULTURAL DIVERSITY

D. Hayer: On Tuesday, I attended the 15th annual Cultural DIVERSEcity Awards for Business at the Sheraton Guildford Hotel in my riding. This was an exceptional evening, which recognized the tremendous diversity in businesses throughout the Lower Mainland and celebrated the culture that makes up our communities.

This special awards ceremony was organized by DIVERSEcity Community Resources Society. I have had the pleasure of attending this annual recognition of a remarkable business organization for many years now. This year in the category of Business 1 to 25 Employees, the winner was Ashton Service Group, and the finalists were L2 Accent Reduction Centre and 818 Channel Media Inc.

In the category for business with more than 25 employees, the winner was the Ebco Group of Companies, and the finalists were Synergy Engineering and the Harmon Bal Group of Companies. In the corporate category, the winner was Home Depot, and the finalists were Costco and PricewaterhouseCoopers.

In not-for-profit section, the winner was the Hospital Employees Union, and the finalists were the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the Developmental Disabilities Association.

In the category of public institutions, the winner was the Richmond school district, and the finalists were UBC Continuing Studies Centre for Intercultural Communications and the Vancouver school board.

I would ask the House to join me in congratulating all the winners and finalists and to help me thank president Joseph Brown; Lesley Woodman, executive director, an excellent director for the last ten years; director Rob Terris; Debbie Lawrance, Diana Ng, Kiren Sandhu, Conni Kilfoil, Sarb Basra and Shelly Adams Turner; emcee Penny Priddy; keynote speaker Sophie Lui of Global TV; all the volunteers, judges, staff and sponsors for organizing this evening of recognition for the diversity displayed in these businesses and for the excellent work they do in the organization of business.

FRASER RIVER PROTECTION

D. Black: It's easy to buy fish at a supermarket without thinking about the process it took to get there. We all benefit from the use of our rivers for fishing and transportation, but too often we don't think about our ability to sustain these rivers.

The importance of the Fraser River to the building of our province and the continued life of our communities cannot be overstated. Archaeological evidence shows traces of occupation by First Nations peoples in the Fraser Basin as far back as 10,000 years ago. Today two-thirds of all British Columbians live in the Fraser Basin.

[1350]

Sadly, the Fraser came third on this year's list of endangered rivers of B.C. compiled by the Outdoor Recreation Council. Of particular concern is last year's sockeye run, which Mark Angelo, chair of the Rivers Institute at BCIT, says is the lowest return recorded in 52 years. Last year's massive shortfall raises concerns about the long-term survival of fish stocks that have been so crucial to B.C.'s communities for hundreds of years.

There are groups doing tremendous work to protect the Fraser, groups like the Fraser Basin Council, the Rivershed Society of B.C. and the Fraser River Discovery Centre in New Westminster, which works to educate the public about the importance of the river.

American photographer and environmental writer Tim Palmer says the "river is the centre of the land, the place where the waters and much more come together. Here is the home of wildlife, the route of explorers and recreation paradise…. Only fragments of our inheritance remain unexploited, but these streams are more valuable than ever."
[ Page 4380 ]

I hope that both parties in this Legislature can work together to recognize the importance of the Fraser and ensure that its benefits keep flowing for future generations.

WILLIAMS LAKE INDOOR RODEO

D. Barnett: A wild horse race, peewee barrel riders, a barn dance, bull riding, pancake breakfast, clowns and prizes, beer gardens and live music — these are a few of the action-packed events happening this weekend as rodeo season is set to kick off.

The Williams Lake Indoor Rodeo is celebrating its 20th anniversary as Williams Lake plays host to the event at the pioneer memorial complex, which boasts not only its second-biggest rodeo of the whole circuit, but for those competing, it is also the second-largest payout. It is expected that over 250 people will be taking part in the competitions and shows over the three-day festivities that include entertainment for all ages.

This spectacular rodeo could not be possible without the vision of both rodeo president Alan Parent and past president Gwen Cyr as well as all the members of the committee and board of directors. However, none are more important than the tireless efforts of the hundreds of volunteers that make this rodeo possible. Alan started off as a volunteer in the beer gardens many years ago and is now proud that this has turned into a complete family effort.

There will also be four new inductees into the B.C. Cowboy Hall of Fame, which plays an important part of the longstanding tradition in rodeo culture. The rodeo is a major event for Williams Lake and surrounding communities that sees approximately 5,000 people participating as spectators, competitors, volunteers and sponsors that take part in what will be an experience everyone takes from and enjoys.

I would like to wish all the best to those involved in this spectacular community event.

Oral Questions

HARMONIZED SALES TAX

B. Ralston: Last November 23, the Finance Minister told this House: "The very first indication that anyone in the federal government would have had that British Columbia was reconsidering its previous opposition to the HST was a comment I made to the federal Finance Minister during a break in the deliberations of the Finance ministers' meeting which was held in Meech Lake at the end of May. It was only subsequent to that that there were discussions that commenced at the officials level."

Can the minister explain media reports today that contradict what the minister told this House and suggest that federal and provincial officials were in discussion about the HST within days after the election on May 12?

Hon. C. Hansen: In no way does it contradict what I had said. In fact, what I have said is that going back to the mid-1990s, the federal governments of the day have been urging provinces to sign on to the harmonized sales tax. And yes, as I have indicated, there have been discussions between officials in the provincial Ministry of Finance with their counterparts in Ottawa going back well over 12 or 15 years on this subject of harmonized sales tax.

[1355]

I'd point out to the member that he was the Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee of this Legislature that made a unanimous recommendation that government study the harmonized sales tax. Should it be any surprise to the member, the Finance critic, that officials in the Ministry of Finance took it upon themselves to do exactly that?

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Well, the time horizon is a little bit shorter than ten to 15 years. Let's just go over what the minister said again: "It was only subsequent to that" — the meeting at end of May at the coffee machine at Meech Lake with Finance Minister Flaherty — "that there were discussions that occurred at the officials level." Is the minister now saying that what he said to the House back on November 23 was wrong?

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, the member misquoted what he said in the first question, because what I indicated to Mr. Flaherty at the end of May is that we were considering changing our position on the HST. That is exactly the first indication that the federal government ever had that we as the province of British Columbia were going to reverse our previous opposition to the HST.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

B. Ralston: I can appreciate how excruciatingly painful it is for the minister to be quoted accurately from Hansard, but that's what Hansard says. That's what he said. The minister's position was that HST wasn't really on the radar. I think that's the really ambiguous term he used. Is the minister now suggesting that days after the election, officials in the ministry turned the radar screen on themselves?

Hon. C. Hansen: If the member is implying that in any way I gave instructions or anyone gave instructions on my behalf or on behalf of the government that min-
[ Page 4381 ]
istry officials should take on that examination of HST issues, that is false.

As I indicated, I said after the election when I re-engaged with officials in the Ministry of Finance and we went through a whole series of briefings on things to bring me back up to speed in my responsibilities as Minister of Finance, one of the issues that came up was HST. Clearly, the ministry staff had taken a look at it, and it was based on the information that they provided to me in those meetings that we made the determination that we should actually engage in a reconsideration of our previous position.

M. Farnworth: Well, somebody turned the radar on, because prior to the election this Minister of Finance, and every other previous Minister of Finance before him, had said no to the HST. In fact, they told the public during the election campaign: "No, we're not going to do the HST." In fact, they said: "It's not on our radar screen."

Three days after the election ministry officials, on what the government is saying is the most important public policy issue in the province of British Columbia that they had no intention of doing just three days before then…. All of a sudden that's now on the radar screen within the Ministry of Finance.

So my question to the minister is this. If he didn't turn on the radar screen, who did?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I indicated at the outset, there was a unanimous recommendation of the Finance Committee that government study HST. Why should the members in the official opposition be surprised that a unanimous recommendation that they themselves supported — including the Finance critic, the Energy critic, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, the member for Cariboo North…? They unanimously put forward a recommendation that government should examine HST. That is exactly what happened.

[1400]

But I can tell you that based on the briefings that I got after the election from officials in the Ministry of Finance, where they started pointing out to me that if Ontario had adopted the harmonized sales tax and British Columbia didn't, we would be at a competitive disadvantage…. We would not gain the benefit of the jobs. We on this side of the House stand up for those jobs that will be created in British Columbia. On the other side of the House, they would just as soon see happen what happened in the 1990s, and that's jobs leaving British Columbia to go to Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Well, last time I checked, finance policy is made in the Ministry of Finance and at the cabinet table, not in a committee.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Sit down for a second. Sit down.

Members.

Continue, Member.

M. Farnworth: Finance policy is made in the Ministry of Finance, and the policy of this ministry had been no HST. It had been no HST since January. It had been no HST for every Finance Minister before this one, and it had been no HST during the election. Yet three days after the election, when they said it wasn't on their radar screen, all of a sudden it is.

Again to the minister: if he didn't turn on the radar screen, who turned it on? This government doesn't make a decision without someone at the top knowing about it.

Hon. C. Hansen: What I said earlier, and I'll repeat it again, is that the staff in the Ministry of Finance took it upon themselves to make those inquiries. If the member is implying that in any way I or anybody acting on my behalf or anybody acting on behalf of any member of executive council made that request, he is absolutely wrong.

GOVERNMENT MAILOUT INFORMATION
ON HARMONIZED SALES TAX

D. Donaldson: Well, here are the facts. It was the B.C. Liberals who, after saying during the election that they had no plan to implement the harmonized sales tax, announced the HST a few weeks later. Now we find out that three days after the election, bureaucrats under this minister's authority were negotiating on the HST. That's what is called a contradiction, and some would actually call that a deceit.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, would you withdraw that last comment, please.

D. Donaldson: I withdraw, hon. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

D. Donaldson: It's been nine months now, and the Finance Minister says he wants to send information out to British Columbians telling them they're wrong to oppose the HST.

To the Minister of Finance: how much is this mailout campaign going to cost taxpayers, the same taxpayers who overwhelmingly oppose the HST?
[ Page 4382 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: The member's allegation that somehow negotiations were taking place is absolutely wrong. The first time that we engaged with the federal government on any negotiations regarding the harmonized sales tax was in June of last year.

This member talks about the facts. Yesterday we exposed the fact that on the NDP website there was blatant misinformation that they were providing to the public about the HST. Lo and behold, guess what. We wake up this morning and find out that they actually removed at least one of the pieces of blatant misinformation.

[1405]

I challenge the deputy Finance critic to actually instruct their people at party headquarters to go through and remove the rest of the misinformation that's on the NDP website.

We also know that this is a member who is actually one of the 18 NDP MLAs who has jumped into bed with Bill Vander Zalm on his campaign. Now, I would like to know from this member: is he endorsing everything that Bill Vander Zalm is saying on their website? I challenge that member to stand up and disassociate himself from Bill Vander Zalm's campaign and the blatant, gross misinformation that Bill Vander Zalm and his crew are posting on the internet.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: In the spirit of transparency, then, I say to the Minister of Finance: will he…? I challenge him to reveal all the conversations and the documents that took place three days after the election between his ministry officials and the Department of Finance in Ottawa. Will you do that? I challenge you to do that today, to admit and to table those documents, those conversations, anything that happened around that day.

Yesterday the Minister of Finance confirmed the government is going to be mailing out material to British Columbians about the harmonized sales tax. What steps is the Minister of Finance taking to ensure these materials will abide by the Election Act? Has the Finance Minister gotten all the materials approved by Elections B.C., or does he figure he'll just send out the material without Elections B.C. oversight and continue this government's pattern of deceit around the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, we will definitely make sure that all of our communications are in compliance with the rules of Elections B.C. But I challenge this member to ensure that their information that they are putting out is factual. I challenge them to actually go in and look at the NDP website. Not only have 18 of them jumped into bed with Bill Vander Zalm, but they've actually got a link on the NDP website to take them to Bill Vander Zalm's site, which is full of blatant factual misinformation. I challenge the member to correct….

We will continue to put out information. I encourage the member to go to the government website in terms of the information on HST. It will correct a lot of the misinformation that they are putting out and fearmongering around British Columbia.

A. Dix: It's a very simple question to the Minister of Finance. He'll know that this month his colleague the Minister of Housing is cutting dental services for low-income kids. I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance — it's a very precise question — how much he plans to spend on this HST mailing.

Hon. C. Hansen: We are putting out factual information about the harmonized sales tax. We will put out factual information about the budget, as we do every year, and the harmonized sales tax is an important part of that. As part of public accounts, all of that information gets disclosed.

[1410]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: It's a very simple question, and the minister can dodge and dodge and dodge, but it's a very simple question. How much is he planning to spend on this HST mailing?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I indicated, all of that information is made public, as all information about government spending is made available in public accounts. But I can tell you the terms of the job that we have to do to make sure that the misinformation is corrected. The more these members in the official opposition spread that misinformation to British Columbians, the more they do to fearmonger with seniors around British Columbia about the impact of HST, the more we will do to push back and make sure that they get factual information.

S. Simpson: This is a question of transparency and accountability. This minister is going to put this information out to the public. They have a right to know what it's costing them. How much will it cost for the material the minister intends to put out?

Hon. C. Hansen: Maybe the member should actually ask his colleague from Delta North how much of taxpayers' money it cost to put out a brochure that had blatant misinformation in it. I can guarantee this member that the information that we put out will be factual, and it will ensure that it's in compliance with the B.C. election laws. We will push back on the misinformation that the NDP are spreading.
[ Page 4383 ]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: This is about the government and this minister spending the taxpayers' money — taxpayers who despise this tax, who hate this tax and want it gone. The question is a simple one. How much does this minister and the B.C. Liberal government intend to spend on this brochure and government propaganda?

Hon. C. Hansen: Most years over the last number of years we've put out information about budgets, whether it was Budget 2006, Budget 2008. This year will be no exception, and we will not be spending any more this year on putting out that information as we would do in a normal year.

J. Horgan: I'm sure that the minister and his colleagues are well aware of an initiative campaign that's underway at this point in time. At no time did anyone sign on with Elections B.C. to oppose that initiative, but today we learn that the Minister of Finance is using public money to try and distort the outcome of an initiative campaign. What steps has he taken to inform Elections B.C. of his desire to thwart the initiative process?

Hon. C. Hansen: I've said earlier, and I'll say it again. We will make sure that all of our communication that goes out is totally in compliance with the B.C. election laws.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Again, it's as simple as all of the other questions. How much is the minister going to pay of public dollars to thwart an initiative campaign by the citizens of British Columbia? How much is it going to cost?

[1415]

Hon. C. Hansen: When I go onto a website that the NDP are endorsing, and I see the kind of blatant factual error and blatant, deliberate misinformation that is being put out by Bill Vander Zalm, saying things — for example, that bus fares are going to be an additional 7 percent more expensive, that music lessons are going to be 7 percent more expensive, that rents and strata fees will be 7 percent more expensive, that car repairs and maintenance will be 7 percent more expensive, that legal fees will be 7 percent more expensive….

All of those are factually incorrect. They are wrong. They are misleading. They are fearmongering. We will take steps to push back on that kind of blatant false information that is being put out by people around British Columbia, including the New Democratic Party.

D. Black: The only misrepresentation there's been is the misrepresentation in the B.C. Liberal election platform that said they would not bring in the HST.

My question is a very simple one. I want to ask: will the minister report to Elections B.C. how much this propaganda is going to cost before he sends it out?

Hon. C. Hansen: I've said it before. I will say it again. We will ensure that all of the communications material is totally in compliance with the Elections Act.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think that we need to ask 18 members of the official opposition why they signed on as canvassers. I think somebody should ask them: is it because they are simply trying to collect names and data that they're going to use to fight an election three years from now? What we see are 18 members of the official opposition using their positions as MLAs to collect data on citizens in British Columbia. I think they need to stand up and come clean on what their real motives are.

R. Fleming: The Minister of Finance has to know how much he intends to spend on pro-HST propaganda. The question for him is: will he tell the House here today how much it will cost, and will he tell Elections B.C. officials exactly how much it will cost the taxpayers of British Columbia to receive pro-HST propaganda on their doorstep?

Hon. C. Hansen: What's pretty obvious to me is that the members of the official opposition are afraid of the facts. I think they're actually afraid of the fact that there are millions of British Columbians who have been fed the blatant misinformation that they are spreading around the province.

I can guarantee the member one thing — that those British Columbians, when they realize that the NDP have misled them in terms of information about the harmonized sales tax, are going to be very, very, very bitter towards the New Democratic Party.

[1420]

J. Kwan: It is the B.C. Liberals who misled British Columbians on the HST.

The minister knows exactly how much it is going to cost taxpayers to send out this information about the HST from his ministry. Why won't he tell British Columbians the truth now? How much will it cost them for this mailout?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's interesting that the member should talk about the truth, because she should look at her own NDP website. She should actually look at the
[ Page 4384 ]
website that's being endorsed by the NDP, which is Bill Vander Zalm's website, and go in there and see how much truth you find in there. The information that's in there is blatantly misleading. It is misinformation. It is false.

I challenge this member and the rest of her colleagues to disassociate themselves from the blatant misinformation that Bill Vander Zalm has on their website.

HIGH SCHOOL CHILD CARE PROGRAMS
FOR STUDENT PARENTS

M. Elmore: The Minister of Children and Families has been denying the impact of her funding cuts to the high school day care programs at Options family child care and Higgins House. Having access to these programs changes the lives of these young moms.

Nineteen-year-old Karla Saachi said: "I had nothing. I had no family or friends for support, so I honestly thought I had no other chance at getting my education done. So it's a really great option for me." Nineteen-year-old Bailey Thiessen said that: "Without Options, I wouldn't finish high school this year." And 21-year-old Chantaya Roloson said: "A lot of our plans and dreams will be shattered."

The impact of this program for young mothers and their babies is clear. Will the minister commit today to fully restore funding to these programs?

Hon. M. Polak: I'm happy to inform the member there have been no cuts to child care spaces in British Columbia anywhere this year. In fact, at both Artemis and Higgins House….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister. Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. Polak: At Artemis and Higgins House, the funding for the day care spaces remains entirely in place, and the young ladies who attend at both of those facilities are provided with an enhanced subsidy that amounts to approximately $100 more than most parents would receive.

M. Karagianis: The Minister of Children and Families continues to deny the impact of her cuts on these day care services, but in fact, both of these day care services are shutting down. The minister has sent a letter just this week to the Options day care program basically saying that they will make sure that the funding is in place just till the end of the school year.

So the minister knows better on this. Higgins has already given notice to all of their young moms that as of June this program will no longer offer day care. Her cuts have shut down day care to teenage mothers. It doesn't matter how many ways she tries to deny it. That is the fact on the ground right now for these teenaged mothers.

I am asking the minister to do the right thing and reinstate the funding so these teenage mothers can continue to get their education and find the jobs and raise their kids and have the opportunities that they deserve.

[1425]

Hon. M. Polak: Again, the member is entirely wrong. There has been no change in the funding for the day care spaces at Artemis and Higgins House. There is absolutely no reason why the day cares at Artemis or Higgins House should be closing. The funding for their day care spaces remains in place and has not been changed, including an additional $100 monthly subsidy for the young moms in those programs.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. Coell: I'd like to table the 2009 annual report and 2010-2012 service plan for WorkSafe B.C.

Hon. B. Penner: It turns out that I do, in fact, have a report I'd like to table — the 2008-2009 annual report of the Environmental Appeal Board.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Housing — and, in this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 9.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Consumption Tax Rebate
and Transition Act

(continued)

J. Kwan: Well, we just finished question period, and as it would have things proceed, we were talking about the HST. So we're now into the full debate on the HST.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I'd like to just visit a couple of things about this whole story. It reminds me, actually, of when I was a kid. You know how your parents tell you to always tell the truth, because if you make up a story along the way, then down the road you will be caught up in a situation where that very story will unravel before your very eyes. You won't
[ Page 4385 ]
be able to keep up and keep straight what is factual information and what is fabricated information.

That's actually a well-learned lesson, I should say, that we in our family — the kids, the six of us — took to heart. You carry that kind of information — or instruction, if you will — from your parents all the way into adulthood. Here we are in the Legislature today, and let's just visit for a moment the government's whole HST spin.

I would argue that the story that the government is spinning around the HST is unravelling before their very eyes. We have a B.C. Liberal Party who, before the election, said that they would not bring in the HST. They swore up and down and made these promises to people in the industry that they would not bring in the HST. Little did British Columbians know that after the election the government is bringing in the HST.

Hence, we're in this debate right now, and hence, the majority of question period questions for today — not just today but previously as well. I would expect that the HST debate is going to dominate this House for the better part of the month, if not longer — that is, of course, if the government brings in closure on this debate. If the government embarks on that road, then of course, they will attempt to shut down that debate.

We'll recall that the Liberal government said that they won't bring in the HST — the Liberal Party. After the election they brought in the HST. We recall their claim that they needed to bring in the HST because it was good for the economy. Then, supposedly, there were all sorts of studies done about the HST — that they have been studying it all along, so the minister says. He said it today in question period.

[1430]

Yeah, it is true that they've been studying it all along, and all along the government's position had been a no to the HST. That only changed after the election when the government finally told British Columbians what they were up to, that they had changed their story.

Now we have the Minister of Finance, who says we need to do the HST because it's good for the economy, notwithstanding the fact that the HST would cost jobs and income in a variety of different sectors in the economy. In the area of the service industry, take for example the Restaurant and Foodservices Association. They've been on the record to say that the HST will cost that industry jobs.

In fact, they said that the HST would cost some $750 million to that industry. That would be an average of $50,000 per restaurant. That's what they said in terms of the information that they had put out regarding the HST. These are real numbers, because they actually did an analysis on it, unlike the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Small Business who I believe has not actually done the study related to that sector in terms of the impacts.

The industry went on to say that adding this tax at this time — at a time of recession, if you will, where the economy is weak — is going to cost even more in the long run for the provincial coffers. If consumers are not going out to the restaurants to spend their dollars in the sector, it's going to hurt the businesses, it's going to hurt the workers, it's going to hurt the community and ultimately it would hurt the provincial economy.

The vast majority of restaurant owners, some 91 percent, say the HST in B.C. will have a negative impact on their business. According to a survey of the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, where they have 4,000 members, 85 percent of those who responded to their survey said the HST will have a significant negative impact, and 6 percent said that it would have a slightly negative impact. Only 9 percent who responded said that it would have no impact at all.

Adding a 7 percent PST onto the 5 percent GST will more than double the sales tax on restaurant meals. That would result in a dramatic decrease in consumer spending on eating out. The restaurant associations say that restaurants are at the heart of every community in B.C., an important employer for people of all ages and walks of life.

The HST announcement has created a great deal of uncertainty for their members. It is clear that they're deeply concerned about the damage the HST will do to their business and that they'll be looking to the government and the federal government to "fix this major tax shift onto the restaurant sector." This is actually a direct quote from a press release sent out by the association.

They are very worried about this, to the point where they actually launched a campaign to say: "No HST on the food and restaurant services industry." The industry even sent out a letter at the end of 2009 urging politicians to withhold support for the HST.

They also say that an Ernst and Young report attributed some 75 percent of the sales decline to the impact of the GST and that by way of contrast, GDP the same year fell by 2 percent. By making the political decision to deviate from a pure value-added tax, the government has done significant harm to restaurants across the country.

[1435]

Pursuing harmonization in B.C., where there is no tax on restaurant meals, makes matters worse. That's what they have to say. And while capital-intensive industries will benefit from the input tax credits under the GST, restaurants will not, because their largest input costs are labour and food. That means there will be a significant tax shift towards the industry with almost no tax break to compensate for it.

I have more to say about that. I'm going to yield the floor to my colleague, who's going to make an introduction.

Deputy Speaker: Surrey–Green Timbers seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.
[ Page 4386 ]

Introductions by Members

S. Hammell: Visiting the House are 45 students from Cindrich Elementary. They are with their teacher Jas Shahi and some parents, I'm sure. I met them prior to them attending here. I wanted to make sure they actually could see the chamber and see the excitement and drama of our work here. Would the House please them welcome.

Debate Continued

J. Kwan: For the service sector industry, such as the food services industry, such as those from the tourism industry where most of their business is on labour costs, from that perspective, the input tax credit would not help them, because those labour costs would not be something that they could claim the input tax credits back on. But yet that industry would be faced with this tax — a new tax being imposed for that sector, which they have never seen before.

What does that mean? It means that consumers would have to pay more, and if consumers can't afford to pay more, it means that that sector is going to get hurt in terms of their economy. It is that simple. I have to say the Minister of Small Business particularly would not even acknowledge such basic information put forward by the sector themselves — wouldn't even acknowledge it — and just sort of goes on to spin the government spin from the public affairs bureau on the information about the HST, how it is wonderful for everyone.

Well, I have to say this. If it was so wonderful, why didn't the B.C. Liberals tell British Columbians that they were going to bring in the HST during the campaign? Why didn't they tell British Columbians that? Why didn't they make that as their major economic plank during the election campaign?

No, instead of doing that, instead of putting it up front with British Columbians, they hid it. They wouldn't tell British Columbians. They misled British Columbians.

After the election, lo and behold, guess what. "Oh, but this is really good for the economy. We really, really, really have to do it" — notwithstanding right at that time when the government announced it, they didn't even have one study they could show for it. They didn't have one study that they had done to say how supposedly great the HST is for the B.C. economy. I mean, it is interesting to note why the government wouldn't come clean and tell British Columbians that information.

Then of course, when we had the budget that came down, we had the Minister of Finance say, "Oh, but British Columbians, you must know that the health care costs are costing us an arm and a leg, and we have to pay for it somehow, so the HST is going to do that" — notwithstanding that the Minister of Finance, prior to that day, had gotten up and said on the public record that the HST was supposedly revenue-neutral.

Now, if it's supposed to be revenue-neutral, how is this supposed to pay for health care costs? It doesn't add up. It doesn't add up with the storyline that the Minister of Finance is putting out to British Columbians.

Of course, we now hear from other ministers who say: "But the HST is good for forestry." I'm sure the government will keep on spinning this and keep on spinning it until British Columbians vote on this issue and say they've had enough. Overwhelmingly, British Columbians say that they don't support the HST. The government did no consultation with British Columbians on this question prior to bringing this in.

[1440]

In fact, the president of Vancouver-Fraserview riding association for the Liberal Party actually said on the public record that this government does not have the mandate to bring in the HST with no consultation. That's not coming from New Democrats. That's coming from one of their own, who actually says that they don't have the mandate to bring in the HST, given the circumstances in which this government is thrusting it upon British Columbians.

Today we learned that there appears to be documentation to show that ministry staff had contacted the federal Department of Finance tax officials on May 15, just days after the election, about an information request regarding the HST. Interesting. The Minister of Finance says, though, that he didn't direct the staff to go and get that information — that somehow ministry staff went on their own.

It is astounding to follow the logic that somehow ministry staff would go and do this work without direction from their bosses. Where did it come from? Did that just come from thin air, or did it come from the place where the government is faced with a huge deficit — a deficit that is seven times more than what they said it was during the election campaign?

In the face of that huge deficit, the government would do just about anything to make good on their deficit projections that they told British Columbians before the election. In an attempt to do that, isn't it the case that it was the government who then said: "Oh, if we sign on to the HST, we could get money from the federal government"? Some people call that blood money — $1.6 billion from the federal government. That will perhaps fill the hole in the big, gigantic deficit that the government find themselves in with regard to the budget.

So then we're down the road of trying to get this blood money. Supposedly, according to the Minister of Finance, that conversation took place only much after the election, towards the end of May, by a water cooler with the federal Minister of Finance.

I mean, it's kind of incredible — don't you think? — that somehow a major tax policy change in the province
[ Page 4387 ]
of British Columbia would take place in a casual conversation between the Minister of Finance from B.C. and the federal Minister of Finance at a water cooler. Really? Is it that unimportant for the government in terms of this major taxation change in taxation policy for B.C. for it to take place in a casual conversation by a water cooler? Or was there some other planning that was done before?

Really, would you accept this explanation, Madam Speaker, if you were a CEO of a company? If you were a CEO of a company that's about to embark on a major policy change for your company in its revenue stream and how you collect that revenue, would you leave it to your staff somewhere, without direction, to go and seek information and engage in discussions about that without your direction or knowledge base? Would you do that as a head of a company, as a shareholder of that company? Would you do that? I think not. If you did, I'd be astounded, and I would argue that that's not exactly competent management of your company.

Yet the Minister of Finance would have British Columbians believe exactly that — that he did not tell his staff to go and engage in discussions with the federal officials on this major taxation shift, that he did not give that direction, that somehow the staff went off and did it on their own and that he knew nothing about it. He didn't direct it, and he knew nothing about it.

[1445]

Well, if that is the case, then I've got to say that is incompetence at its maximum. It is astounding to learn that that is how the Minister of Finance is managing our revenue streams in British Columbia.

The HST is going to hit British Columbians in an unprecedented way. It is a $1.9 billion tax shift onto the consumers of B.C., and it is going to hit British Columbians pretty well every single day on their purchases of goods and services. From the moment they get up in the morning and go into their local coffee shop to buy a cup of coffee, they are going to see a 7 percent hit to their pocketbook. Going out to eat lunch in the afternoon, they're going to see a 7 percent hit to their pocketbook. Getting a movie perhaps after work to relax a little bit or maybe to go on a date — that's going to be another 7 percent hit.

The consumers are going to be hit if they want to go and do things that you normally would do. I just went and got my hair done last week when the House was out. It seemed like the only time I could do it, and after July 1 it's going to cost me another 7 percent more to get my hair done.

For those people who are on a tight income, that may impact how many times they may actually go and see a hairdresser. That's actually important for British Columbians. We all know — I know and you know — that after you've gone to get your hair done, it feels good because they make you look good. You feel good about yourself, and it makes a difference.

But for people with incomes that are tight, where there's a 7 percent impact for them — seniors on a fixed income, for example — this may well reduce the amount of times that they could actually go and get their hair done. Maybe you think that's kind of frivolous, but I think not. It's about our own well-being, about who we are.

Then let's talk about another area where it's going to hit people in their pocketbooks. We have students today visiting the Legislature from different schools. Many MLAs got up to introduce and welcome the students from their riding. Well, come next September, those students and families, when they go out and get ready for school and get their school supplies…. Guess what. They're going to have to pay 7 percent more.

I would argue that school supplies would be a necessity for students in our educational system. Families on a fixed income who have more than one child would feel the squeeze because every single little thing in terms of goods and services that they didn't have to pay the PST on before, they will now have to see a 7 percent increase in taxes for those services.

Just two days ago we had people from the funeral services industry coming forward to say that in death, families will now see a 7 percent increase in taxes while they are grieving. Think about it. It turns out that the party that brought in the death tax would be the B.C. Liberals, not like the smear campaign information that was put forward in the Fraserview campaign, alleging that the NDP would bring in a death tax. It turns out it's the B.C. Liberals who would bring in a death tax in the name of the HST.

Those families are going to be hit hard. It isn't cheap. I was looking at the information that's put forward by that industry. When you go through the funeral services, it's not cheap. The costs add up, perhaps sometimes for some families at an unexpected period of time. That happens, unfortunately, in people's lives, and then in the midst of trying to cope with all of that, they have to deal with the financial end of things as well. Then they're going to have to dig deeper into their pockets, perhaps dollars that they don't have at the ready.

[1450]

So the death tax is actually brought in by the B.C. Liberals, but that's not the only thing. The other thing is that in mutual funds savings, those services will now also face a 7 percent increase in taxes by this government. So the government will tax you in death, but it will tax you when you are alive with your own savings as well. That's this government's doing. It's this Liberal government's doing that is off-loading these costs onto the consumers.

Just when you think you can escape the HST by going off on vacation…. You think, "Oh, I've got to get away from all of this for a bit," you know, and you want to travel. Guess what. The tourism industry people and
[ Page 4388 ]
tourism operators have already said that the HST will impact them as well their business.

At a time when we want to attract people to British Columbia and expand on our tourism opportunities, we actually have this additional taxation that's going to cost that industry. Just when you think you can get away from it all, little did you know that you're going to have to pay out of pocket for that as well through the HST. So you can't get away from it no matter what.

Day in, day out, from dawn to dusk, you are going to be faced with this tax. There's no escaping it — unless, of course, the government listens to the opposition. Unless, of course, the government actually listens to their constituents. Unless, of course, the MLAs around this House on the government side have enough courage to represent their own community and their own constituents and come into this House and say no to the HST.

I challenge each and every one of the government MLAs to go out and talk to their constituents about this tax and truly reflect what they tell them about how they feel about the HST. Some 80 percent, over 80 percent, of British Columbians are opposed to the HST. Make no mistake about it. They're not all in New Democrat ridings. They are all over the province of British Columbia. If any of the Liberal MLAs have got courage, they will stand up in this House and represent their constituents on this issue.

I know that in the city of Richmond, which I travel to from time to time — I shop there quite often; I eat there quite often; they have fabulous food — the restaurant owners and the shop owners tell me all the time about the HST and how it would hurt them. The folks in that neighbourhood say that they don't want to support the HST. Overwhelmingly, the community comes forward and tells me that they don't support the HST.

I challenge the Liberal Richmond MLAs to stand up and reflect those restaurant owners, those business owners, and to reflect those constituents — their points of view, what they have told me when I go to visit Richmond. I challenge them to come into this House to represent them on that view around the HST. We live in a democratic society. After all, people elect us to represent them, to bring their voices into this Legislature.

I would argue that MLAs have an obligation to do exactly that, and I would challenge the Richmond MLAs to do exactly that. Go to your local restaurant and ask the patrons there how they feel about the HST. Go to the local mall — Aberdeen Centre, Parker Place, any one of those major malls that sell all kinds of goods and services and foods and things like that — and ask the people who frequent those malls whether or not they support the HST.

I would say that you would then have a full sense of how the people in our communities feel about the HST. The truth is they don't want it. No matter how the Minister of Finance tries to dress it up and how he says that it's great for British Columbians, the truth is that nobody is buying it. Nobody is buying it.

[1455]

So instead of working overtime in creating mailouts, having the ministry spend money — taxpayers' money — in creating mailouts and sending them out to British Columbians to convince them how the HST is really good for them, how about actually owning up to the fact that the B.C. Liberals misled British Columbians, that they were wrong in bringing in the HST, that they would be prepared to listen to British Columbians, that they would stop this charade, that they will ensure that MLAs come into this House and that there would be a free vote on the HST.

I challenge the government. I challenge the Minister of Finance, the Premier and the executive council to let the Liberal MLAs have a free vote on the HST. Let them represent their constituents about the HST, and let democracy take its place in this very chamber on this major tax policy that the government is shoving down the throats of British Columbians.

S. Hammell: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

S. Hammell: This is the second and third class from Cindrich Elementary who have come here to share our experience in the House and to learn a little bit about democracy. With them are Ms. Gill and Ms. Milliken.

Just a note about Ms. Milliken. She is a cousin of the Speaker of the House of Commons, Speaker Milliken. That makes it very interesting for me in meeting her, and the kids have a very special person with a very special connection. Would the House please make these wonderful kids from Cindrich Elementary welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. B. Bennett: This debate over the merits of the harmonized sales tax, I figure, today provides me with an opportunity to have a discussion here in the House about the tax policies of this government and the tax policies of the opposition — sort of a comparative analysis, you might say.

The opposition would like the public to believe that they are a credible choice for government in 2013. They're making lots of noises about the government's tax policy choices, and that's fair enough. That's what they do in opposition. So in providing my reasons for supporting Bill 9 here today, I would like to present a comparison of the tax policies of this government with the NDP policies of the 1990s and also statements made much more recently than that. Then the pub-
[ Page 4389 ]
lic will come to terms with who has the credibility in terms of tax matters.

I think everyone would agree here, both sides of the House, that there is a fundamental difference in rural view between the two political parties on how tax policy should be used. Frankly, I don't doubt the sincerity of the opposition when they express their beliefs. I just think that they're wrong.

I want to tell the House a short story, and it's a true story, just to illustrate the NDP approach to tax policy. For decades, as a matter of course, British Columbia trappers made use of dead wildlife found at the side of the road. However, in September of 2000 the parsimonious government of the day imposed the nefarious tariff charged on this benign and functional rural practice, and of course, it became known as the dreaded roadkill tax. A dead elk or a moose cost $71; a deer or a black bear, $61; a red-tailed hawk, $65; a dead bison, $116; and any species not listed, $25.

Presumably, if you found a dead or mortally wounded mouse and you wanted to take it home and feed it to your cat, you would be required to travel to the nearest government office, fill out the forms, pay your $25 and quickly journey home to satiate your eagerly waiting carnivorous kitty. Of course, you could stop and buy a $10 bag of cat food if you wanted to.

Trappers back in that year of 2000, not being intimate with the infinite ingenuity of the NDP in the field of taxes, fees and permits, could not cognize the government's logic, nor could they see the sanity of this particular regulatory endeavour, the roadkill tax. One of B.C.'s most distinguished journalists, Mr. Leyne, wrote at the time: "Is this proud province in such reduced circumstances that government inspectors have to roam the roadside ditches looking for people who are looking for roadkill in order to levy a tax on them?"

[1500]

I'm exceedingly proud that this government cast off the shackles from our enterprising and industrious trappers. Trappers today can avail themselves, without cost, of the spoils of highway carnage, which no doubt have been compounded as a result of the much stronger economy over the past nine years, and the increased movement of goods and services.

Of course, that little story doesn't quite measure up to the same scale as getting rid of the corporate capital tax, but I must say that at the time, I did rejoice on behalf of all free trappers across this great fur-bearing province.

Now, I've said that the NDP on this side have diametrically opposite views of how to use tax policy in B.C. That's certainly one example of how in the 1990s the NDP…. I know they don't like to talk about it, but when they had the opportunity, that was one of their ideas for tax policies.

In the '90s they showed that another idea they had for the economy around taxes was to provide subsidies instead of tax relief for businesses, even though they knew that that wouldn't work. How do I know that they knew that? Well, actually, they said so.

The former member for Nelson-Creston said: "In our hysteria to deal with the recession, we tried to bribe capital into saving us, but it didn't work. It didn't work with the aluminum smelters. It didn't work with the jobs and timber accord. It didn't work with the fast ferries that we thought we could sell to the world. It didn't work with the amusement park on Burns Bog. It didn't work with the trade and convention centre in Vancouver. So why didn't we admit it? Because we were afraid to tell the truth." The member for Nelson-Creston in November 1999. God bless Corky Evans. I wish he was still here.

Now, while we believe that government should use tax policy to provide incentives to help families in this province with good jobs — that's the way we see tax policy on this side of the House — the opposition believes that tax policy has the narrow purpose of simply collecting whatever money they feel is required to pay for the many program ideas that they have. In particular, the NDP apparently does not believe that tax policy, whether it's HST or some other tax, can be useful in creating a more competitive, more attractive investment climate in which the likelihood of jobs is increased.

I came across something said quite recently by the Leader of the Opposition on CKNW radio that pretty much sums up the NDP position, I think, on tax policy. This is from December 2009, from the opposition leader: "There's absolutely no tie between the tax breaks business gets and creating jobs here in British Columbia."

That's what she said, and she's certainly entitled to her opinion, but we don't agree with it. Basically, I'm not sure how you can sustain a position of saying that there is no connection between lowering the taxes of an employer and that employer's disposition towards further investment in job creation. It isn't logical and doesn't stand up to the evidence.

Let me say for all members to hear, hon. Speaker, that this government does believe wholeheartedly that reducing the taxes of business will encourage business to reinvest in their businesses — large, medium-sized and small — and will encourage them to hire more people. This is a defining difference between the NDP and this government.

Again, I do support the opposition's right to be wrong. In fact, I encourage it. As long as the NDP believe that tax relief has no positive impact on the economy or people's lives, I suppose I'm likely to be able to continue to serve the good people of Kootenay East.

This government over the past nine years has made over 100 different tax reductions — 120, to be precise — leaving more money in people's pockets and restoring our economic competitiveness. We have, as many
[ Page 4390 ]
members from this side of the House have noted — and I think, it bears repeating; in fact, I don't think we can say this often enough — the lowest personal provincial income taxes in the country for people earning up to $118,000. That matters to people. It leaves them with more money in their pockets.

An additional 325,000 low-income earners today don't pay any provincial income tax, with most British Columbians now paying between 30 and 75 percent less in taxes than they did in 2001.

[1505]

Now, over this past nine years, as we introduced those 120 different measures of tax relief, the NDP voted against every single one of them, apparently believing that the taxpayers' capacity to pay is infinite and apparently believing that there was no public policy value in reducing taxes for anyone, the individual or the business.

Again, the Leader of the Opposition, who I presume speaks for the opposition, said not too long ago: "It doesn't work to make tax cuts." There again, the NDP is entitled to its opinion. On this side of the House, we believe in putting money where it belongs, and that's back in the pockets of the people who earned it. We know for sure that those people know how to spend their money better than government does. That's another defining difference between this side of the House and the other side of the House.

Our tax relief measures for business. We cut corporate income taxes by 39 percent, small business taxes by 44 percent. Corporate and small business taxes here in British Columbia will be the lowest in the G7 by 2012. That's stimulated economic growth. It's helped the province create hundreds of thousands of new, high-paying jobs in this province over the past nine years. So it does work despite what the Leader of the Opposition has to say.

Now, the NDP often claim that they believe in higher taxes because they care more about British Columbians, and I think all of us on this side of the House have come to recognize that familiar refrain from the left side of the House — that when they can't win that substantive policy argument, they'll fall back to that comfortable place they like to go. They'll say: "We care more than those dastardly B.C. Liberals." I've heard them say that so many times over my nine years. It just seems to be a mantra.

This government has provided the lowest personal income taxes for individual taxpayers on income up to $118,000 — the second-lowest top marginal rate in the country. I'm thinking — I could be wrong about this — that British Columbians figure that any government who would take less of their hard-earned paycheque must care about them. I'm pretty sure about that. Those 325,000 low-income British Columbians who now pay no provincial income tax must be certain that this government cares about them.

I would imagine they're quite fearful of the NDP, because the NDP voted against those government tax policies. When the NDP had the opportunity to say, "Yes, we want there to be 325,000 low-income people in this province who pay no provincial income tax," the NDP stood up, and they said: "No. We don't agree with that. We're voting against that." Interesting.

In the recent budget debate the NDP spoke against tax policy that increased the basic personal amount of the tax credit by almost $9,000 from $1,627 to $11,000. We also increased the spouse and equivalent-to-spouse credits by $1,627, and they voted against that as well. They spoke against it.

So let's face it, hon. Speaker, the NDP have absolutely no credibility in their ill-informed opinions about the harmonized sales tax or any other tax policy, because when they had their chance in government, they raised all taxes. They took more money from the pockets of hard-working British Columbians, and they destroyed the British Columbia economy.

Maybe there are folks who think the NDP have turned over a new leaf. Here's what the opposition leader said at the 2009 UBCM convention in September. She called for $150 million in new corporate income taxes on business and rural industries.

I would point out that I'm a rural guy, just as some of the other folks are on the other side. The other side often talks about rural British Columbia, and I'm glad that they do that. But these industries that the opposition leader wants to tax, wants to levy $150 million more tax on, are located where we live. They're located in Golden, Cranbrook, Williams Lake and Terrace.

I don't understand how the NDP can sustain that position. They actually want to hurt the industries that employ the people in rural British Columbia, and frankly, if the NDP gets its way, B.C. will be paying the highest taxes again in North America, just like they did in the 1990s.

So what about the harmonized sales tax? Well, on this side of the House we're taking lots of heat for this, and that's fine. We've made some tough decisions over the past nine years, and we'll have to make some more tough decisions. Those who are new to politics will learn that sometimes you do have to make difficult decisions.

[1510]

I remember in the first term. I know we had to close a hospital in Kimberley, and we closed the hospital in Sparwood — very, very difficult decisions. But we ended up with a much, much higher level of care, especially specialist care and acute care for the people of our region.

Mind you, hon. Speaker, the opposition members know a lot more about this than the physicians do. I'm sure of that. The physicians say that the level of care we receive in Kootenay East today is far superior to the level of care we received when the NDP was running the province. But of course, we know that those opposition
[ Page 4391 ]
members know a lot more about health care than those physicians. Sure we do.

The harmonized sales tax eliminates embedded taxes along the value chain and replaces it with a single tax. Certainly, the opposition doesn't get it. Frankly, I think some of my constituents probably do not get it yet. I think they will, and the piper is going to be paid on this. I think the opposition is going to discover that when the public does learn how this value-added tax actually applies.

The HST is going to keep B.C. competitive in jurisdictions in Canada and also globally. That's why we're doing it. Seven of ten provinces have or are moving to value-added tax. We're the seventh, and between us and the other six provinces, that will cover over 90 percent of Canada's population.

We've also got 130 countries, including 29 of the 30 OECD countries, that have moved to a value-added tax. We're certainly not creating any precedents here. We're not going where no jurisdiction has gone before. There are many, many modern jurisdictions in the West that have gone to a value-added tax.

This move, this adoption of harmonized sales tax, will move B.C.'s marginal effective tax rate by 40 percent. That will move us below Ontario, and it will move us below Alberta. It will give us in this province the second-lowest overall tax burden in the whole country by moving to HST. The NDP are opposed to that, and they're getting away with it today. But they're not going to get away with it much longer.

The HST reduces costs on investment and compliance by over $2 billion a year. That is not what we're saying; that's what economists are saying. Almost $2 billion in taxes will be removed from business inputs, and that includes $880 million from construction. That includes $140 million from manufacturing, $210 million from transportation, $140 million from forestry, $80 million from mining and oil and gas.

Where I come from, our economy depends on essentially mining, forestry and tourism. There are other types of economic activity, but those are the three main sources of economic activity. Our forestry mills are struggling because of the price of softwood and the value of the Canadian dollar. Everything that government can do to help make those companies more sustainable — help them make the decision to keep the doors open and keep families sustained by that industry, keep people working — we should do.

We have a moral obligation to help those industries, and of course, adopting the harmonized sales tax…. In the case of the major forest company in my riding, they have said it will save them hundreds of thousands of dollars every single year. So that makes it a lot easier for them to decide to keep their doors open. That reduces input costs, and that's going to save consumers money.

We're going to have to wait to see that play out, but in Atlantic Canada they found that when HST was introduced, very shortly thereafter — the first year, in fact — prices went down. Interesting. International studies show that countries without the value-added tax have higher prices. That also is interesting.

The HST will bring in new resources for government to invest in programs while reducing the prospect of future debt or tax increases. We're going to get and have started to receive $1.6 billion in federal transition payments for joining on with the other six provinces in the country that are already there.

The opposition leader has said that she would give back that $1.6 billion. Presumably, that would jack up our deficit and our debt. I'm not sure where she would find that $1.6 billion unless, of course, she wanted to raise taxes, which is certainly what they have done in the past.

[1515]

There's a $30 million administrative savings to government that we can put back into services. I asked myself: $30 million? In Cranbrook that's a lot of money. In Victoria it should still be a lot of money. Maybe in the general scheme of things, $30 million isn't a lot to some people, but you can do a lot of good with $30 million. That $30 million is there for us to help British Columbians, and I think that's a good thing.

For consumers, we're going to provide exemptions and we're going to provide rebates. There are rebates on gasoline, books, children's clothes, car booster seats, diapers, feminine hygiene products. All of those will be exempt from the provincial portion of the tax. For low-income individuals, this is important. There are over a million British Columbians who are characterized under the definition that we currently have as low income. So 1.1 million people in this province will get a $230-a-year credit to help them with the costs of the harmonized sales tax.

New homes. There will be rebates up to $26,000. A full rebate on all residential energy use. There are a number of items.

I had a senior come into my office last Friday, a lady who has supported me in three successive elections, and she was very anxious, very worried. She had been to see Mr. Vander Zalm because she remembers him when he was the leader of the Socred party. She went to hear him, and she got very, very concerned with what she heard.

I took about 45 minutes and went through the various items that she had been told at this public meeting. The NDP was represented there. In fact, the fellow who ran against me in the last provincial campaign apparently organized the meeting. In any case, she was there with some of her friends, so she wanted to know the facts. She was worried.

She had been told that legal fees were going to be impacted by HST. She was told that physiotherapy was
[ Page 4392 ]
going to be impacted by HST. She was told that rents and strata fees, bus fares — all of those things — were going to be impacted by HST. So I told her they're not impacted, not at all. There's no cost to this senior. She's in her 80s.

There are people going around the province today deliberately trying to frighten that lady and deliberately trying to frighten other seniors — and for what? For political advantage. Shame. We can have a debate about the harmonized sales tax without people trying to frighten seniors in this province.

The proposed HST eliminates the duplication that we have in terms of our small businesses that have to record their sales and record the taxes paid. B.C.'s businesses, because of the elimination of this duplication with the PST and the GST, will save about $150 million a year in administrative costs.

Frankly, I don't think that everybody realizes that yet, and that's probably normal. This is a harmonized sales tax. It's a completely different concept from a cascading sales tax, like the one that we have today. It's going to take some time for people to actually experience that, "Oh, my goodness, I'm not spending as much time in the office looking after these two separate taxes, and I'm actually saving money from this," but they will. They will come to understand that over the next three years.

B.C. will have the lowest harmonized tax in Canada. That means that we will continue to be an attractive place for investment and a place where you can create long-term, stable employment. It also means that for more than 90 percent of the population in this country, B.C. will have the lowest HST rate.

The NDP are opposed to the HST, and they have every right to take that position, but this is what it means. In their opposition to the harmonized sales tax, what that really means is that they're against the most important step that we can take to improve British Columbia's economic competitiveness. That's what the economists have said.

[1520]

The Finance Minister has stood and said that multiple times in this House, and he gets heckled by the other side. The other side does this sort of fake laughter that they seem to be doing these days. Their House Leader must figure that's a good idea. They do all that sort of thing. But the economists, the vast majority of economists in the country, have said that this is going to improve B.C.'s economic competitiveness, and the NDP is opposed to that.

Now, their partner Mr. Vander Zalm — strange bedfellows, hon. Speaker — introduced or increased over a dozen taxes in nearly every budget he brought down that punished families and small business. He's the guy who introduced the property transfer tax. He's the guy that increased the small business tax to the highest level ever.

This is the guy, Mr. Vander Zalm, that the NDP wants the people of British Columbia to take tax advice from. We're expected to take advice on tax policy from a guy who was forced to resign from office in disgrace, paving the way for the disastrous NDP win in 1991 that drove B.C.'s economy from first to last in Canada, that raised taxes by over $2 billion in their first two years — $2 billion of increased taxes in their first two years — and drove tens of thousands of people out of the province. We're supposed to take tax advice from that guy — hmm.

When the NDP states their opposition to the HST, what they're really saying is that they're against job creation in the forest industry; they're against job creation in the mining industry; they are against job creation in the energy, construction and technology industries. Well, that's consistent. I will say that, hon. Speaker. They're wrong to be against the creation of new jobs. They don't understand how tax policy works; they never have. But at least I would say they're consistent, because their record has consistently been, from the time of Dave Barrett, to raise taxes, not lower them.

Actually, they ran in 1991, and their campaign commitment was: "No new taxes." Well, they raised taxes by $2 billion in their first two years. Under the NDP, B.C. had the highest marginal tax rates in Canada — the highest. We're now down to the second-lowest overall tax burden in the country. We've got the lowest personal income taxes and the second-lowest business taxes in the country. When they were in government, what did they do? When they had their chance, they had the highest taxes in the country.

They've never believed in tax relief, and now they pretend to be concerned about the harmonized sales tax. I just want folks to remember what they said. This is what the opposition leader said: "It doesn't work to make tax cuts." This is what she said in December of 2009: "There's absolutely no tie between the tax breaks business gets and creating jobs here in British Columbia."

Amazing in today's world that you would believe that, with all the evidence from places like Ireland and other jurisdictions across the world. I think my favourite quotation that really captures the essence of the NDP approach to tax policy is from the hon. member from the opposition who is from Nanaimo.

He said: "I haven't seen anyone die of overtaxation in this province." I like the hon. member. I would imagine he wishes he never had said that. Flippant. "I haven't seen anyone die of overtaxation in this province." Let's jack 'em up. That's what they did. That's what they would do again.

These are expressions of the NDP on tax policy. They don't understand how to use tax policy to help British Columbians. Tax policies can be used by governments to help people, to help create jobs, to give people what they want. They don't understand how to use tax policies.
[ Page 4393 ]

Hon. Speaker, I'll just close with that. Their record shows and their comments prove that they just don't get it.

[1525]

D. Black: I rise to convey the concerns of residents of New Westminster who, like most other British Columbians, the majority of British Columbians, will be negatively affected by Bill 9 if it becomes law — the Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act, as it's euphemistically called in this Legislature.

It's been said that the big three in life can be summed up as hatching, matching and dispatching — birth, marriage and death. Unfortunately, my New Westminster constituents will find all three to be more expensive, thanks to the proposed harmonized sales tax, or the HST. Yes, we will all be paying and paying again for everything from cribs to car seats to the wedding dress and the organist to funeral costs. These are hardly luxury items. Well, maybe some weddings do go a bit overboard, but most are quite modest, and families strive to stay within a budget and still create a special day.

As I heard at the HST forum I hosted in March, the HST will hit my constituents in the wallet day in and day out if it goes ahead. What is particularly galling to them is that the B.C. Liberals promised they wouldn't bring it in. They even put it in writing during the election campaign last year. The kindest interpretation would be that they have short memories.

A more accurate interpretation would be that if they had told the truth, they would not have formed government. How many people do you know who really would have voted Liberal if they knew they were looking at a $1.9 billion tax grab? The B.C. Liberals deceived the voters about the HST. They didn't consult with British Columbians, and they do not have a mandate to bring the HST in now.

I was pleased to see that more than a hundred people turned out to my forum on the HST. People of all ages, ethnic backgrounds and economic positions came together in New Westminster last month. Their goal, proudly stated, strongly stated by the people who turned out, was that they want to join with others to stop the implementation of the HST.

We heard that the HST will hit particularly hard in New Westminster because of the large number of small businesses that are located there. These businesses will have to charge 7 percent more for both goods and services, a charge that will, without question, be passed onto consumers. Most restaurants, for example, are small businesses, and the restaurant industry forecasts the HST will cost as many as 12,000 jobs across the province as well as $750 million in lost revenue.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Restaurant owner Jasbir Sandhu told my community forum that the tax will mean more expensive restaurant meals, lower food sales, lower tips and job losses. He agrees with Mark von Schellwitz, western vice-president of the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, who said recently: "As one casual diner said to us, it's tough enough now. But with the HST, when you sit down at a full-service restaurant, you know you're going to be paying 30 percent more, with the HST and a tip, before you even have anything to eat."

Next door to my constituency office is a friendly, family-run coffee shop. It's called the Coming Home Café. The owner has offered space on his patio for volunteer canvassers to collect signatures on the anti-HST initiative petition that's currently being circulated. He's a small business owner. He works hard and contributes to our community. He's involved in several community organizations, including the committee that's organizing New Westminster's first Pride Day on August 7.

He sees the HST as yet another assault from a government which favours big corporations and insiders to the detriment of average hard-working people like himself. Like many others in the restaurant industry, he's uncertain and worried about what the future will bring. He says that it took many years to recover from the impact of the GST, and the introduction of the HST will probably force more small businesses to close down.

At the same time, tourism leaders across the province are rejecting the government's claim that the HST will not mean an increase in the price of a hotel room. The tourism industry expects to lose up to 10,000 jobs and $545 million in lost revenue.

[1530]

Many of these jobs are minimum-wage jobs, and I don't need to remind you or other people in this Legislature that in British Columbia we have the lowest — the lowest — minimum wage in the country. Many of these minimum-wage jobs are held by young people who are supporting themselves while they're going to college or university or to get technology training.

Students who can't find jobs in the summer also face now having their student aid cut while tuition continues to rise in British Columbia at an alarming rate. The HST is yet another burden for our bright young leaders of tomorrow who are already struggling against many obstacles while they work to achieve their educational goals.

Tourism and restaurants are not the only businesses that will be negatively impacted by this tax. A recent article in the New Westminster News Leader pointed out:

"Gord Hobbis figures he'll do about three months' worth of business at his Cap's bike shop in Sapperton during the month of June, and he's not happy about that. That's because on July 1 the bicycles he sells, as well as bike parts and safety gear, will instantly become 7 percent more expensive.

"Since March of 1981 bikes, bike parts and safety accessories like helmets, lights, reflectors" — all of these things — "purchased in
[ Page 4394 ]
B.C. have been exempt from a provincial sales tax. The exemption was implemented to encourage people to get active and maybe even leave their cars at home and cycle to work. For the most part, it's been a success, says Mr. Hobbis, especially in the last few years, when he's heard grumblings from veteran cycling commuters."

They claim that the paths and trails are getting too crowded now by other bicyclers.

Hobbis, whose family has been selling bikes in New Westminster for 78 years, says the new additional tax "might be just enough to put the skids to some people considering an investment in cycling."

"'The government should be doing more to encourage cycling, not discouraging it,' he said. 'It's a healthy activity. Anyone can do it. It has no impact on the environment, and you don't need to build anything. You can ride a bike anywhere.'"

New Westminster resident Ken Wilkinson also agrees. Health problems prevent him from driving, so he cycles everywhere. He said: "Good safety equipment is expensive and necessary for those living in New Westminster. I have to have special disc brakes for my bike because of all the steep hills and the wet roads. I also bought Kevlar tires after going through ten to 15 tubes a year because of all the debris from construction projects."

Mr. Wilkinson is worried that people either will endanger their own safety by not buying the proper equipment or will simply stop riding their bikes, neither of which is something the B.C. government should be encouraging.

On March 3 my colleague, the member for Saanich South, hosted a rally outside these buildings where hundreds of cyclists voiced their displeasure with the HST. They reminded the Liberal government how counterproductive it is to make it more difficult for people to continue cycling or to take up cycling as a new mode of transportation.

Of course, some friends of this government have been given special consideration when it comes to the implementation of the HST. There will actually be a break for those wealthy enough to buy luxury cars. Combined with earlier increases to the threshold for the luxury vehicle surtax, the government will have saved buyers of these expensive vehicles $372 million between 2001 and 2010, while only saving buyers of fuel-efficient vehicles $59 million in the same time period. It just doesn't make sense when most people are looking for ways to improve the environment.

However, those who are unable to afford a new car or who choose to buy a car privately from another citizen will be paying even more. Forcing people who buy a car from an individual to pay HST now is not "levelling the playing field between used car dealers and the private sellers." It actually puts the private seller at a huge disadvantage. It's sheer hypocrisy for this government to claim to be fighting climate change while they continue to give special breaks to those purchasing luxury cars.

[1535]

It's even more hypocritical when, at the same time, those buying smaller, more fuel-efficient cars and especially bicycles are being hit with the full force of this new tax. This hardly seems to be an appropriate way to encourage commuters to burn less fuel or give up their cars and start cycling instead.

If the HST is going to negatively hit consumers and small businesses, who does it benefit? The answer is big business, which will pay less tax. Businesses will be able to get their money back thanks to the HST rebates. It doesn't seem fair to me that we provide rebates for businesses but not for families, especially as we are trying hard and people are trying hard to recover from a worldwide recession.

Economist Phillip Legg summed it up well at my community forum. He said that the HST is a tax shift; it is not tax reform. Phillip Legg also noted that there is no doubt the HST will depress consumer spending significantly. Unfortunately, small businesses are facing this during a time when many are barely managing to keep their doors open.

In some ways, I have to cynically admire the Liberals for their chutzpah in trying to pitch the HST as a way to pay for health care. Journalist Paul Willcocks pointed out: "The hokiest part of the budget was the announcement that HST revenue would be dedicated to health care. It's an obvious attempt at phoney spin. All the money flows into general government coffers, and it's allocated as the politicians choose."

Seniors are one of the groups very concerned about the provision of health care, and they're certainly not accepting the government's attempts to sell the HST as a way to pay for health care. Sylvia MacLeay, the president of the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of B.C., spoke at my community forum also. She clearly stated that the harmonized sales tax promises to add an average of $900 a year to individual expenditures, an amount that is impossible for people on fixed incomes to raise.

I wonder how this government expects seniors to carry this load in addition to all the other increases they've made — increases in user fees; in MSP premiums; in hydro charges; in bus, SkyTrain and ferry rates; delisting of certain medications; and cancellation of many health services.

Seniors understand that in order to have the public services that they need, that we all need — public services like health care, education and a clean environment — they have to pay taxes. What they object to is regressive taxes such as the HST, which hurt both the middle class and those with lower incomes. They're willing to pay their fair share as long as other segments of society, like corporations and the wealthy, are paying their fair share too.

I was shocked to read in the latest newsletter from Century House seniors centre in New Westminster the following report from the executive director. She wrote in their newsletter: "HST will arrive on July 1, so there
[ Page 4395 ]
will be price increases. Our normal price review for food services is September, but this may be done sooner and incorporated into the HST price changes."

Hundreds of New Westminster seniors who visit Century House for recreation and for companionship will face increases in the price of food served there as well as for the excellent programs that are provided at Century House.

I know that the staff at Century House feel badly about this, as they are constantly striving to serve reasonably priced, nutritious meals to the large number of seniors who have lunch there in the company of their neighbours and their friends who attend the really valuable programs that are provided at Century House. It really is deplorable that the government persists with implementing the HST while ignoring the detrimental effect it will have on seniors' lives.

[1540]

At the beginning of my remarks, I mentioned dispatching as one of the big three in life. There's a well-known expression that nothing is certain in life except death and taxes. This has again proven to be true. We don't even escape the HST as we depart this life.

Last month the Society of Independent Funeral Homes in B.C. announced they have officially thrown their support behind the citizens' initiative to repeal the HST. Society spokesperson Michael Crean, of New Westminster, said: "We believe it's wrong to tax people another 7 percent for funeral services, which are a necessity for all families. The HST hurts consumers, and we strongly oppose it." And he added: "We plan to make sure all of our clients are aware of the fight to stop the HST."

I've heard from constituents who make it clear that not only will seniors be negatively affected by the HST, but services for the youngest members of our society are also being affected. An executive member of a well-respected New Westminster child care centre recently reported the following concerns:

"Our society operates a not-for-profit day care for 25 kids in a converted residence. Last year the gross rent increased by $200 per month when it was decided the GST was applicable. With the introduction of the new HST, the rent will now be subject to PST when they combine them, which means an extra $300 a month.

"Of course, the extra costs will have to be passed on to the families whose children attend our school. I'm sure there are many such stories where the government hasn't fully thought out the ramifications of its decisions on everyday people."

Madam Speaker, at a time when family budgets are already stretched thin, a long list of school supplies will also cost families more. Ballpoint pens, pencils, crayons, exercise books, rulers, glue sticks, loose-leaf paper, felt pens, scissors, calculators, geometry sets and binders are just some of the items going up in price. The HST will even increase the price for kids' sports and community groups in every B.C. community, including arena and meeting room rentals.

A well-known media commentator stated recently: "One has to wonder how much credibility the Minister of Finance has right now when it comes to making any kind of economic argument. The polls indicate voters are smarting over last year's budget, which turned out to be widely off the mark in its projections." At first the government was saying the HST would be revenue-neutral to government, but now we know revenues will actually be reduced by $330 million a year, and phasing in tax credits for large businesses will cost the government approximately $155 million more.

One has to wonder how it makes sense for the government to impose an onerous tax increase on consumers while giving a tax cut to big business, when the end result will be to increase the deficit. Increasing the deficit will further threaten essential services like health care and education, which are already hit hard by shortfalls in government funding.

Even Liberal-friendly organizations are unhappy with the implementation of the HST. The impact of this tax on the construction of housing in New Westminster and across Metro Vancouver could be particularly dramatic, since it will drive up the cost of a new $600,000 home by $22,000 and also increase the cost of renovations to existing homes by 7 percent.

Peter Simpson, who's the head of the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association, was quoted in a recent newspaper article as saying that his members are still angry. "The industry is just starting to recover from a bad year due to the recession. Now the HST, combined with rising interest rates and tougher mortgage rules, could drive away new homebuyers. It could create the perfect storm of buyer resistance in July," Mr. Simpson added.

Sales commissions, appraisals and home inspections are some of the other services connected with homebuying whose costs will increase. Condo owners will not escape the effects of the tax, as their monthly fees are certain to rise when the strata council has to pay 7 percent more for gardening, for lightbulbs, for all other maintenance and repair services that they require.

[1545]

The Rental Owners and Managers Association of B.C. has joined the chorus of organizations concerned about the impact of the HST. They say the tax will have a negative impact on rental housing quality and affordability. It will increase most rental housing industry costs such as property management, repairs, maintenance and contracts by 7 percent after July 1.

The overall cost to operate rental buildings will increase by up to 3 percent as a result, about $300 per rental unit per year. Tenants could see a decrease in maintenance services, as this is the only discretionary cost that landlords can reduce to offset the HST impact. In other words, virtually every British Columbian, whether they rent or own their home, will be asked to pay more because of the new tax.

Everyone will also be affected when the cost of a wide range of products and services used every day
[ Page 4396 ]
throughout the province increases on July 1. British Columbians will pay more for restaurant meals and catered foods, snack food, prepared food, heated food. They'll pay more for taxi fares, household repairs, movie and theatre tickets, amusement parks. They'll pay more for accounting services such as tax preparation and mutual fund management. Imagine that, now. People who go to an accountant to have their taxes done will now pay a tax to have their taxes filed.

They'll pay more for veterinary care. They'll pay more for classes in yoga, dance and cooking. They'll pay more for martial arts classes. They'll pay more in membership fees for clubs and gyms. Fees for team sports will go up. Airline tickets will increase. Facility and arena rentals will rise. Acupuncture and alternative medicine will cost more. Haircuts will increase. Repairs to home appliances go up. Laundry, dry cleaning, carpet and upholstery cleaning, and janitorial services will cost more. Car washes will be taxed.

Basic telephone services will go up. Basic cable TV service will go up. Vitamins, dietary supplements and other non-prescription medical products will go up. Residential smoke or fire alarms under $250 will rise in price. Work-related safety equipment will cost more. Magazines, periodicals, newspapers, newsletters, student yearbooks, energy-saving items and appliances for your home and vehicle, automobile towing and emergency roadside services will cost more. And there's more, Madam Speaker — many more.

Residents of New Westminster are not remaining quiet about the government's HST tax grab. They're speaking out in the local papers, on blogs and via e-mails, phone calls and letters. Here's the text of an e-mail I received only a few days ago:

"I'm writing you to oppose the implementation of a harmonized sales tax in the province of British Columbia. Polls in British Columbia show that over 85 percent of citizens here are opposed to this tax. This opposition represents an overwhelming majority in every riding. The results of the recent federal by-election in New Westminster–Coquitlam demonstrate that any B.C. politician that supports the HST will face the wrath of the voters at election time.

"As a voter in New Westminster, I will be casting my ballot in the next election only for a candidate who opposes the implementation of the HST in B.C., regardless of political party. If you wish to have my support and the support of thousands of other constituents in this riding, I strongly urge you to vote against the implementation of the HST."

And he goes on:

"I hope you will heed the wishes of the majority of your constituents and that you will act in accordance with Canadian democratic principles and political accountability with regard to the HST. I strongly oppose this tax on the basis that the B.C. Liberals have no mandate to create such a tax. It has been unfairly implemented in B.C. and will place too great a burden on consumers struggling to cope with the recession. Once again, I urge you to please vote according to the majority of your constituents' wishes against the HST."

Well, I intend to do just that. This is only one of dozens of similar messages I've received in the past few months.

[1550]

It's no wonder that New Westminster residents and people across British Columbia feel so strongly about this issue, because before last year's election the B.C. Liberals said the HST would raise the costs for consumers and restrict B.C.'s ability to control our own taxes.

It's very hard to understand. If the HST, from the Liberal perspective, was so wrong then, just a few months ago, why are the members opposite saying it's so right now? Vaughn Palmer summed up the situation very accurately in the Vancouver Sun recently. He said: "Well, if this HST idea is such a humdinger for the future of the economy, why didn't they do it before the election?"

There is no evidence that the HST will help consumers. In fact, it's quite the contrary. In the Maritimes the HST drove up the cost of necessities like housing and clothing, even though, when the HST was brought in there, these provinces actually dropped their overall tax rate. Increases in investment there were short-lived, and now several Atlantic provinces are raising the sales tax once again.

The B.C. government has offered no relief to taxpayers in the form of a lower sales tax or universal rebates, which are now being given in Ontario. This government promised British Columbians that they would not bring in an HST — period. That's what they said during the election. They even put it in writing.

Then a few short weeks after the election, the B.C. Liberals betrayed British Columbians and broke that promise. Without even a semblance of consultation with ordinary taxpayers, small business, they announced the implementation of the same tax that they had criticized only a few short weeks before.

Everything about the HST says it's a tax grab by a desperate government that didn't tell the fiscal truth during the election campaign. However, British Columbians from all walks of life and all parts of the province are joining together to try and stop the HST. Thousands have signed petitions in a matter of days, joined Facebook groups and held rallies. They've contacted government MLAs to urge them to join the official opposition in voting down Bill 9.

If only seven Liberal MLAs will listen to their constituents and vote in accordance with their wishes, the legislation will not pass. I hope that the members opposite will think hard about this and sincerely consider that they were elected to represent the people who live in their constituencies, not to vote in some sort of unthinking unison in support of everything that's put before them by their government. I urge the members opposite to put the wishes of their constituents ahead of the wishes of their political taskmasters.

I'm confident the residents of New Westminster and all of the people of British Columbia will continue to remind this government that they do not want an unfair tax that affects them so negatively, including raising the costs of the big three events in their lives.
[ Page 4397 ]

I've been in consultation with people in my community and around the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, and each and every person — and they count in the dozens — has indicated their visceral disrespect for this government. I think not only do they object to this tax — they see it as a regressive tax and a tax that's not in their best interests — but they also feel betrayed by this government. I think that sense of betrayal is even stronger, in some respects, than their anger at the tax.

They feel like they had the wool pulled over their eyes, and they're very, very angry at the B.C. Liberals. They're going to remember this for a long time. Once again, I urge those seven B.C. Liberals — or more, if they have the courage — to stand up. Stand with the official opposition, and vote this tax down.

Citizens are again returning to the big three events in their lives. They're looking at ways of hatching a plan to dump the HST. They're matching wits with the Liberals about what it really means, and hopefully, by working together, they're dispatching it to the graveyard of ridiculous tax grabs.

[1555]

R. Lee: We know that the world has become a smaller place over the last 20 years. We are conducting trade and business on an international level that we have never seen before. Markets on opposite ends of the world are depending on one another, and economic progress requires partnerships in all corners of the world.

This means that we are living in a small world. There are many factors that force us to consider the economic situation, not just in our province but in the region of the world that we do business with. It's becoming quite obvious that the world economy in general was in a downturn and is slowly recovering. This means that in our province we have to be considering the other factors.

For example, it's important to increase our competitiveness in the world so that we can attract more investment to our province. We know that there are many investments around the world and that they can come here, create more jobs and grow our economy. The move to HST, which is a value-added tax system, will work to reduce the cost of production, allowing for industries to recover quicker.

The member for New Westminster is saying why we got elected. We got elected because we have a mandate to fix the economy, to keep B.C. strong. As well, we are going to grow our economy. This was the case back in 2001 when the province was faced with an outstanding operating debt left by the preceding NDP government.

In fact, the cumulative operating debt over the last ten years in the NDP is over $6 billion. That was a structural debt in operating, and then, because of the momentum of the debt, it carried over to about $14 billion just in operating debt. We managed to reduce that operating debt by $7 billion. This is an achievement, I believe, by the B.C. Liberal government.

This government is looking into the future, and the adoption of the HST is what we need in order to move forward. I'm very confused as to why the NDP would be opposing a measure which will propel the economy of our province ahead. There are no valid arguments, when I listen to the opposition speaking, for opposing the HST.

Of course, suggesting that this is an additional tax overall tricks people. In many cases people are paying 12 percent already on their goods and services. We are removing the PST at many stages of production in our factories, which will lower costs for our industry and attract many more producers to this province.

When you consider the fact that Ontario, one of Canada's largest economies, recently adopted the HST, it's important that we make sure that we're staying competitive. Our economy is one-third of Ontario's. I believe it's one-half of Quebec's. So the two provinces together — we are only 20 percent of their economy.

When they have the HST system and we are not moving towards that same system, I don't think we are competitive. When a manufacturer is faced with the choice of paying PST at each and every stage of production, compared to paying one tax of HST on their completed product, they will no doubt choose the latter — the HST — because when they do export, they can claim all the HST back. Then they will be competitive with other countries. With those other countries — most of them have the value-added system. They export; they don't pay tax internally.

[1600]

If we are not moving to the same system, we are not competitive — as simple as that. We want businesses to choose our province because not only do they grow our economy, but they bring jobs to B.C. That's why many employers in B.C. actually endorse the HST.

The leading economists endorse the HST — say, Dr. Jack Mintz, department of economics, University of Calgary; Glen Hodgson, chief economist, the Conference Board of Canada; Michael Smart, C.D. Howe Institute; John Winter, B.C. Chamber of Commerce; Jock Finlayson, Business Council of B.C.; Richard Rees, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C. They all endorse that this HST is good for our economy.

There are many employers in B.C. who agree that the HST means more jobs. There's a whole list of employers, including the B.C. Agricultural Council. They agree that HST means more jobs. Members of the B.C. Business Council agree that the HST means jobs. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce came out to endorse the HST, which means more jobs for them, for their members.

The B.C. Lumber Trade Council. They are saying that the HST means jobs. Canada West Foundation. They are saying that HST means jobs. Coast Forest Products
[ Page 4398 ]
Association. They are saying a similar thing: HST means jobs.

The Conference Board of Canada. They have been an advocate of HST for many years. They are saying the HST means jobs. The Chartered Accountants of British Columbia — those are the professionals — understand the tax structure. They are saying that HST means jobs.

The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association. They are saying that the HST means jobs. They can export more. They can manufacture more. That means jobs for B.C.

The Certified General Accountants are saying that the HST means jobs. They understand the taxation system. They know that this is good for B.C.

The Mining Association of British Columbia. They know that HST means jobs. They are saying that HST means jobs.

The Retail Council of Canada. They are saying that it is good for retailers. We heard about the HST — the impact on small business. The retailers association — they are coming out to say that the HST means jobs. A lot of people are in small business.

The B.C. Trucking Association. They are doing a lot for our province. Their industry, trucking the logs to the sorting yards, is helping to export our lumber. They are saying that HST means jobs.

The B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association. They are the builders of our province. They construct highways. They construct infrastructures. They are saying that HST means jobs. Those are the people, associations, saying that the HST means jobs, and that's important for B.C.

We don't want to drive our business away from our province. We want to attract more business, not like the NDP. In their ten years they drove out a lot of big business and small business to other provinces. When a manufacturer is faced with a choice of the HST or PST, as I said, they will choose HST. We are offering the people of B.C. more jobs with this tax measure.

How can you argue against job creation and economic growth? How can you do that? If you continue to insist that businesses pay layers upon layers of PST, then they will flee the province and head to Ontario and other provinces which have the HST system. Then they don't charge the PST in their provincial level.

[1605]

This government realized that the future of this province is unlimited with these changes. Our unique geographic position and proximity to the Asia-Pacific region make us one of the most attractive North American jurisdictions. With the HST, it's even more attractive.

We have developed and fostered a relationship with Asian markets to ensure the future of our economy. It's widely known that the Asia-Pacific countries are heavily investing in foreign opportunities, and B.C. is this foreign opportunity for them.

There are more than 130 countries in the world, including 29 of the 30 OECD countries, that have adopted similar tax policies. British Columbia will be sixth of the other Canadian provinces with a similar tax structure.

All industrial sectors in B.C. will benefit from sales tax harmonization and will see their effective tax rate on new investment drop by over one-third — quite a saving for new investments. If you invest after July 1, the net effective tax rate will be dropped by one-third.

This HST will remove about $1.9 billion in costs from job-supporting sectors such as forestry, mining, oil and gas, construction, manufacturing and transportation. These industries are very, very important to the economic health of our province. They are what we need in order to continue doing business with our largest trading partners.

Our construction industry will save an estimated $880 million because they won't have to pay all this PST — layers and layers when they buy those materials. Those layers and layers add to the cost of the building materials. As our communities are quickly growing and we experience more and more development, a saving of this magnitude will make it easier for people to build in B.C. We are excited at the possibility of this type of growth.

Aside from the many countries that have switched to a value-added tax system like the HST, there are many others who support this tax — individuals. I can go on with a list of associations and individuals.

For example, Dr. Kevin Milligan from UBC's department of economics. He supports this HST, saying that this is good for our economy. Robert McFarlane, CEO of TELUS, supports it. Kenneth McKenzie, Canada West Foundation, supports this HST, saying that this is good for our economy. Tim McEwan, CEO, Initiatives Prince George in the rural area. They are supporting this. Ben Dachis and Alexandre Laurin, C.D. Howe Institute.

David Baxter from Urban Futures supports it. We have listened to David many times in our conferences, and he's very knowledgable about B.C. in terms of the demographic distributions, in terms of the movement of people. He is saying that this will be good for our economy. The HST will be good for our economy.

I can go on and on, but I would also like to mention that the HST is very important to our future. These measures will be very important to the economic health of our province. They are what we need in terms of continuing our business with our trading partners.

I would also like to mention that there was recently an article, probably a few months ago — I don't exactly know the time — in a publication which is well-known for its frequent opposition to the policies of this government. This article claimed that this tax is a good policy for consumers.

[1610]
[ Page 4399 ]

The article cited the opinion of two UBC economists, who recognized the significance of the harmonized sales tax, the HST. I've mentioned Professor Milligan already. He's quoted as saying: "HST isn't a left-right issue, and it isn't ideological as far as economists are concerned. It's just good policy." This is what Professor Milligan said. So I believe this is…. After a lot of research and consideration, he made this conclusion in one of the publications well known to the opposition.

They point out that currently we don't notice the PST, our provincial sales tax or provincial service tax, on our bill. At our sales register, the PST sometimes is not noticed. This does not mean that we haven't paid for the PST. Some of it doesn't show up at the register. The layers and layers of PST are paid for already for this product without showing in the consumers' payment before the register.

The companies who make the product at various points pay the PST, as I said. So in order to make up this cost, they factor for this in the price settings of their products, and this is passed along to the consumers. So the consumer has been paying layers and layers of PST already. With one HST, it's simplified, so the costs should reduce. Of course, when the same companies are no longer forced to pay the PST at multiple points and stages, then they will be able to price their product lower and more competitively for our consumers.

So it's quite easy to see how HST will make life easier for everyone. We have, of course, heard that many studies have proved the overall benefit of HST.

Over the last decade we have made a significant cut on income tax for families as well — if I might change the topic a little bit — which has them paying some of the lowest rates in the country. Our provincial tax structure, actually, is quite good for the consumers and quite good for people earning a living in our province.

An individual earning $50,000 is currently paying $2,199 in income tax. Compared to ten years ago, in 2001 they paid $4,211. Right now they are paying $2,199. It means that they are saving nearly 50 percent. It's a difference of about $2,012 in savings because of our tax reform and reduction. This is very significant for those people earning $50,000.

But I can give more examples. The example I cited is a 47 percent reduction in this family's tax. For an individual earning $30,000, actually, the reduction in income tax is about 53 percent. In 2001 that individual paid $1,848, and in 2010 this individual only paid $869 in income tax. That's a reduction of $979, representing a 53 percent reduction.

For people earning $10,000, a very low income, in 2001, under the NDP, they paid $168 in tax. But under the current system they pay zero — no tax — saving 100 percent. This is good for individuals and families.

[1615]

Those are significant savings. Furthermore, it shows that we are and always have been in full support of British Columbians and dedicated to putting more money in their pockets.

B.C.'s personal income taxes are the lowest of the provinces for individuals earning up to $118,000. Because of this fact, we are in better shape than most other provinces when it comes to introducing the HST.

For families of four earning $30,000, with the harmonized tax credit, they will receive an extra $552 a year in their pocket because of the tax rebate. Actually, they will end up with more dollars in their pockets.

A family of four earning $60,000 a year. According to Stats Canada, on average, consumption is going to cost a family making that kind of money a year about $134 more, or about $10 more per month. This is according to Stats Canada's statistics on average consumption.

Your B.C. government will introduce a B.C. HST credit, which will be paid quarterly with the GST and the lower-income climate action tax credit, to offset the impact of the HST on those with low incomes.

We understand that our young families are the key to building the future of B.C. This is why we have chosen to extend tax breaks to them and have exempted items such as children's clothing; car seats; diapers; books; child care services for children under 14; most health, medical and dental services; and even music lessons. This is under the HST exemption and rebate. These are things that will help families in their younger years and give them the help they need to raise their children.

Aside from the tax cuts we have given to families and individuals, we also recognize the importance of our small business sector. Our small business sector is very important in this province and is responsible for nearly 98 percent of all business in our province. It is very encouraging to know that there are so many of us in the province who are able to operate our own business and do so successfully.

Those small business people are essential to economic growth and job creation, which is something to be proud of. It is estimated that small businesses generate about 56 percent of all private sector jobs in this province. This outlook is very promising when you consider the implementation of the HST.

By allowing these business owners to increase the amount of business they can do, we are making sure they can expand. This means that they need to hire more employees, which is something that everyone in our province can look forward to. New jobs will be popping up in every community of this province — the rural communities, the urban communities — with the HST.

This will give momentum to our resource industries. How can anyone argue against this — creating more jobs for our mining sector, our forestry sector, our agriculture sector, our trucking sector? This is great for them.
[ Page 4400 ]

The HST will reduce costs for small businesses by eliminating the PST on business costs, because whatever small business you are in, you are paying some PST, which is not deductible in some cases. In this case, the HST will actually reduce some of those costs. There will be, generally, about $2 billion in savings for all businesses, and we know that these savings will be passed along to the consumers one way or another.

[1620]

Right now all of these steps involved in factoring this PST into the cost of business are a very costly and complicated process for the business owners. The PST is very complicated. Instead, the HST will work to eliminate the current duplications, and businesses can expect to save about $150 million each year with the new streamlined HST tax system. Those are the savings in the system itself. So you make the system less complicated. That will save the system dollars for those elements in those systems, and we are allowing our business owners to succeed like they never have before.

Of course, the major corporations are also important to the province, and we have to make it easier for them to succeed as well. Our current corporate tax rate is among the lowest in North America. With the amount of investment we are expecting to come from the Asia-Pacific region, we will be seeing many new firms locate their North American headquarters in our province. So it's very easy to see just how beneficial the HST will be for the province.

I would like to consider, to think about the HST — what I heard about that from the opposition. There are many people who may have been given some incorrect information, in fact, regarding the HST and how it will affect their spending.

The NDP have made an effort, I believe, to try to scare people by using some false scenarios. They suggested that the consumers will spend thousands of extra dollars as a result of the HST each year. We already know that British Columbians pay some of the lowest tax rates in the country. We know that there are a number of rebates offered to lower-income individuals and families.

On top of this, we are making it clear that there are many items that would be exempt from the HST. Gasoline, diesel, biodiesel and many of the fuels needed for transportation have been exempt. It has been claimed that people will have to consider the HST when they budget their costs of fuel, which is clearly misinformation. The heating cost of electricity, gas at home…. There will be no impact from the HST. The most essential products will, in fact, be exempt from HST. Things like basic groceries will be exempt.

As an example of how the public is being misled by the NDP, I have received e-mails from constituents lately who are upset because they think they will have to pay more on the cost of heating their home. Of course I reply by telling them that their home energy costs or hydro bill will not increase because of the HST. I explain that the gas and hydro bill from July 1, 2010, on should show that the provincial part of the HST, the 7 percent, will be deducted from the 12 percent HST. So they will not be paying any more because of the HST. They are completely surprised by my answer and, of course, quite pleased to hear this news.

Anyone who had been tricked would be happy to learn the truth. I answer many of their concerns, and all of their concerns end up being some of the other things that will not be impacted.

I also received an e-mail from a man….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

I recognize the member for Juan de Fuca.

[1625]

J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and I am pleased that you recognized me. [Applause.] I'm not that far away, so that shouldn't have been a surprise, and I'm grateful for the applause from my colleague from Shuswap as well.

I am pleased to rise and speak in the negative to Bill 9, with its convoluted name, and this may come as a surprise. Kamloops, the fellow from Alberta recently is telling me that I should reconsider. Well, we'll see how the debate goes. At this point in time I'm leaning on the no side, but I can be persuaded. I can be persuaded, as I'm hopeful that open-minded members on the other side of the House can be persuaded by the forcefulness of my arguments over the next 30 minutes.

As I said, and as most people know, we're debating second reading of Bill 9, the Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act, which most people will not recognize as the implementation of the HST, which will be coming our way provided that seven members of the government side don't find themselves on the side of their constituents over the next number of days and vote against the bill.

I want to start my remarks by — and I know we've had some significant debate over the past number of weeks — trying to set the context of how we got here. I have spoken on this before. I spoke about the election campaign in my response to the throne speech and in my response to the budget, and I took members of the Legislature back to October of 2008. I realize that that may be a trip down memory lane that's uncomfortable for members on that side of the House, but it was at that time that the Premier commandeered the airwaves in an effort to respond to the global financial crisis.

He spoke of ten key points that he felt would be able to revitalize the B.C. economy, and what was startling about those ten points was the absence of any reference whatsoever to a harmonized sales tax. Now, one would think…. I know members on this side of the House are certainly curious about how it came to be that the
[ Page 4401 ]
Premier could come to the point where he had ten key elements that would revitalize the economy — one, of course, was reducing ferry fares for a couple of months — but he didn't mention the harmonized sales tax.

Three days after the election, we learned today, provincial officials were in discussions with federal officials to move towards harmonizing the provincial sales tax with the goods and services tax. But in October of 2008, from that point on through the election campaign in May of 2009, not a mention of the harmonized sales tax. Shortly thereafter it became — as everyone is now familiar, listening to speeches from members on the other side of the House — the single most important thing we could do for the economy.

Well, I'm curious. My constituents are curious. If it's the single most important thing a government could do for the economy, why in the world wouldn't you be talking about that during an election campaign? And if you're not brave enough, bold enough to talk about shifting $2 billion from industry to consumers during an election campaign…. And that's a fair comment. One would have difficulty, I think, selling that on the doorstep.

But if you're the Premier of British Columbia, you're faced with what is at the time a potential catastrophic meltdown in our financial institutions internationally. You commandeer the airwaves. You say you have ten key points that are going to save the economy. You would think that the harmonized sales tax would have been one of those key points, and as everyone in this place knows — government side, opposition side — it wasn't one of those ten key points. It wasn't as important as reducing ferry fares over the Christmas season. That was in the top ten in the Premier's mind.

Now, David Letterman would have some fun with this, I think, and I know that the member for Shuswap has probably thought about how he could have some fun with the ten points the Premier came up with, but sadly, he still has a seat at executive council, and he's not likely to want to give that up any time soon. So he's not going to have some fun with that.

I'm going to let it go, hon. Speaker. That may come as a surprise to you, but I've got so much material here that I want to get through and raise on behalf of my constituents that I'm not going to waste time with the top ten list as to why we need to do away with the harmonized sales tax.

[1630]

My colleague from Surrey-Whalley has already started a competition in his constituency to rename this piece of legislation to more appropriately reflect what it is we're doing here in the Legislature. The Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act really doesn't come close to what, certainly, I'm hearing from people in my constituency.

I'm concerned. Again, I go back to the election campaign. That is the time most often where ideas are exchanged. Political parties and individuals approach the people in their community with their views, their visions. They put that out there, and they ask for support. During the last election campaign the government side made no reference to introducing a harmonized sales tax — in fact, quite the opposite. They advised the organization most concerned about this, the restaurant association, that they would not implement a harmonized sales tax. It was not on their radar.

Now, I know it's probably becoming repetitive for members on the other side to hear this over and over again, but had they the courage to go out and talk to their constituents, you can well imagine what they'd be hearing right now.

The rebuff from the restaurant association back this past summer when the announcement was made that the government had changed its mind, had decided that the single most important thing that they could do for the economy was to harmonize the two sales taxes, the GST and the provincial sales tax…. Had they gone to their publics, had they gone to their constituencies, as we did on this side of the House, they would have gotten an earful.

Instead, many members on that side of the House have chosen to ridicule their constituents or, worse, citizens in our constituencies across the province. In particular, I need to really make reference to the eloquent words of the member for Comox Valley, who in a moment of…. I don't know what you would say. I'm certain that he's regretting the fact that he said the following in Hansard, in this place, not a couple of days ago: "When you start talking about things like anecdotal evidence and little old ladies in Kelowna and bike store owners in Nelson, this isn't the stuff that's actually going to convince anybody that what you're doing is the right thing."

Now, I don't know about you, hon. Speaker. I know the member for Swan Lake and the member for Nanaimo agree with me that when you start having contempt for the people who send you here, it's about time to start thinking of a new career, because if you're not thinking about that yourself, I can assure you that your constituents are already planning your early retirement.

We have legislation in this province, as you know, hon. Speaker. We have an Initiative and Referendum Act, and we have a Recall Act. I am signed up as a canvasser for the initiative campaign currently underway in my constituency. It's a citizen-led initiative. I am happy to participate with my neighbours, talking about the impacts of this legislation on their family budgets.

I'm very much looking forward to communities across B.C. — mostly across the floor from us — looking at testing the Recall Act sometime in the fall. That will be indeed interesting to see how much contempt members of the government caucus have for constituents at that point in time.
[ Page 4402 ]

I'm going to list off a whole series of issues about this bill that I find disturbing. I'm going to speak on behalf of my constituents. I'm going to make reference to comments they've made to me over the past number of months, but ultimately, it comes down to…. Members on the other side have said that this is the single most important thing for the economy. They didn't say that before an election.

They've also said that the existing tax is a job-destroying tax. Now, that's interesting. It sounds like you're playing Space Invaders or some sort of video game. You can just see the little icons on your computer screen going along, chewing up jobs.

Now, if the provincial sales tax, the social services tax, which has been in place for a half-century here in British Columbia, was a job-destroying tax, again, I would have assumed that the government would have done away with it on day one back in 2001 when they formed government.

But no. Well, they dropped it and then they raised it again. It went down and then it went up again. So they were using it as a mechanism for economic development. They were using it as a mechanism to shift behaviours in the community. That's the appropriate thing to do as a government — using tax policy to somehow find a better course of action for citizens.

Some call it social engineering. Others call it shifting economic activity in favour of those activities that are beneficial to the community, beneficial to the environment and shifting away from those activities that are detrimental to citizens and detrimental to the environment.

[1635]

With this bill, we are shifting our ability, we are giving up our ability, our autonomy with respect to social services taxation, to create the environment in our communities that we would want to have.

Now, I heard from the member from Richmond somewhere who said that just like the carbon tax…. I look at the exemptions that we do have with the harmonized sales tax, and I find that fuels are exempt. This is curious to me. It's curious to me that it's a carbon exemption. We have a carbon tax; therefore, we don't need a harmonized sales tax.

The list goes on and on. The member for Prince George–Mackenzie, the current Forests Minister, said that it will strengthen the forest industry. You'll forgive me, hon. Speaker, if I take issue with that, because the last time I heard a Forests Minister say that a B.C. Liberal policy was going to be good for the forest industry was when they dismantled tree farm licences here on Vancouver Island.

It would create jobs on the land base; that's what I was told. That's what this place was told. That's what my community was told. It didn't quite happen that way, hon. Speaker, as you know full well. So when the Minister of Forests now stands in this place and says the harmonized sales tax, the single most important thing we can do for the economy, will strengthen the forest industry, I've got to take that with a bit of a grain of salt, if not a great big salt lick.

The other issue I want to talk about is that when this government came into power, they gave a $120 million exemption to large corporations on machinery and equipment taxation. My colleague from Surrey-Whalley asked the Minister of Finance if there had been any studies done on the impact, the benefit, of that tax giveaway — $120 million a year over nine years. That's a billion dollars — a billion dollars that we've given in a break to business, to industry, to the forest sectors and the mining sector.

My colleague from Surrey-Whalley asked the Minister of Finance if there was any analysis done on any appreciable benefit from that tax giveaway. The response was: "No, there's been no work done on that." Not even Jack Mintz was brought in to sugar-coat that one.

A billion dollars over the course of the two terms of this B.C. Liberal government, and no evidence that anything positive came out of that other than more money in the pockets of shareholders and, of course, bonuses for executive members, CEOs and the like. We certainly don't want to begrudge that, an important element in the economy. The single most important thing we can do for the economy, apparently, is to take a $2 billion tax burden off of industry and put it on the backs of consumers in our constituencies.

Again, I've been talking to people in my neighbourhood, and they're not buying what this government is selling — not even close. This comes as a surprise to the member for Fraser-Nicola. I see the Minister of Mines is here, and I'm glad he is because he reminds me of the estimates debate last year. This was during the budget where we were advised that the budget deficit was not, in fact, the $495 million that was guaranteed to us during the election campaign when we weren't going to implement the harmonized sales tax.

This was the budget that was in the $3 billion range — only the second-highest in B.C. history, because the one in 2001 that the Liberals introduced was the highest in B.C. history. I asked the Minister of Mines at that time if there had been any work done, any analysis by staff in his ministry, by staff in the Ministry of Energy and Mines, on the benefits of the harmonized sales tax on the mining sector.

I asked him 19 different ways, and I finally got an answer. That answer was, of course: "No, there was no work done." But the minister was confident that the Mining Association had said it was a good idea, and that was good enough for him. "I'm going to transfer $2 billion worth of tax revenue from industry to consumers, and that's okay."

I've got news for the member and members on that side of the House. The Mining Association, as affable
[ Page 4403 ]
as those gentlemen are…. I've met them; they're good people. They only get one vote, and there are only about ten of them on the association. But there are hundreds of thousands of people who are going to be signing petitions over the next 90 days in constituencies right across this province — and most importantly, in constituencies of government members — reminding them that their analysis, their detailed work on the HST has come to the conclusion that it's a bad idea, and they're voting against it, just as we are on this side of the House.

I want to talk a little bit about the studies that were done after the fact. The Minister of Finance, seeing his fig leaf getting smaller and smaller as he tried to defend the indefensible, hired a gun, a loaded gun from Alberta. Jack Mintz is his name.

[1640]

He had done a study for the C.D. Howe Institute in 2008 on the harmonized sales tax, and he said the following: "These more positive results would come at the cost of a longer and deeper period of short-term loss, including, for example, an estimated reduction of just under 38,000 jobs in the second year." That's what the C.D. Howe Institute report authored by Mr. Mintz said in 2008.

It's amazing what you can do when you're paying the bill, however. When the B.C. Liberals retained Mr. Mintz to do a review of the harmonized sales tax, they got a different result — a result that talked about 100,000 jobs over ten years, which is about 10,000 jobs a year, which is about the normal growth in the economy if things are perking along at about 2 percent.

The member from Port Moody would certainly confirm that. He's quick to be on my local radio station talking about even infinitesimal increases in the employment rate, and that's a good thing. We all want to see more jobs in our communities, but I would like to see some tangible evidence, not the anecdotal evidence from Mr. Mintz, that there are going to be new jobs in my community.

I cannot take on face value the affirmation from the Minister of Forests that shifting taxes from companies to consumers is going to somehow revive the forest industry in my community, because it just ain't going to happen. Not going to happen on Vancouver Island. It may well happen in the Interior. I can't speak for the people up there, but it's certainly not going to happen on Vancouver Island, and that's my primary concern in this debate.

It's that shift from corporations to consumers that puzzles me about the B.C. Liberals. I was on the Finance Committee with the current Minister of Mines. I heard the Minister of Finance just today, when he was advising this House that the government is about to initiate a propaganda campaign, sending leaflets and flyers and perhaps some TV and radio ads to somehow try and shift the interest away from defeating this tax to getting some goodwill in the community.

What struck me is that the Minister of Finance said that the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services unanimously endorsed the HST, which is not true. It's not true. What the Finance Committee did was agree unanimously that we should probably have a look at it. Let's have a look at it. Let's do a study, a comprehensive review of the pluses and minuses, the pros and cons, of harmonizing the two sales taxes. That is not an endorsement. That's a request for information from the Ministry of Finance — never happened, wasn't forthcoming, didn't come our way.

What we got instead was a study by Mr. Mintz, who said two years ago that there were going to be 38,000 jobs lost. Two years later, he said: "Oh, there might be 100,000 jobs over ten years." What I like about this government is that they have a vision that's always ten years out, twenty years out, thirty years out. My constituents are concerned about tomorrow. They're concerned about next month. They're concerned about next year. If they're ill….

I had the misfortune — and I don't want any crocodile tears from the opposite side — of losing my mother this past summer. And I know what it's like to go to a funeral home and be told: "This is how much it's going to cost to pass your mother on to the next stage in her existence." It's expensive. I have a good job. I get paid well. I can handle that. But an increased cost…. It did annoy me. It annoyed me that I had to pay a tax to put my mother in a box. It troubled me a great deal. It troubled my family members, and I know it will trouble other family members in British Columbia.

This is odious. It's absolutely odious. If you're going to find an exemption, the least you could have done is exempted putting people in the ground, but this government didn't have the heart to do that. They didn't even have the heart to do that.

The list of activities and services that will now be taxed is also odious. I want to start with school supplies, because my colleague from New Westminster mentioned crayons. What kind of government taxes crayons? Magic Markers. Kids' Magic Markers are now going to be taxed by this government. First time in the history of British Columbia that you can't go and get some Crayolas without paying an extra 7 percent. "What kind of government does that?" says Delta North. I don't know. A bad government.

The restaurant industry. We've already heard about that. We've heard from this side of the House. We haven't heard anything from that side of the House, which is strange, because historically, the restaurant associations have been ardent supporters of the B.C. Liberal Party. In fact, they've made significant financial contributions over the years.

[1645]

But I guess if you're looking at your third term and thinking, "Well, there's not much chance we're ever
[ Page 4404 ]
going to get re-elected again," you can put those supporters on the back burner, just like you can kids and families. Crayons, hon. Speaker, crayons.

Ice time. Again, regular families have to find these little chunks of cash to pay for family activities. You sign your child up for hockey or figure skating or lacrosse or soccer, trying to keep them fit and healthy, which I know the Minister of Healthy Living would support, but what is going to happen now? This government, the B.C. Liberals, are going to increase the costs of participating in community activities like ice hockey, soccer, lacrosse — absolutely the wrong thing to do.

Again, it goes back to giving up our autonomy. As a subnational government, we don't have very many tools at our disposal. Quite often I hear the Minister of Finance and the Premier talk about how grand they are at predicting how this province is going to take off and the economy is going to just burn right into the future. But we don't have that many tools at our disposal.

When things turn bad, the first person to stand up and say, "Hey, it's not our problem," was the Premier. He was the first one to stand up and say: "Well, jeez, we're just a small, tiny, mixed economy on the north coast of the Pacific Ocean. What control do we have over the international financial institutions? What control do we ever have over commodity prices?" Not very much.

When the forest industry went down, we heard the previous minister and the current Minister of Forests talk about international trends beyond our control. Well, one of the few things we do have in our control is an ability to use our social service tax to effect economic activity in the province, social development and environmental protection.

My colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake has done a very, very good job of inventorying, for the people on the south Island, the environmental impacts the harmonized sales tax will have here in B.C., particularly when it comes to things like energy-efficient appliances, windows, retrofits. The list goes on and on and on. The government talks about a green economy, but they're not putting in place policies that will encourage people. Where's the carrot? There are only sticks with this government. We need some carrots.

The social service tax, the provincial sales tax, was one of those mechanisms. I believe it was just last month that the exemption on energy-efficient appliances — dryers, washers, air-conditioning equipment, and so on — was removed. So there was a rush to purchase this equipment just before the exemption was lifted, and now we no longer have any ability to influence consumer decisions on those products.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: All the carrots went to Western Forest Products — that's right. That's about the only thing they'll be able to grow on those lands as well, because the silviculture obligations are certainly going out the door, just like their obligations to create jobs in the community.

The challenge, again, for families is increased costs. We've talked about the impact of the HST. We haven't talked about hydro rates. We haven't talked about MSP premiums. We haven't talked about the whole host of other costs that have been loaded onto families by this government.

For me, it's sports. I talked about that. There are also school supplies — pens, books, crayons — again with the crayons. I just can't understand that. What kind of government would tax crayons? There's a whole list of others. I want to go through those, because others have, and I just want to ensure that my remarks on this bill also have that inventory of items that will be seeing an increase in taxes.

There are taxi fares. I don't take a lot of taxis, but I know that there are some members on that side of the House that wish they had taken a taxi during the Olympics. They wouldn't have had to pay the additional costs then, but now they do. Recreational services like live theatre, movie tickets, camping fees, museum admissions, whale-watching tours.

Tax preparation services. My colleague from New Westminster made reference to that. Mutual fund management. If you're trying to save for your retirement, it's going to cost you a little bit more now.

Professional services, if you're in the development industry. In Langford, in my community, and all on the West Shore of Victoria, development is what's driving the economy. New home construction is what's driving the economy.

It goes on and on. This government doesn't have a focus on family issues. They have a focus on corporate issues, and it's going to cost, in my community.

Haircuts. Now, I don't have a lot of hair to cut anymore, and it doesn't take very long, once I've sat in the chair. The prospect of paying more for that is disappointing to me, and I'm sure it's disappointing to many others in the community.

[1650]

Vitamins, dietary supplements, other non-prescription medical products, magazines, newspapers. Trying to inform yourself, trying to learn more about what's going on in your community is going to cost you a little bit more.

My colleague from Saanich South has done just a spectacular job of mobilizing bike retailers and bike shops here in the south Island and, in fact, right across B.C., drawing attention in communities to the increased costs in purchasing low-impact — in fact, no-impact — transportation such as bicycles. Repairs on those bicycles, parts for those bicycles, previously exempt — exempt for decades in British Columbia…. Now they're going to be taxed.
[ Page 4405 ]

I've got a goddaughter who's getting married this summer. I hope that she paid the wedding planner in advance, because she's going to have to pay a new tax on that.

Catering; and I did mention funeral services as well; laundry; dry cleaning; carpet and upholstery cleaning; gardening; landscaping. You name it; it's going to be taxed.

Work-related safety equipment — again, a curiosity. I would have thought that a responsible government would look at work-related safety equipment as something that should be exempt from taxation. Not so with this group.

Automobile towing. I want to touch on this one for a little bit, because nothing is more annoying than going to the parking spot where you left your car and finding it gone. You're already unhappy. You've got to pay somebody that you don't like to get your car out of the impound. Now, thanks to the benevolence of the B.C. Liberal Party, you're going to be paying 7 percent more to get your car out of the impound. Now, that's just low. It's absolutely low. I don't know what kind of government would do that sort of thing, but there you go.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Yeah, one that's run out of ideas.

I just want to talk a little bit more, as I'm running out of time here…. I want to talk about the initiative campaign that was referred to today in question period and, of course, is a topic of much attention on both sides of this Legislature. I signed up to be a canvasser. I've signed up to talk to my neighbours about this. I'm hopeful that I'll be informative and that I'll be able to assist people in making a decision as to whether or not they choose to sign a petition opposed to this legislation.

It's hard for me to understand why, again, the government members wouldn't take the opportunity over the next 90 days to reach out to their constituents. They didn't sign up to oppose the initiative. They're just going to let that go and instead depend on taxpayers' dollars to fund propaganda to dissuade people from participating in the initiative process.

That's unfortunate, because one of the issues that we've been talking about here in this House since the tabling of the budget is the reduction of services for families, reductions of services for day cares here in the south Island and right across B.C. The moneys that the Minister of Finance is going to expend to send out literature on a tax that nobody wants could have gone to ensuring that adequate dental care was in place for low-income families. It could have been there to ensure that autism funding for early intervention programs was in place.

Whenever you see little tiny bits of money cut from programs and then you see something brought to you by the government of British Columbia, the best place on earth to send propaganda from, it offends people. And it doesn't offend them a little bit; it offends them a lot. It happened when the NDP was in government. It happened when Social Credit was in government. Using the instruments of government to tell the citizens to eat their porridge is odious. People don't like being told to like something that they don't like. They know that. They've got it. It's instinctive.

This juggernaut, this train you hear a comin' down the tracks, hon. Speaker, is coming right at all of those members on that side of the House. It's big. It's making a lot of noise, and it's angry, and it's ornery, and it's called "the people of British Columbia." They are tired of this government. They're tired of distortions. They're tired of deception. Most importantly, they're tired of being ignored.

Members will know that people make choices for different reasons. They look at their family situation. They look at their neighbourhood. They look at their community. But one thing that I am absolutely certain of is that the government on that side of the House does not know what they've done. They've poked the hornets' nest, and that hornets' nest is the people that pay for this place and everything that goes on in it, and they're tired of footing the bill for a bunch of people that aren't listening to what they have to say — absolutely tired of it.

[1655]

The train's a comin', Members. I got on board. You guys are still on the tracks. I strongly advise you — at least seven of you — to wake up before you get run over and do the right thing. Support your constituents. Vote against Bill 9. Do the right thing, and you might, you just might, not have to find something else to do after the next election.

Hon. S. Bond: It's extremely appropriate that the member opposite finished his speech using transportation analogies. He wouldn't have known that I'd be the next person to get up. I think it's very appropriate that we get to talk about things like transportation.

I do think that, in fact, British Columbians are also tired of something else. I think they're tired of politicians who are absolutely unprepared to make very difficult decisions that are required to lead economies in British Columbia and in the rest of the country during tough economic times.

I think the other thing they're tired of is…. You know, this is a place where we get the opportunity to stand up and express differing views. What's most disappointing is when the level of that debate includes cheap personal shots and personal commentary. You know, that disappoints British Columbians too.

While I certainly respect the members opposite's opportunities to stand up and make their views known, it sure would be nice for a change — just one day in this
[ Page 4406 ]
Legislature that doesn't include cheap personal shots like one that the member opposite just made.

Hopefully, we can actually raise the debate to a level of actually discussing why looking at changing tax policies is an important consideration. You know, the members opposite, as they've made their commentary, have actually simply set aside the information that's provided by economists around the world, not simply in British Columbia.

This isn't something that the province of British Columbia is discussing on their own. In fact, let's look just for a moment at the company that we're keeping in terms of why it's important to shift tax policy, especially during economic times that are the most challenging in decades. Let's look at some of the other people that we're keeping company with. Let's look at Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, the United Kingdom and Spain.

Let's come a little bit closer to home. Let's come just a tiny bit closer to home and look at the rest of the country. Let's start with Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members. Order.

Continue, Minister. Thank you.

Hon. S. Bond: Let's just talk for a moment…. And maybe the sensitivity is because of the location of Nova Scotia. Let's talk about why it's important that governments demonstrate leadership. In fact, let's look at what happened in Nova Scotia with the province's NDP government. Let's take a look just for a moment at that.

They were elected last June, and you know, they tabled a $9 billion budget just recently. This article is from April 15, as it struggles to deal with shrinking revenue, a hefty deficit and a waning recession. Well, guess what they decided to do? They actually decided to reduce the size of the civil service; overhaul the public sector pension plans; reduce its spending; and in addition to that, the HST. This is an NDP government in Nova Scotia.

They decided that one of the ways they were going to turn around their economy was actually by increasing their HST to 15 percent in Nova Scotia. Let's look at what that Nova Scotia government said when they were elected. In fact, what they said was that they didn't intend to actually have to deal with things like making budget cuts or increasing taxes.

Let's look at this. When that party assumed government, Premier Darrell Dexter promised to balance the budget without raising taxes or cutting spending, but do you know what he then went on to say most recently? "Spending must be controlled, revenues must be increased, and the economy must grow. We will control our destiny."

[1700]

That from an NDP government on the other side of Canada, which was making the tough decisions necessary to revive their economy, balance their budget and do what their constituents expect them to do in terms of a stronger economy for Nova Scotia.

They are not alone. When you look at another one of the provinces, they said: "You know, we didn't want to consider the HST, and we're not really thinking we need to be looking at the HST." Let's look at what the province of Saskatchewan has recently said that they need to do. Let's look at the headlines.

"'Saskatchewan could be the next province….'"

Interjection.

Hon. S. Bond: Madam Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Hon. S. Bond: "'Saskatchewan could be the next province to consider a harmonized sales tax,' the province's Finance Minister said on Friday." This was March 26 that this article said: "In 2009, Gantefoer dismissed the possibility of bringing tax harmony to Saskatchewan, but Ontario and B.C. recently are moving to harmonize their taxes."

It's about competitiveness. While it's easy to stand in this Legislature and make commentary about dismissing what is an important and profound economic policy — and the members opposite do it on an hour-by-hour basis — we know that in order to secure the long-term future of British Columbia for our children and our grandchildren, today those decisions are necessary, and they are important.

You know, it's fine. The members opposite can ignore what we have to say, but let's look at exactly what economists have said. We can listen to the members opposite downplay the importance of listening to experts. We simply will not do that.

What happened was that the world's economy changed — the most dramatic recession in decades. In fact, what we need to do now is respond to those circumstances. So let's look at who thinks that making a shift in tax policy is important. It's not just us. Let's listen to this. Let's look at what happened in Canada's Atlantic provinces.

When the Atlantic provinces began the HST, with the introduction in 1997, Michael Smart, who is a University of Toronto economics professor, released numerous research papers on the influence of the HST. Guess what happened when Atlantic Canada did that.

Michael Smart points out that there was almost immediately something like an 11 percent increase in business investment. Well, I can tell you what, Madam Speaker. This side of the House is going to make the decisions necessary to ensure that we see those kinds of investment increases taking place in the province
[ Page 4407 ]
of British Columbia, not in the province of Ontario. That's exactly what would have happened if we didn't make this decision, and that's why we're moving forward to ensure that prosperity is right here in this province.

As we look at why it's important, maybe we need to go through the tax shift 101 process here. The members opposite spend hours decrying the change to a harmonized sales tax. Have they stopped to contemplate what the current tax regime does to consumers in British Columbia? It is a cascading tax — the current system. It means that every level increases the tax. Where does that ultimately end up? That ends up being a situation that consumers face.

Let's look at a television, for example. First, the television must be made by a manufacturer who purchases goods or inputs during the production process, such as raw materials and equipment.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Accordingly, the manufacturer must pay a sales tax on these items, which they build into the price. When a wholesaler purchases a television from the manufacturer, they have to pay tax on the transaction. Part of the tax the wholesaler pays will be on the tax paid by the manufacturer in producing the television, which is built into the price. This occurs again when a retailer purchases the television from the wholesaler.

We know that it is an essential and important shift when we move to harmonizing the sales tax. It is important for consumers. Economist after economist after economist…. Apparently the members opposite don't feel it necessary to actually pay attention to the people who are experts in fiscal management, and we certainly saw adequate demonstrations of that in the 1990s.

[1705]

When you look at the other benefits, we look at…. A leading economist has also said: "…the harmonized sales tax is one of the most important things" — in this case, referring to Ontario — "we can do to help make the economy more competitive." He says: "The critics are missing the broader context. We're going to get a competitive pressure on Ontario, the likes of which I think has never been seen before."

Just imagine. If Ontario moved and British Columbia didn't, where do you think that pressure was going to exist? It would be in British Columbia. We're not prepared to stand back and watch us lose a competitive advantage, and that's why it's important that we move forward.

The thing that's interesting as we sit and listen to the template speeches on the other side and the lists and the commentary that's pretty much the same…. We hear the same lists, and we hear the same commentary. What's interesting is that we don't hear any of the stories from those major companies who actually want to invest in British Columbia and who have said that it is essential to their investment.

Let me talk just for a moment or two about some incredibly important partners in the sector that I'm responsible for. I am pleased to have a letter that arrived from CN Rail. Let me tell you exactly what CN Rail said about the HST. "On behalf of CN, I'm writing to acknowledge and applaud the government for its recent decision to move to a harmonized sales tax."

Let me tell you more specifically, from the letter, why it's important.

"In 2009, last year, CN will make approximately $127 million in capital investments in British Columbia. Simplification of the taxation system among the provinces is important to national companies such as CN. The HST is a step towards uniformity, which will help us manage our costs by increasing our operating efficiencies and reducing administrative costs. The move to a harmonized sales tax also sends a positive signal to our B.C.-based customers, many of whom will benefit directly."

We've received letters from the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters — and from Canadian Pacific, which says: "When we look at the harmonized sales tax for CP, the harmonized sales tax helps us manage our costs and increase our efficiencies. In these challenging times, it is a meaningful benefit to our company and to our 16,000 employees, and as information, approximately 15 percent of those are residents of British Columbia."

It is absolutely clear that when you look at the expertise, the economists tell us that the move to a harmonized sales tax is absolutely essential if we want British Columbia to prosper, to be able to attract investment. In fact, we are moving to join a very large group of jurisdictions who have recognized that fact, and it is important that we ensure British Columbia's competitiveness by doing the same thing.

Perhaps the thing that is most frustrating and that many of us feel most personally is the constant commentary by members opposite about our attention to families in British Columbia. I want to tell you that the men and women on this side of the House share a deep and profound concern and compassion for families in British Columbia.

As we have designed policy over the past decade, we have always, first and foremost, considered those most vulnerable. That is exactly what we have done in terms of the benefits of the harmonized sales tax, and we don't hear this part of the story from the members opposite.

We need to recognize that under the proposed harmonized sales tax, a tax credit will support low-income families and seniors. It is absolutely irresponsible to be creating fear and uncertainty for those vulnerable families and seniors in this province. We have put in place a B.C. HST credit for families and for individuals. In fact, families will receive an annual credit of $230 for individuals with income up to $20,000, and $230 per family
[ Page 4408 ]
member for families with incomes of up to $25,000 — paid quarterly with the GST credit.

[1710]

That will benefit and assist over 1.1 million British Columbians. Not a single mention of that from the Leader of the Opposition or her MLAs. That is simply irresponsible to the citizens of British Columbia — to actually fearmonger and create that kind of uncertainty for vulnerable families and seniors in this province.

This policy is not about politics, and neither should it be. It is about good public policy that protects the future of British Columbia.

Most importantly, it's about jobs. I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that while the members opposite may not want to talk about job creation in British Columbia, we are proud to stand on a record that has seen us drive job creation to create a competitive environment in this province, to ensure that as we move forward, British Columbians will have the one thing they want the most.

When you ask families what they really want, they want a job. They want a job that pays them so that they can actually take care of their families. It's essential, in fact, that governments provide programs to care for those families that need assistance, but the very best thing that governments can do for families is make sure that they have well-paying jobs.

I can tell you this. Despite all of the commentary that we continue to hear from the other side of the House…. Let's talk about what the HST will do for British Columbian families. It will keep British Columbia competitive with jurisdictions in Canada and globally. Seven of ten provinces are either moving to a value-added tax or have one.

The HST reduces costs on investment and compliance by over $2 billion a year. Important industries in this province will have the opportunity to reinvest in people, in families and in jobs, most importantly — what families most want.

Let's look at a list of what those benefits would include: $880 million from the construction sector, $140 million in the manufacturing sector, $210 million in the transportation sector, $140 million in the forestry sector and $80 million in the oil and gas sector. In every single one of those industries it allows those who will make choices about investments and what to do with those dollars to make choices to keep mills open, to open mines in this province, to provide jobs that are meaningful and well-paying for British Columbians.

That's what governments are supposed to do. They're supposed to stimulate the economy, find ways to remove impediments, and ensure that people and families have what they need the most: jobs.

I can assure you that while it would be easy to have a discussion about the politics and how challenging they are on an issue of this nature, it is much more difficult to stand up and to have the backbone to make the decisions that in fact are necessary for the future of British Columbia.

I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that to a member on this side of the House, we're going to do that for the future of British Columbia. We're going to make those tough decisions, and we're going to continue to find a way to make sure that British Columbia leads Canada, as it deserves to, and continues to be competitive.

When we look at what lies in the future in terms of the job creation, we looked at the studies that have been created. In fact, we're looking at in excess of 110,000 new jobs in British Columbia.

I live in northern British Columbia. I know and I have seen firsthand what the challenges in the economy have done. As a government, we've stepped up time and time again. We've invested in infrastructure.

In fact, today in northern British Columbia we are engaging in the single largest investment in transportation improvement and investment in the history of British Columbia — $200 million in northern British Columbia to ensure that we have the jobs and infrastructure that are necessary to make sure that those industries that are the heart of this province continue to thrive. That's our record on infrastructure and job creation.

[1715]

As we look to the future, we know that we have a responsibility to continue to look for ways to create jobs in British Columbia. And we know this. When we give industry the opportunity to take the benefits that the HST will provide, we know that they've told us that they're going to look at job creation. They're going to look at investing in new technology.

I look at the trucking sector. They're supportive of the HST. In fact, when their truckers benefit from those input credits, Madam Speaker, do you know what they'll be able to do? They're going to be able to look at clean, green technology. So not only are we looking at jobs in British Columbia; we're looking at reducing greenhouse gas emissions because truckers will be able to look at a more efficient way to run their vehicles in this province.

As we look at how we summarize…. When you think about the opposition of the members opposite, here's what the members are actually saying. When the members opposite say that they're opposed to the HST, here's what they're saying. They're against job creation in the forest industry. They're against job creation in the mining industry. They're against job creation in the energy and construction industries. Let's face it. They're against just about everything that we ever bring as a positive solution in British Columbia.

We're not going to let that stand in our way. We have a responsibility to make tough decisions based on great, sound public policy that other jurisdictions, not only across the country but around the world, have recognized
[ Page 4409 ]
the benefits from. In fact, all we have to do is look at our record when it comes to the tax reductions that we've made as a government.

The NDP record is simply this. They raise taxes, not lower them. In the 1990s the NDP increased the PST from 6 to 7 percent. They ran in 1991 on no tax increases, and then they increased them by $2 billion in the first year. That's the record of the members opposite, especially…. There are members in this House today that were there when they ran on a record to not increase taxes, and they increased them by $2 billion in the first year.

Under the NDP, B.C. had the highest marginal income taxes in Canada. The NDP has never believed in cutting taxes. In fact, as we look at their track record…. If you can imagine, in December — December 7, 2009 — here's what the leaders of the opposition said about tax breaks. Here's the Leader of the Opposition. Wait for it. "There's absolutely no tie between tax breaks and creating jobs in British Columbia." That's the commentary of the Leader of the Opposition in 2009.

The NDP have voted against dozens and dozens of tax cuts since 2001. They voted against the lowest income taxes for up to $118,000. They voted against zero income tax. They actually voted against no income tax for 325,000 low-income earners in British Columbia. I don't know how anyone could be opposed to no income tax for low-income British Columbians, yet the members opposite managed to vote against that too.

We know this. We know, as we look at the possibility for our province, as we look at the potential for British Columbia, that we can't sit here while the rest of the world — and it is the rest of the world; we're not in this alone; it's literally the rest of the world — begins to look at their competitiveness. British Columbia simply can't be left standing on the sidelines. We're not prepared to let that happen.

When we look at what the expected outcomes…. If you look at both our corporate tax cuts and the sales tax harmonization, we expect to see capital investment, and we expect to see it increased by over $14 billion and, as a net result, an increase of 141,000 jobs in British Columbia by the end of the coming decade.

[1720]

As we look at the transportation sector…. We have continually heard from organizations like the Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association, the B.C. Trucking Association. All of them recognize that the HST will not only reduce their paperwork and their administrative burden; it will give them an opportunity to become more competitive.

As we look at other leaders in our province, Manley McLachlan, president of the British Columbia Construction Association, looks forward to the HST reducing red tape, administrative costs, giving that industry it a leg up both inside and outside the province. Here's what he says: "B.C. contractors will experience overall tax cost reductions, reduced red tape and administrative costs, and" — once again, that key word completely lost in the agenda of the members opposite — "increased competitiveness with contractors inside and outside of British Columbia."

In my own home constituency, the members opposite sit and make disparaging comments about members on this side and our ability to actually relate and discuss this issue and lead within our own constituencies.

I can tell you this. In my home of Prince George, the HST will bring major benefit to major sectors of the economy, including forestry and construction. Our Initiatives Prince George president and CEO, Tim McEwan, said: "This is a critically important and long-overdue initiative to strengthen provincial productivity and competitiveness, which is the foundation for job creation and retention, and higher real incomes for people."

I want you to know something I'm very proud of, Madam Speaker. KPMG recently did a study, and they compared cities all over North America. I want you to know that Prince George recently finished first in KPMG's 2010 comparative alternative study, which compared key regional competitor cities — and countries, in fact — on a variety of factors of interest to international business. I know this. It means that Prince George, along with communities right across British Columbia, needs to remain competitive both provincially and globally.

I know that unless we look at reinvesting dollars in the mining industry, in the forestry industry, in energy, in oil and gas, we will not remain competitive. The HST allows us to see that investment returned in the form of jobs. It's so easy to sit here and to be able to talk about things. As we look at families across British Columbia, it's so easy to sit and ignore the fact that yes, government programs are important, but you know what's most important? We need an economy that can actually afford to pay for those programs.

We know that these are the most difficult economic circumstances that British Columbia has faced in decades. We need to take extraordinary measures to make sure that British Columbia and British Columbians have every possible advantage. The members opposite continue to denigrate the need to make decisions that actually allow for increased job creation in British Columbia.

I want you to know that the economists have told us, major industry in British Columbia has told us — and we know — that we need to make bold moves to ensure that British Columbians will prosper. Most importantly, we're going to stand on our job creation record. We're going to continue to build new jobs in this province. We're going to continue to be strong supporters of families in this province. That's why I stand today in support of this very important bill.
[ Page 4410 ]

G. Gentner: I rise in opposition to the harmonized sales tax, otherwise known as Bill 9. It's interesting that the Liberal government is unwilling and afraid to actually title the bill for what it is: the harmonized sales tax. They're here to defend it. I don't know why they wouldn't put it out there. It's called the Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act.

[1725]

I mean, what a way to start off naming a bill: "consumption." Can you imagine? Consumption — you know, the coughing up, tuberculosis, the spewing forth, the phlegm that's coming forward. The think tank over there really didn't have it together. Why couldn't they be honest with the people of British Columbia and call it the harmonized sales tax? But for some reason it was all about consumption. It's a pathogen. It's going to go on and on. It's going to hit everybody. When they're finished, it's not going to go away.

Interjection.

G. Gentner: It's a plague — good point.

I mean, I thought tuberculosis was eradicated. I thought it was gone, but not at all. This is the consumption tax, the consumption act.

On this side, of course, we see the difference between a regressive tax and that of being progressive, and we're seeing the fundamental shift in the last ten years relative to the tax structure of this province: how the poor will pay more and the rich get off the hook.

Let's just talk about tonight. Let's start off in a real good mood here. Tonight the Vancouver Canucks are in the playoffs, and hopefully, they're going to bring home the Stanley Cup. I think everybody wants that. I think that's a wonderful start. But starting July 1 the HST is going to hit every Canuck hockey game for an eternity.

The hockey is going to be taxed. Can you imagine? Our fundamental game will be taxed. To the member who just spoke, from Prince George: the Prince George Cougars are going to be taxed.

Let's talk about the tax. They go to a hockey game. They get a hot dog and enjoy the game, the fundamental part of rural British Columbia. You have members here from Kelowna — the Kelowna Rockets taxed. You go to the game in Kamloops, this bulwark of Liberal support that's now falling, shattering away — the Kamloops Blazers. Go to the game in Kamloops — HST. The hockey sales tax, HST.

The member mentioned earlier about how it's going to hit the kids. Sure, it's going to hit the kids — ice time, arena time — but just to go out to a decent hockey game.

The member for Kootenay East, where they have a great hockey tradition there, the Kootenay Ice — 7 percent HST hitting that hockey team, going to a hockey game. Members from Chilliwack, the Chilliwack Bruins. We've got two members here — HST.

What about this new team, the Abbotsford Heat? There's another team. We've got several members here from Abbotsford. I think Howie Meeker…. He's still with us. We should talk to "Golly gee whiz" Howie and find out what Howie really thinks about all this.

HST will not only rob working families and kids of hockey, but it will result in a rebellious subculture, I believe. I do hope the Canucks are going to do well tonight, but let's not forget that hockey tickets are going up in the province of British Columbia.

There's other hockey here. There's the B.C. Hockey League. We've just had a great finish. The Vernon Vipers won their effort. But in small town British Columbia, HST is going to hit them, hit them hard. Maybe we'll see more teams moving out of B.C. and going back to Alberta, or perhaps even the United States.

It's a very thin bottom line, a very thin profit margin on these types of teams. They live and die by percentages — 2 percent, 3 percent. I think it's a real shame that they didn't consult with the hockey world and even all sports groups.

In North Delta it's certainly going to hit my community. It's going to hit my community very, very dear in the restaurant industry, for example. We have 77 restaurants in North Delta. I've had many who have come to my door. They're very much worried. We're looking at up to 43 percent vacancy rates, as I speak, along Scott Road, one of the largest commercial corridors in the province of B.C. They're competing, and it's going to break the back of many of those restaurant entrepreneurs, I have to say.

[1730]

We can speak at great length on this one. Basically, I can. I know the Minister of Finance wants to talk about North Delta and the wonderful news in a brochure. I welcome that news. I think in many ways, he's unwilling to tell you the real details of the brochure.

In the brochure it talks about the first progressive Internet radio station in all of Canada, hosted by yours truly. That's what that brochure is all about. I welcome the minister and PAB and everybody else to jump on board and listen to progressive talk radio. We've had some great people on our radio station, and talk about the HST, all the way from Vicki Huntington to Bill Tieleman. Even Gordon Wilson has been on our show. If the minister wants to join us…. If the member wants to come on our radio show and talk about the HST….

Deputy Speaker: Member for Delta North, you do know that you do not refer to members by their first name in this chamber.

G. Gentner: Certainly. My apologies, hon. Speaker.

If the Minister of Finance wants to come and sit on our radio station, have a debate on the HST, we're certainly hoping for that. It's the little radio station that could.
[ Page 4411 ]

Now, relative to the intergovernmental relations, I want to talk about our dealings with down south and transborder and transboundary relationships with other provinces. Today the Canadian dollar traded at 99.75 U.S. cents. The Canadian dollar is poised for parity. It was over a dollar…. I think it was yesterday. It's fluctuating. It's been suggested that by sometime this summer — soon; July 1, when the full HST is implemented — our dollar will probably be close to $1.10.

Gas is going up. So with almost two-thirds of the British Columbia population living within a stone throw away from the 49th parallel, it's going to be very interesting to see what happens. Here we are before the summer tourist time with all the expectation that after the Olympics somehow the American tourists are going to come up here to what we refer to as the best place on earth.

Now with a wave of a wand or a stroke of a pen — poof! — any real incentive to cross the 49th parallel, the latitude, to shop or spend money at our wonderful restaurants, is all gone. Free trade is an incredibly thin border. But you know, you can buy the Nexus card. Forget about buying in Canada. Your savings from not purchasing goods in B.C. can be put towards a Nexus card — you know, that card that gets you through the border quicker than ever before. That's right. For $50 you can get your no-HST express lane at Peace Arch Canada-U.S. border crossing.

That's what it is. The Nexus card for 50 bucks is a no-HST express card. Your "get out of HST jail" card is worth 50 bucks. Before July 1 you can apply for a Nexus on line, or you can mail in your application. The no-HST express lane at the truck crossing is open between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. for all shoppers.

For you late shoppers, you have saved all that money from not paying the HST and have purchased your gas south of the line. Peace Arch Nexus express lane is open until 12 midnight. People are going to go south. The no-HST express turnpike is open 17 hours a day, seven days a week.

Now, if I were a restaurateur anywhere close to the line, I'd be shaking in my boots on this side of the line. Meanwhile Denny's in Blaine or Bellingham must be a little ecstatic. In fact, they're probably already considering making a contribution to the B.C. Liberal Party. What a gift to all the restaurants south of the line. The dollar is going skyrocketing. The American dollar is being lowered, and we're hitting our consumers with an HST.

D. Donaldson: Maybe they suggested it to them.

G. Gentner: Maybe they did suggest it, as the good member for Stikine suggested.

What's the intention here? Is this government trying to chase out Tim Hortons? Cross-border, cross-boundary, the effects are certainly there. You can tell that to a Fernie small business person, for example, who has to charge 12 percent for the selling of a bike or a restaurateur who now has to charge 12 percent on a meal, while only 73 kilometres away from the B.C. border is Pincher Creek, Alberta.

[1735]

You can drive to your Wal-Mart, and you can buy your bike there. In fact, you can go to Lethbridge — 3700 Mayor Magrath Drive South, Lethbridge. You can buy a bike there — no GST, no PST, no HST.

Ontario went a different route. They decided not to apply the tax on restaurant meals under $4. They call it the Tim Hortons exemption. Once again, the B.C. Liberal government gives a break to those who have enough money to be able to afford a half-million-dollar home, but not to those who can scrape the money together for a coffee and doughnut. The Tim Hortons exemption. Don't you love it? Ontario did it.

We definitely do need this in B.C., but much more than that, we need a Tim Hortons HST exemption. We need a bike shop exemption. We need the HST exemption on cable TV. We need an HST exemption on all restaurant meals, on consulting services, on animal feed. We need the HST exemption on movies. The list goes on and on. In B.C. maybe we should just call it the Starbucks HST exemption. Let's bring it to the west coast.

Ontario is slightly ahead of B.C. by recognizing an HST exemption for under 4 bucks, but we can do better in B.C. by keeping the present PST system where it is, where we can control our destiny and our tax priorities.

We talked about hockey, the importance of hockey and the hockey sales tax. Tim Hortons is a franchise that was actually created by a hockey player, Tim Horton. It opened in 1964 in Hamilton with three stores, and now it's become a huge success. Losing Tim Hortons would drive any former Solicitor General batty, I think. We certainly have enough of them these days. Our top cops without doughnuts because of the HST. I mean, that's unthinkable. Is there no decency, respect for our national entrepreneurial successes?

We don't have Krispy Kreme. There are too many calories there, too much sugar. But for heaven's sake, we have Tim Hortons. And what are they going to do? They're going to push our doughnuts south of the line. Think about it. Tim Hortons, by the way, are opening south of the 49th. They see the market there now. Isn't that coincidental?

Let's not forget the quick-pay Tim Hortons card. If you're going to buy a quick Tim Hortons card, you should buy one before May 1 because the price is going up.

Can you imagine ordering a double-double without the HST, or how about a regular without the HST or Roll up the Rim to Win without the HST? I know it's beneath the B.C. Liberals to go to Timmy's. You know,
[ Page 4412 ]
this is what it means. A regular means one cream, one sugar. We're going to lose that culture. A double-double — two creams, two sugar. Triple-triple — three cream, three sugar. That's all gone. Our culture — we're losing it. Perhaps even Starbucks is going to go south. I'll have a grande, a quad, ristretto, non-fat, dry cappuccino, but please give it without the HST.

It's no question why Tim Hortons is now setting up shop south of the line. Why on earth? W.A.C. Bennett called this country God's country, but why should a government, at this specific time, bring in the HST? It's the wrong tax at the wrong time. And for retailers on this side, how much more will they have to reduce their prices, their bottom line, their inventories to compete against this no-HST express line?

Let's look at the difference in book prices south of the line. The same book right now is 40 percent less in Washington State than in British Columbia — 40 percent lower. On July 1 add an additional 7 percent on the price in B.C.

[1740]

Now, I know what that does to the members opposite. They're going to have to go south of the line to buy all their Sarah Palin books. You know, "Sarah Goes Grizzly Bear Hunting." You're going to have to go down south to buy that because it's cheaper. "Palin Stops Fish Farms in Alaska." Yes, she did. That's another bestseller. You have to go south of the line to buy that one. "The Right to Own a Gun and the Need for Election Expense Reform," by Sarah Palin. You're going to have to go south of the line to buy that one — far cheaper.

Let's go from books to haircuts.

Interjections.

G. Gentner: No? We're getting personal. Let's not get too personal, but I do admire the wonderfully coiffed hair of the Minister of Finance. There is a need once in a while to get those locks snipped.

I think of the savings over time regarding haircuts or other personal care facilities such as a spa. If you make it a monthly excursion south of the line, I'm sure you're going to find a new, willing and friendly Washington State barber or beautician who will gladly now snip your hair.

But how smart is the HST? You're hitting barbers and cab drivers, two of the most influential people of our society — entrepreneurs who message like no other person, no other industry. They talk. The people they must talk to day to day.

If I was a B.C. Liberal, I'd be worried about where I ride in a taxi and where it's going to take me. If I was a B.C. Liberal, I wouldn't admit that to the barber…. When those clippers and scissors are out working their job, I bet there is not one B.C. Liberal who will admit to the barber that they are a B.C. Liberal.

My barber is pretty irate. He told me that the HST will hurt his business. It kind of brings to mind that old Beatles song, Taxman.

Let me tell you how it will be. There is an HST for you and none for me, because I'm the taxman. Yeah, I'm the taxman. Should 7 percent appear too small, be thankful I don't take it all, because I'm the taxman. Yeah, I'm the taxman. If you drive a bike, a bike, I'll tax the street. You try to eat and eat, I'll tax your seat. If you get too cold, cold, I'll tax the heat. If you take a walk, a walk, I'll pass the HST. Taxman, because I'm the taxman. My advice for those who die, taxman, declare the pennies on your eyes, taxman, because I'm the taxman. It was a major hit.

The HST will affect haircuts. It will. On that side we're now going to see more Beatle cuts. That's right. They're not going to go to their barber. They're afraid to go to their barber. They're going to be using the old bowl put on the head to get it clipped. That's the culture they're creating.

The counterculture is now underway. Retro Beatles. There they are, retro Beatles. Next they're going to tax us again. They'll discard the bowls to cut the hair. We're going to see the musical called HAIR coming back. They're going to grow their hair longer. That's where we're going. It's a hippie counterculture over there. I can see the Minister of Transportation wearing flowers in her hair, and the Minister of Tourism is probably going to be wearing beads next. That's where they're taking us.

They tried climate change and the Premier's Conversation on Health. Now they're taking us to the age of Aquarius. Imagine that. "Harmony and understanding" — that's what they're all about now — "sympathy and trust abounding, no more falsehoods or derisions." Unbelievable.

Someone on this side had the guts to say that it's the honest sales tax. I have to say to you, brothers and sisters: "Peace. Peace be with you. Let the sunshine in." That's not where you're going to take us, I'm afraid.

Let's return to the border crossing. The Canadian dollar is beyond par, and there's 7 percent HST. As for health spas, the government members need not worry. One just has to look at the government credit cards to know that they use the taxpayers' credit cards for spas, and they really don't need to worry so much about the HST.

Interjection.

G. Gentner: Go ahead. I'm sure the minister across…. If you checked out his purchase cards on line, you'd see exactly where the money is going. Interesting.

[1745]

The drugstores across in the United States are going to make a killing from those non-HST express B.C. shoppers. Vitamins, dietary items and all non-prescription products.
[ Page 4413 ]

I'm pretty sure we're soon going to see the occasional hearse going across the line with a Nexus card. You can imagine. Funerals are going to be cheaper Stateside, and weddings as well. Only the B.C. Liberals could bring in a tax that would blend holy matrimony with death. Can you imagine? I wonder how many weddings will be conducted now in Birch Bay or Semiahmoo Resort across the bay — from restaurants in White Rock, who are going to have to now shut down their biz.

Our resorts will be hit hard. They're going to be hit very hard. The wedding planners? They're gone because of these wedding crashers. That's what we're going to be seeing. You just go south of the line. "Deluxe triple-A four-diamond accommodation and unparalleled service create the foundation for an unforgettable wedding, blended with a 1,100 acre waterside wildlife preserve and northwest cuisine" — all yours without the HST.

You know, Semiahmoo, across the line from White Rock, will dazzle you with possibilities for everyone on your guest list. They offer you the amenities to entertain your guests and family. They'll pamper them at their full-service spa, treat them to a full round or two or three of golf games.

I mean, golf — no HST down there. So you're going to hit the old golf ball, and you're not going to do golf in Peace Arch. Why would you? You've got your Nexus card. You've saved money. Where are you going to do it? You're going to do it in Bellingham. Unbelievable. Where was the thinking on this one? "From the champagne toast beneath their beautiful tented pavilion to their elegant Loomis Trail Mansion, Semiahmoo Resort spa and golf is the place for a Pacific Northwest wedding with a magical touch."

I don't think they thought this one out very well. Not at all.

We can talk about the funerals in Blaine, Washington. A country pine casket in the States is $3,500. Check out what it is here with the HST. Beautiful fibrewood, laminated, light pine finish — it's all there.

Interjection.

G. Gentner: I'm sure the minister across the way does a lot of golf games. I'm sure there are actually some cars over there he's purchased as well. Nevertheless, I don't know. Used cars are now available south of the line without the HST.

Again, tourism is in a very bad way. The dollar is up, and we're increasing taxes. Right after increasing camping fees, the highest in the northwest, now is not the time to bring in the HST. We want people from south of the line to come up. We want them to spend their dollars. We want them to come to our RV parks. But we have the HST.

I'm not going to talk about basic residential telephone service, basic cable, but I will talk about this. After July 1, on the CBC next year…. You can't afford to go to a Canucks hockey game, so you're going to watch Hockey Night in Canada. But your cable is going up. Isn't that a coincidence. Boy, they're hitting us every way possible. Every possible way.

The other question I have to ask is: if this is a new, competent way of doing it, why did it take them so long to do it in the first place? Why didn't they follow the example of Atlantic Canada? Think of it. In 2004 they could have implemented it. Why didn't they do it? Because they know it will cost an additional $113 million per annum. This government is a clearinghouse, an agency to get whatever it can in the short term and abandon the future. That's what this HST is all about.

Why the yearly payments and not the whole enchilada? Why not the whole $1.6 billion now? Why the increments? Why don't they demand the money now? That's great negotiations. Why? Because they want to set it up for the next election. That's why. Transition money at $775 million. Instalment of the payment on March 31, 2010. Then we're going to see another $374 million, and then we're going to see another one in 2011-2012 — $475 million.

[1750]

If this is such a windfall, again, why didn't they claim it all at once? By not doing so, we are borrowing money to pay off our deficit. Why didn't they demand to claw the money now from Ottawa? Boy, they're incredible negotiators, great accountants.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The unnecessary interest charges will cost B.C. $50 million in 2010-11 on the debt, $24.4 million in 2011-12. That's a total of $74.3 million over a two-year period. That's what I have to call blood money.

Oh, I suppose they think it's going to be efficient, but government has never really produced a pro-and-con assessment on this. I know they had this little ragbag of a report called the Mintz report, but has there been a thorough cost-benefit analysis? No. Because the government has destroyed the economy. It has misrepresented itself and the needs. Revenue at all costs is important. We're here to sell off our tax sovereignty because of the horrendous situation this government has put us in.

Interjection.

G. Gentner: I know there are anxious people who want to get out of here to watch a hockey game that still is HST-exempt. Next year we're going to be paying and paying to go and see a hockey game. By golly, gee whiz, the cable networks are going to hit you to stay at home and watch it again.

I wish the Canucks all the best. We know that next year the HST is going to hit hockey in every town imaginable. Even the Minister of Transportation's Prince
[ Page 4414 ]
George Cougars are going to be hit. It's going to be hit hard. Think about that one. The Kelowna Rockets.

Hon. S. Bond: And I will still be a season ticket holder.

G. Gentner: Season ticket holders. Well, some people will have that ability, but for the family that wants to go out and buy a hotdog at a hockey game…. The hotdog's hit. The refreshments are hit. The tickets are hit. They'll be staying home wondering why the cable bills are more expensive to watch hockey.

I would like to reserve my right to speak again, because I have a few things to talk about — on-line shopping. I thereby adjourn debate….

Mr. Speaker: Member, you've only got a minute and 40 seconds, so you might as well finish.

G. Gentner: I have a minute and 40 seconds? I wish I had another 30 minutes.

Well, on-line shopping is the future. It's here already. We have something called self-assessment. You're supposed to do a self-assessment if you buy something out of province. If you buy something out of Alberta, guess what. If you buy a wedding dress for $3,000 in Alberta and you bring it over here, or if you're a buyer or a broker or a wholesaler, you're supposed to bring forward a self-assessment on it.

The auditing is now going to be done by the federal government. The problem is that the province has never really done proper auditing on self-assessment.

On line is the future. On line is now, and with the HST, how are you going to monitor that? How are you going to claw that one away? We're going to be seeing a greater, larger black market created in the future. People are going to get under the wire on this one, and I'd like to see how the government's going to find the money, the HST, on on-line shopping. It doesn't have a clue what it's doing. It doesn't have a clue.

G. Gentner moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. I. Chong: I wish everyone safe journeys home and ask that the House do now adjourn.

Hon. I Chong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday morning.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HOUSING
AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 2:33 p.m.

On Vote 39: ministry operations, $2,719,996,000 (continued).

The Chair: Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to the Douglas Fir Room. We're doing the budget estimates of the Ministry of Housing and Social Development.

S. Simpson: I just have a couple of questions that were left around the income assistance, and then we'll move over to lotteries and related matters there.

In the last estimates that we had, last September, the minister and I had a go-round and a bit of a debate there about the issue around poverty reduction and poverty reduction strategies. The minister and I have a disagreement about where we should go with that, based on that conversation that we had last September or October — whatever it was. My belief is that British Columbia, like six other provinces, should adopt a legislative poverty reduction strategy, but the minister has a different view.

Related to that, the question that I'd like to ask…. The minister, in a letter which was received…. There's not a date on the letter, but it was a letter that was received by my colleague the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake back around the first of March. It was a response to a series of questions that were asked in those October 26 to 28 estimates, and the minister responded to a number of matters.

[1435]

One of them was the question around the research on cost-effectiveness of programs and policies for single mothers collecting income assistance. The minister's response…. I want to read a paragraph out of the letter.

"Some reports link poverty and health. Historically this linkage is not well established, although there is some correlation between poverty and poor health outcomes. The direction of causality is vague. For many, poor health outcomes result in poverty. There are also studies which show that even higher-income family do not purchase nutritious food for their children."
[ Page 4415 ]

The question I have is more to ask the minister to speak a little bit about whether he believes in the principles around the social determinants of health — whether questions of income, housing and availability of other resources, of services that we as the middle class take for granted are in fact determinants of health and whether they need to be considered that way when social policy is being developed.

Hon. R. Coleman: I wanted to just quickly correct the member on one little piece of what he read into the record. I don't think it was intentional, but the member said: "…although there is some correlation between poverty and poor health outcomes." The letter actually said, "There is a correlation between poverty and health outcomes" — the copy that I have that was sent to the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake.

It's a pretty broad question to answer, so I'm going to try and answer it this way, just for the member's information. The number of residents living on income below the low-income cutoff declined by 72,000, which is a 13 percent decline, from 546,206 to 474,207. The number of children living below the low-income cutoff went from 137,000 to 108,000, a drop of 29,000, or 21 percent. This is the smallest number of total population of children living under the low-income cutoff since 1991.

The latest child low-income rate in B.C., for 2007, fell from 16.5 percent to 13 percent, the lowest rate since 1991, using Stats Canada's most widely cited measure, the low-income cutoff, the LICO. In addition, the low-income rate for all persons dropped by 1.9 percent from 2006 to 11.1 percent, the lowest rate since 1989.

These positive results are also confirmed by the recent release of the Human Resources and Skills Development Canada market basket measure estimates for 2007. Under market basket measure, the proportion of B.C. children in low income fell from 22 percent to 18.4 percent between 2006 and 2007, while for all British Columbians, it fell from 16.3 percent to 13.4 percent, again the lowest numbers since 1991.

[1440]

We talked last fall about that, and the numbers are there. We will soon receive the latest, next set of numbers, because obviously there's data that comes in from a variety of sources. When we have those, I will provide those comparisons to these for the member when I get them.

S. Simpson: The minister is correct, and I do apologize. I misread this, and the minister was correct.

The numbers that the minister reads from are 2007 numbers, and we know those are the most recent available data from the federal government. We also know, as the minister would note, that 2007 was a pretty good year for everybody in this province and country in terms of the prosperity of the economy at the time.

I think the concern that we need to have is that the last year and this year have not been so good. As we start to see those numbers move, I think it's just reasonable to assume that as we've seen the spike in the income assistance rates, we're going to see more people come back onto those lists because of the nature of the economy, regardless of public policy — after what happened with the economy.

The question I have around this relates to this. I'd ask the minister whether he has any projections — the 2007 numbers, which we know were down in the province but still, compared to other jurisdictions in the country, were pretty high — and whether he has directed his staff or has received advice from his staff or analysis as to whether there are other initiatives, presumably in conjunction with Children and Families, that the government should be moving on to address some of those issues around poor kids.

Hon. R. Coleman: I think we have. Since 2007 we have added close to 7,000 additional families on the rental assistance program in B.C., for instance, where they actually get subsidized for their rent within the communities. That's a significant number.

The other interesting stat that goes with that, though, is that the wait-lists of B.C. Housing have come down by a proportionate number and haven't climbed back up. It's just a measurement I put there for the member, because it's just one of the things that we can measure against to see that, ironically, although we have seen an increase in social assistance, we haven't seen a marked climb in the waiting lists of B.C. Housing, which probably is because we keep doing more and more rental assistance programs for people. Also, with over 15,000 seniors on SAFER now, it's the same situation.

We're doing better than most areas of Canada, but the member is right. The economy does have an effect on everybody's socioeconomic situation. When unemployment goes high and more people are on social assistance, it would be, I think, a natural statistical thing that we would find that the numbers would shift a little bit in the other direction when we get the next set of stats.

As we look at that, at the same time I'm looking at some of the other things that we're doing and the housing that we're doing and the supports that we're putting into buildings to help people that are in significant challenges. Of course, there are over 8,000 people that we've connected to housing and supports with our outreach workers, and the 2,400 people that have been connected through the intervention team for even more significant supports in five communities across B.C. on the integration project we put together.

I think there are a lot of things we do that actually…. All of these things will have a positive impact on the outcomes as we go forward.
[ Page 4416 ]

S. Simpson: We know that there's a fair body of work being done around the issues of the social determinants of health and looking at the impacts, especially on children. We can look at the work that Clyde Hertzman has done — very well-respected and recognized work out of UBC. He's continuing to do a remarkable piece of work just to better understand these issues with young children and particularly with aboriginal children, where he's paid some particular attention.

Could the minister tell us whether the government is engaged in the kind of work that people like Mr. Hertzman are doing — independent analysis — and what analysis, if any, or work the government is doing to look at the risks that these kids are facing and some assessment of how it best gets addressed, over and above the statutory programs that the minister is providing?

[1445]

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm trying to answer the question without trying to stray into an area of another ministry, which is Children and Families, and what they do, because I'm not sure what all they do.

We've learned from the research across all jurisdictions, ironically, that children in working families do better than children in welfare families, people on social assistance. We have worked to help families get back to work and have reduced the number of children on the caseload by 54 percent since 2001 to 37,000 children. We're closing the LICO gap quicker than any other province in the country.

We have put together information to encourage people to actually enter back into the workforce. Working: More Than A Paycheque is a brochure we produce. We do premium assistance, and we make sure the benefits are there for low-income families. It's possibly the role model piece of this that some people think is what does it, because folks are going to work and setting a different outcome or effect in the household. I am not in a position to judge that one way or the other.

I know we've made a number of changes for low-income families so that we can get their outcomes better. Those are things like increasing the basic personal income tax credit from $9,373 to $11,000, and the spousal credit increased by the same amount. Provincial income tax has now been eliminated for 325,000 low-income British Columbians.

[1450]

Effective January 1 MSP premium rates are changing, but we do have MSP premium assistance for people. Actually, what we did when we changed the MSP premiums was eliminated and reduced about 180,000 people's premiums with the enhancements to the premium assistance program in January 2010. Income thresholds for premium assistance were increased by $2,000. A family of four with an income of less than $39,000 now no longer pays MSP in British Columbia.

Obviously, the different tax credits, including the new HST tax credits, which will be higher for those folks, will go to them. Then there are other investments that we make through the other ministries, like Children and Families, that I'm not actually qualified to speak to today.

We also raised the threshold for rental assistance to $35,000 a year for families to help them with their rent. That's why we have over 8,000 of those families on there — and some other programs that we have for children, both in health care and in Children and Families, which I don't know enough about to actually outline and then debate today. I would suggest we discuss that with those ministers.

S. Simpson: Thanks to the minister. We could discuss these matters for the next three hours, but we won't because we do have limited time here. So I'd just like to thank the staff who work in this department and the minister for this time.

We'll move on to lottery-related issues.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'd like to give my thanks to my staff, who have done a great job. They do a great job on behalf of all British Columbians and take some significant leadership in all the issues in and around social services in B.C. They're to be congratulated for the great work they do.

Joining us for this segment of the discussion, on my left, is Derek Sturko. Derek is the assistant deputy minister responsible for the gaming policy enforcement branch of government. On my right is Michael Graydon, who is the president and chief executive officer of the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us whether the Lottery Corporation received or purchased tickets to the Olympics?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, I can. The Lottery Corporation was a sponsor of the 2010 Olympics, and as such, they did have tickets which they purchased. Their sponsorship included their relationship to SportsFunder, which was a lottery that was run in relation to the 2010 Olympics to raise money for athletes to receive money to be trained, etc. I think it went into Healthy Living and Sport or Sport B.C. It's an organization like that that handled the money.

The corporation, after ticket resales, purchased 980 tickets for a value of $294,245, and they purchased 270 tickets to the Paralympic Games for $12,950. They gave out 2,356 tickets relative to their SportsFunder prizes.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us: of the 980 tickets that were purchased for just under $300,000, generally, who used those tickets, and what were they used for?

[1455]
[ Page 4417 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll break it down by each. The retail supplier incentive program was 176 tickets for a value of $52,270. Stakeholder engagement was 344 tickets for a total value of $112,475. Employee performance was 144 tickets for a value of $26,900. Some 134 tickets went to charities for a value of $42,380. Player rewards and contests were $17,940. BCLC 2010 Winter Olympics Dome community tour was 62 tickets for a value of $23,910.

A promotion with CTV was 28 tickets for $7,080. Offered for resale out of the total tickets was 459, and 431 of those were sold to recover a value of $95,950, and 28 tickets were unrecovered for a value of $11,290.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us whether, of the folks who used those tickets, any of those tickets were provided to the members of the Legislature and used by the members of the Legislature?

Hon. R. Coleman: Only the tickets that I disclosed to you, the questioner the other day, were used by any member of the Legislature. I, as the minister responsible for the lottery corporation, had the tickets I described in the previous discussion, and those were the only ones.

S. Simpson: I will ask these questions specific to the lottery corporation, though. Did the lottery corporation participate in the employee loan program for the Olympics, and if so, to what degree?

Hon. R. Coleman: I just want to make one correction to my previous comment. There was one ticket to the Speaker of the House that was provided by the lottery corporation to an event. There were nine people that went from the lottery corporation to the Olympics.

S. Simpson: I'll just go back to the question about the employee loan program. Or sorry, the minister is saying nine people went over to the program there.

With these people who went, just so I'm clear…. They went over, and they continued to be paid employees of the lottery corporation. They went over and provided services as part of the contribution to VANOC and the success of the Olympics. Would that be accurate? And they continued to collect their paycheque from BCLC.

Hon. R. Coleman: That is correct, and we actually think that they all benefited from the experience, which would bring skills back to the corporation as a result of the experience that will help the corporation in the future.

S. Simpson: Can the minister tell us…? The minister may have this answer; he may not. Those costs for things like the lottery corporation for — I don't know that I didn't ask these questions earlier — the employee host program, if it was under the ministry as well…. Those costs, the cost of these tickets — are they all factored into the $765 million of Olympic budget that the government has announced?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't think that I can answer the global question, because it's not here, but these employees wouldn't be part of that number, because they're with a Crown corporation, which was a sponsor with the Olympics. As part of the total sponsorship program they had for the benefit of the sales of the tickets and stuff and the lottery that they ran and all of those things….

This was all part of a different package. From this group's perspective, I would suspect not, because they were with the Crown, not with the government entity.

[1500]

S. Simpson: Fair enough. I understand that, but those who participated…. I assume, then, that the minister is saying…. I understand that it's not his file, and he may not be able to answer the question, but those who were direct employees of the ministry of the government and were participants in the employee loan program…. Their costs would have been applied against that budget or against that cost for government….

Does the minister know that? We'll get it somewhere else if the minister doesn't know.

Hon. R. Coleman: I think you're going to have to get it somewhere else. I looked over to my financial person, who's moved away here, and I got a head shake saying: "Don't know." So we don't know it right now. If we can get it, we'll get it before the end of the day, but I think that it will be a discussion under the Finance estimates, I would think.

S. Simpson: I'm going to move to some other matters related to the lottery corporation and lottery activities. Back recently — not that recently — the ministry shut down the IIGET team, the illegal gaming enforcement team. It was shut down by the government, and there's been some back-and-forth around that. The questions I have around that…. The first question is: did the minister or senior officials or officials at the lottery corporation receive any advice on potential risks related to the termination of that team?

Hon. R. Coleman: Nothing's changed with regards to my opinion or comments on this since the last time we canvassed this. We basically had an illegal gaming enforcement team that was disbanded. It was disbanded by agreement of the board of directors, which is made up of chiefs of police and somebody from police services in British Columbia, because they felt that it was ineffective, mainly because it was usually not staffed and hadn't
[ Page 4418 ]
actually achieved the goal of being integrated at the level we want.

We have a very highly qualified group of investigators with the gaming policy enforcement branch, which we've enhanced. They continue to work with the RCMP and local police on matters related to gaming, and as a result of that, we continue to have that integrated relationship.

So what we came down with was basically a decision on something that was tried, that wasn't necessarily effective. The advice of everyone was that this need not continue, because we would just move to where we would use our enforcement folks, who were all senior former police officer investigators and who would then be the body that would deal with illegal gaming in B.C. in cooperation with police.

What we also found was that the crossover…. We wanted to build some capacity, and we're finding the capacity, really, around illegal activities and around money laundering. Gaming was being, quite frankly, built on the two integrated units we had, which is the one that deals with organized crime in British Columbia. The other one was the integrated homicide team and now the Integrated Gang Task Force, and all of those build their expertise within all of these areas and now work with our people in the enforcement branch.

The last time I asked about this, which is about two months ago when I bumped into some people with regards to law enforcement and from police services, they felt the change had actually gone well and that it was still the right decision.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's decision. I'm not so much interested in debating the minister's decision to get rid of it. Whether I agree with that or not, the minister has made the decision. What I'm trying to understand is just a little bit more about the level of advice that the ministry or the lottery corporation and others might have received as that decision was being made.

Particularly, the question that I had was…. There are a lot of potential parties to this — police forces and other investigative forces; a lot of people who have an interest in these kinds of affairs, for pretty good reasons. I'm wondering whether the minister or other officials related to these decisions received any advice that there was risk involved in the closure of this team, in the end of this team, and what the nature of that advice was.

[1505]

Hon. R. Coleman: None to me. I don't have the note with me, but I'm going to do it by memory for a little bit, which could be dangerous. I know that the board, which is made up of basically chiefs of police or people who were representatives from law enforcement…. The director of police services would have been serving with regards to that board. I have a high, high regard for his opinion, having been the Solicitor General and having worked with him for many years.

The basic situation was that the board had asked for a business plan and some outcomes-based information, which was not provided after a lengthy period of time of being asked for. That was probably as a result of the fact that there was turnover, and the place wasn't being staffed.

Then it was the board that made the recommendation that said: "You should turn this over to the gaming policy and enforcement branch investigators, enhance your work there with those folks in cooperation with police, because this particular piece isn't working."

Now, that's not unusual in how we handle law enforcement in B.C. It's no different than when we set up the SkyTrain police. We set up a board of police officers, chiefs in this case, from the communities that the transit police operate within, for instance.

The Solicitor General basically takes advice from those boards with regards to operational stuff, and this group was the same way. A pretty good bunch of people as far as their qualifications were concerned. They made the recommendation, and I felt that it was the right one as well. The outcomes weren't there mainly because I think it was not being used properly for staffing.

It made more sense to make sure that we built the capacity within the enforcement branch in relationship with police, because we had already established that relationship. IIGET wasn't being successful at that level, and we knew that we could tie in with all the other agencies that were doing good work with regards to crime. We felt it would work, and that is why the decision was made.

S. Simpson: Could the minister remind us: how many positions were in IIGET at the time that it was terminated, in terms of inspectors or investigators? What was that FTE or staff component of investigators and folks?

Hon. R. Coleman: It was supposed to be 12 officers, and it was only fully staffed three and a half months in three years.

S. Simpson: The minister says now that these responsibilities that IIGET had have now gone over to the gaming policy and enforcement branch. They now have that responsibility on behalf of the minister, working in cooperation with police and others in law enforcement, of course.

Has the gaming policy and enforcement branch had its staff allocation for these kinds of activities increased? Or what additional resources have been applied there so that it can do that work?
[ Page 4419 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, one of the challenges is the description that the member used. It's not the member's fault that…. Did the responsibilities go over to somebody? The responsibilities never left anybody.

[1510]

I mean, one thing that we've worked on for years when I was the Solicitor General, which I have continued to do with law enforcement in B.C., is make sure that we have integrated relationships across the board.

We enhanced the dollars to both the gang task force as well as to the major crimes units in our budgets with the various police agencies over time. We have also added about five additional positions to the gaming policy and enforcement branch and targeted their relationship to make sure that it's integrated with law enforcement.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the nuance that this has always rested in that department or that team, worked through the policy and enforcement branch. I might have missed it — whether the minister answered. Were there additional resources put into GPEB, and what were they in terms of dollars and FTEs to support this work?

Hon. R. Coleman: We added five additional FTEs to the investigation branch.

S. Simpson: In the area of problem gambling, could the minister tell us what the budget for this year is to support problem gambling initiatives?

Hon. R. Coleman: We have two budgets that we use for problem gambling. The B.C. Lottery Corporation spends $4.2 million in responsible gaming programs and supports within their facilities through education as well as externally.

The gaming policy and enforcement branch has a $4.6 million budget, which is counselling services and services for people with problem gambling. So there's service for them. When they need it, they can call. That includes both of them combined, including the 1-800 line and all the other stuff you see.

S. Simpson: Is either of those a change? I guess it would have been the GPEB budget, which I believe came down last September in the budget update. It was a reduced number then. It had come down by a couple million dollars, I think. Could the minister then tell us: have these numbers changed at all since the September update budget?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, neither of the budgets has changed since the September update.

S. Simpson: Could I get a bit of an idea of what the programs are that the lottery corporation provides for with their $4.2 million that they spend on problem gambling? Where does that money go?

[1515]

Hon. R. Coleman: The lottery corporation's GameSense is paid advertising which is, you know, to remind people to use their game sense and gives them information on where they can get assistance.

In every single one of our facilities we have kiosks that are manned by people who actually talk to people and deal with their issues in and around problem gaming, if they have it, and can give them direction to where they can get help and all those things. They are manned facilities, not just kiosks. They're actually staffed.

All retail outlets have messaging with regards to game sense and issues and information around problem gambling. We have brochures for people at all of our retail outlets, as well, on top of the messaging.

S. Simpson: My sense is that it's a communication strategy to let people know, plus, of course, the staffing that comes at the kiosks, and that those are the key components of where that $4.2 million gets spent.

Could the minister tell us where the $4.6 million for GPEB and, essentially, where that money gets spent?

Hon. R. Coleman: The majority of money goes to counsellors for people and families who have issues with problem gambling. Most of the rest of it would go to prevention work — speaking to community groups like youth, seniors, First Nations, what have you, that may be high-risk groups or people they want to educate as far as responsibility in and around gambling and being aware of the symptoms or issues that could affect their families or themselves.

Of course, then, between the two there's the 1-800 line where somebody can phone in and get help. That help is provided to anybody that needs it, no matter where they actually developed their issue with gambling.

S. Simpson: With the counselling services and that, are those contracted services? So somebody comes, they have a problem, and they're deemed to need some help. Then GPEB helps offset the cost by bringing a counsellor in, or do they have counsellors on staff? How does that piece work in terms of getting counselling services to people?

Hon. R. Coleman: These are all qualified company or individual folks who are qualified as counsellors for addiction counselling. They are basically available at the end of the phone. We contact them when there's an issue. They will go to the individual to help them, whether it's two o'clock in the morning or whatever time it is when they ask for help and they'll be there. No one is turned down for service.

[1520]
[ Page 4420 ]

S. Simpson: So essentially, these are private professionals or companies that do this. The branch contracts with them, and if they require them, they go and do the work and send in a bill, presumably. I'm getting the minister's nodding, so I'll accept that as the answer.

Could the minister tell us what the status of the Internet gambling initiative is now? We know that last year the weekly betting limits were raised, I believe, from $120 to $9,990. We also know that, subsequent to that, the lottery corporation announced that it was moving forward and bringing in a number of more competitive games — for lack of a better term; I'm sure that the minister will have a better term — to be able to have available through the lottery corporation as it expands this service. Could the minister tell us what the status of all of that is today?

Hon. R. Coleman: The new games will go live in June of this year. That will be the casino-style games that will go live, similar to other Internet sites. They will go live in June. Peer-to-peer poker will go live in September. That will be in conjunction with the lotto companies in the Maritimes and in Quebec. We have arrangements with them to do peer-to-peer, because we'd need the number of players to make it feasible.

With regards to the spending limits, they're set by the individual — how much they feel they can spend. We found that all research says that the best responsible gaming mechanism is if people set their limits, so the range allows people to set their limits within what they think they can afford and what they're going to play.

We're probably one of the few sites that does that, as far as giving people that responsibility and monitoring the play, so we can make sure that people aren't getting themselves into difficulty the way they do on most other Internet sites.

S. Simpson: I realize that people bet what they want to bet, what they think they can afford to bet or what they're interested in betting, but the limit was there — it was a time not that long ago — and $120 was the max a week, and that was as far as you could go, at least in terms of what you'd put in the account. If you built it up over time, you could go a little higher, but that was the cap. Now that cap is $9,999. I've not had the opportunity to look widely at other jurisdictions. I do believe that the British, for example, do something similar, but they have limits that are considerably lower than that. Again, that's a decision that's been taken.

Coming back, though, now that that's in place and it's moving ahead…. Presumably, the games are evolved, and the lottery corporation and the policy and enforcement branch have had a chance to think about this some more as it has moved forward over the last number of months. Have there been the concerns — and the minister would know this — around problem gambling that have been raised around this?

In addition, there are a variety of concerns. Some of them are…. In fact, when somebody goes into a casino there are people there who will notice challenges and problems. There are staff on behalf of the lottery corporation. There are staff on behalf of the casino businesses themselves who pay attention if somebody is getting distressed or playing in ways that seem to be over the top and who are able, if they think it's necessary, to intervene in some way, hopefully gently, if they believe it's necessary. That's harder to do at home at midnight on your computer.

[1525]

The question I have around this is: has there been any research, or is there any budget, around the problem gambling area or related to other areas that have allowed for research or have contracted research to get a better sense of where the biggest challenges may be around increases in problem gambling as this new area opens up for gaming in British Columbia in a fairly aggressive way? I'm not complaining about that, but what work has been done to say: "Okay, we need to look at that"?

I hear that this is particularly an area where there should be some attention to young people because of their nature and access to the Internet. They're not interested in maybe going into casinos, but what they can do on their machines — they're all for that. Is there something around that and how to think and get at that?

Where's the additional investment, or are there dollars committed here to look at that and make sure we're getting off on the right foot come June, when this thing kicks off? What monitoring or assessment is planned over the next year or two, as this thing starts to evolve and we understand it better, to know whether there are challenges that we're going to need to look at?

Hon. R. Coleman: The first thing I should mention to the member is the sites that we have, which will be Quebec and the Maritimes and us and possibly Ontario in the future because we have this Interprovincial Lottery Corporation that does a lot of the research and work and all this. We've done the work on the research side, and obviously the data will come as we actually activate. We'll see our data, and we'll track it.

We also have the problem gamblers research group, which is funded to look at issues in and around problem gamblers, the evolution of the research and all the peer-reviewed information that we can get, and to deal with that as we try and improve our system all the time. That's an ongoing process that takes place.

The website we've produced, the one thing about it…. I know that young people are computer-savvy. That's why we basically have pretty good age control and verification and data verification information required for
[ Page 4421 ]
anybody to play. We haven't had difficulty with a bunch of young people accessing our site, to date.

Today we have games on there, of course. We have Sports Action and the poker game, and we have the lottery ticket sales and those sorts of things. It's one of the strengths of this system that we're building with the other jurisdictions. We announced that we're moving towards it, but we didn't move quickly because we wanted to make sure we got it right.

We've done a lot of work and research on our systems and system management and also making sure that we have some research with regards to how we will monitor this system going forward so we can always be improving it for both problem gamblers' issues as well as user issues. We'll continue to do that, and they will continue to do that with the investments they're making.

[1530]

S. Simpson: I appreciate the answer, but I guess I'm still looking…. Has there been an investment of resources specifically targeted at the research that looks at security issues?

I'm not so concerned about 15- and 16-year-olds. You want to keep them from playing, but 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds are just as likely to get in trouble. They've probably got a little bit more money to get in trouble with, and they are legal. They can go gamble if they want to gamble.

It's not about people who are too young but people who just take it a little further than they should and start to dig themselves a hole that it gets hard to get out of sometimes.

I'm wondering what investments or what research has been done — whether it's been done collectively for this interprovincial group or done specifically for British Columbia — that says: "Here's what we know about the challenges related to this form of gaming, and here are the things that need to be watched or looked out for as this moves forward to make sure that we're not creating undue problems by implementing this form of gaming."

Hon. R. Coleman: The answer to your question, in short, is yes, in advance of doing this, but it's always ongoing. We actually contract into the Responsible Gaming Council. We invest money there to make sure we have a third party also looking at this as we go forward.

We have very, very strong geolocation check verifications with regards to our sites, so players are actually required to be in the province to purchase anything from the website. It requires user-name and password protection. They have to meet all statutory requirements, and they must register in order to play. They can't just go on our site and decide to play, where you can on many sites.

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

They must provide credit card information with B.C. Lottery Corporation, and we sent that to Equifax or other credit bureaus for third-party validation to verify age and residency long before they're even allowed to play. So we have all of those checks and balances in place.

We have done the research going into this, and of course, like I said earlier, it never stops. It has never stopped at any level of gaming. You have to continue to improve your programs, improve your research, measure your outcomes, measure what happens and watch it because that's the responsible piece of this.

That's why we're in a position to conduct the management of gaming provincially. We have the responsibility under the Criminal Code versus just having it open to anybody in the public.

Mr. Chair, I need a five-minute recess.

The Chair: The committee will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:33 p.m. to 3:41 p.m.

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

S. Simpson: Could the minister just tell us: who is the Responsible Gaming Council? Who makes that up?

Hon. R. Coleman: I apologize to the House for my break there.

This council is actually in Toronto. It has an independent board of directors. It's a third-party organization that does research. It's a research-based organization. They do research and advocacy work. They advise on programs. They evaluate them like they will evaluate our problem gambling programs for us and give us advice with regards to how they can be improved or evaluated.

They also run evaluations and accreditations on gaming facilities. Right now they're doing an accreditation thing through all our gaming facilities and will come back with accreditation evaluations on our programs, how they're working, how they can be improved and that sort of thing.

They are funded through endowments and through contracts. The lottery corporations across Canada fund into them for contracts to get them to do the work, and we also fund into their research. They're a third-party group because…. Well, for good reason we want to have third-party evaluation.

[1545]

S. Simpson: So they're funded by the provincial lottery corporations, the counterparts to BCLC across the country and that. Do they also receive funding from the private interests, the casinos and that, or are they pretty much funded out of sort of the government agency or entity?
[ Page 4422 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: Mainly government groups like ourselves, Western — the participating lottery corporations and endowments from groups that have given them endowments of dollars to do this type of work, for whatever reason. They could come from groups, foundations — whatever would be the other major funding they'd have.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us: what role, if any, does the lottery corporation or gaming policy and enforcement branch have in the process leading up to the government's decision to announce the Paragon casino, the new casino adjacent to B.C. Place? What role does the lottery corporation or GPEB have in the process leading up to that? Do they have any role at all?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're not involved in the PavCo piece, other than the fact that the lottery…. We know that the Edgewater Casino has to move. The lease runs out in, I think, three years, so we would conduct a market evaluation for size and capacity for a casino in the city of Vancouver.

We did give feedback to PavCo when they asked us whether the operator was in good standing, whether they were a good operator and also with regards to our assessment of the operator's financial projections. All of those things which were done by a third party we would have provided to PavCo, but we weren't involved in the RFP process or any of that stuff.

S. Simpson: Then the role of the two bodies here, lottery corporation or GPEB, whichever one or both — so the lottery corporation essentially does it — is to provide advice, in this case to PavCo or to the government, about capacity issues in relation to….

I guess if the proponent — in this case, Paragon who also, I think, owns Edgewater — says, "We have a project here. We want to be three times the size of what we are today in terms of our machines, our games, all of that," then it would be the lottery corporation that would do the assessment and say to the government or to whoever or to PavCo, "Yeah, we could put a facility of this size here, and there's enough capacity to triple the size of Edgewater and still get the business that we think it should get" or: "Yes, you know, the business plan is sound around what they're proposing."

This is a company that has done this before and is good to go on this. So would that be the kind of role? Would they provide that advice to the government — and I don't know who in government — and to PavCo?

[1550]

Hon. R. Coleman: Essentially, that's correct. The location and placing of casinos is the responsibility of the lottery corporation. It's not decided by executive council, and it's not decided by the minister. It's always been arm's-length since this government became government back in 2001 that those decisions are made.

The direction to the lottery corporation when that decision was made is that they would place these to market. They would provide the evaluation or confirmation of the evaluation of numbers, because they would be asked by PavCo: (a) is the operator in good standing, (b) are they a decent operator; and (c) does the market effectively take what might be proposed here? That would be their entire involvement.

If, for instance, the Edgewater Casino didn't move to this location and had to find another location either in Vancouver or in another community, they would do the same thing on the evaluation of the market study wherever it was going to go. If Vancouver decided not to have it, and for lack of a better description, let's say the North Shore said they wanted it, then it would go there, and there would still have to be a market study evaluation.

It would still be the decision of the lottery corporation to place it wherever it goes by market and not the decision of executive council. If they've confirmed that the location works and the numbers make sense, the rest of it is up to whatever process the other guys are doing.

S. Simpson: In terms of how that process works, I read somewhere — and it could be wrong — that there were a couple of different proponents or bidders around PavCo for what might happen there. The decision was made for the Paragon casino hotel configuration.

When that's going on — and I have no idea whether the other proponent was a casino proponent or they had some totally different idea — how does that work in terms of…? Does the lottery corporation do its work before the proposal hits the table or after PavCo says, "We think we want to take this proposal. Can you tell us whether it makes sense?" — after they kind of know where they want to go? Or does the lottery corporation do that work ahead of time as part of that process?

Hon. R. Coleman: Through the process, the lottery corporation wasn't involved at all. The RFP went out. The proponents would make their submissions. PavCo would then enter into a memorandum of understanding with who they thought the selected proponent was. At that point they would ask the lottery corporation for some confirmation of some financial data or of the proponent, and that's the only involvement they would have.

They weren't involved in the process to design the RFP, do the RFP, say who could go, what type of business would go there — none of that. Paragon happened to be one of the bidders and happens to be the only casino service provider in the city of Vancouver. There are no other service providers in the city of Vancouver. They would have been….
[ Page 4423 ]

S. Simpson: Great Canadian at the racetrack.

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, that's true — sorry — but not casino providers, service providers. They're a service provider at what we would call a different type of facility. They're not involved in that process at that side. They're just confirmation of numbers and data.

S. Simpson: I think I get this. So RFP process goes through, all of that happens, and PavCo says, "We think this is the one," and signs the memorandum of understanding. There's presumably due diligence to be done as part of that MOU.

At that point they come to the lottery corporation, or the lottery corporation finds its way to be involved in this. Then through that process, it does the due diligence they have to do, has any discussions with the proponent to satisfy themselves about questions they have, then gives that information to PavCo and says: "Okay, here's what we know about the operator, the facility, the capacity, those things." PavCo takes that information and does with it as they will as they complete their due diligence.

Is that fair comment?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, and we're a small part of that. There are a lot of other things in due diligence that have nothing to do with these guys.

[1555]

S. Simpson: I have one more question related to actual operators and that, and then a couple of grant-related questions, just broader top-line questions. Then I think we have a whole bunch of people who want to start talking about grants.

The other question relates, actually, to the racetrack in particular and the situation of the slot machines and the gaming at the racetrack, around the racetrack. I know there's been discussion. I believe I've seen comments related to the minister in the media in relation to Hastings Park. I know it's a facility that has not met the kind of targets that it had hoped to meet in terms of the slot machines or the revenue streams there.

I know it's a private business, and you've got to be sensitive about talking about private businesses, but could the minister tell us: is he or the Lottery Corporation on his behalf or others engaged in a discussion around the future of that track? Specifically, is it around the consolidation of the two tracks into one facility at Hastings Park?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, we are, but not necessarily in the description the member has. All things are sort of on the table with regards to horse racing. We put together a horse-racing committee back last fall. It includes George Morfitt, a former Auditor General of B.C.; two representatives from both the standardbred and thoroughbred sides; somebody from the Lottery Corporation; somebody from the gaming policy and enforcement branch; and someone from the proponent that actually operates the tracks.

Basically, it said we need to have a look at what the future of this is in British Columbia. There have been discussions whether it should go to one track versus two, which track it should be at or not at all. I would say that there have been points when I thought we were getting to where that decision was, and then something sort of sends us in a different direction that sort of says maybe we're not there.

We're hoping to make those final decisions. There will be no transition, obviously, for a year or two, no matter what the decisions are, because particular meets have to run at those tracks in order to be able to have the horses and all of the things with barns and everything else sorted out.

There's a lot more work to be done on horse racing. The committee is continuing their work. They're a pretty good group, and I think they'll come back with some solid recommendations.

S. Simpson: I now want to move to the beginning of the discussion of grants. My first question relates to how the grants happen. I want to lay out a scenario, and then the minister can tell me whether this scenario makes sense.

We've had the direct access. We now have consolidated bingo affiliation, or that process is in play right now to consolidate them into a single funding stream.

An organization — I have one in mind that laid this out. Their funding ends March 31 of this year. It's the end of their grant period. They are told that they will hear something in regard to their application sometime in August and that if they're successful, that grant will run from August to August.

They're told, as well, that if they need to, they can apply for some interim funding to get them from March to August, if necessary. Then after their next year…. Let's assume for a minute that they get their money in August, that they're approved. They get the money in August. The money runs for a year, but then their next application will be decided the February after that. They will apply the next August, and it gets decided the February after that.

The question I have is this. The interim funding that they're getting, assuming they get interim funding — is that over and above the year's funding? Or will that be deducted from their year's funding that they would get in August? If it's deducted….? Well, maybe we'll just start there. Is that getting deducted from any funding they get approved in August — any interim they get between March and August?

[1600]
[ Page 4424 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: I would assume the organization has to be a bingo-affiliated organization that has to be in the human and social services category, because that would be the worst-case scenario that we would face. The money is always annual money, so it's always within a fiscal year. The fiscal year of government is April 1 to March 31. They have to plan around that cycle.

What we do is…. This year we will bridge to August. That doesn't mean they're getting more money. It means that the amount of money they're getting for this fiscal year…. They'll get some in advance, and it'll be less in August, but they'll get the money they've asked for or got or are entitled to or are approved for, for this year.

We are also working on a bridging program for the year after for what you described, but it will be the same situation. It would be the same situation. If they thought they were qualified organizations, we would bridge them into year two on the basis that they qualified for the money, and then we would work with them to work them through that period of time.

Those are the transitional issues we're dealing with now. We are dealing with transitional issues. When we go to the "everybody into the one grant application" program, we do it by quarters. We have different categories that apply by quarter, and they're paid out in that quarter. That's why that gap for some of these groups.

What we're trying…. We've already committed to bridging this year, and we're now working on how we'll transition for these types of groups in the year following.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the answer. So the bottom line here is that the organization has their contract which ends March 31. They now are moving…. They've got their applications in. They've done whatever they need to do. They've been funded for a long time, and they probably assume they're going to get some money, whatever that is, this year, and they fit the criteria. They've been told they will hear in August.

Now, if they come forward and say, "Okay. Well, that's fine, but we don't have a cash-flow situation that allows us to be in that period of time without some money in our pocket," then government branch says that that's okay, writes a cheque for the amount of money that will cover them for that period of time until the August final decision is covered, I assume. Is what the minister saying — that they will be funded for that and that then, if they get their funding, they will then be funded through to, say, the 31st of March of 2011, the end of the next fiscal year, or they're funded through to August of the next year...?

I guess that the bottom line is that I'm trying to figure out that there aren't gaps in here where periods of time go by where they don't have funding if they are eligible for annualized funding or they qualify for it — gaps where they don't lose the funding.

Hon. R. Coleman: Let me try to do it this way. They're not losing any funding — okay? So let's say they get $50,000 a year, normally on April 1. That money is for the fiscal year. The grant programs, like every other fiscal program in government…. That's for the fiscal year, April 1 to March 31. Other groups in the same fiscal year might receive $50,000 in December, but it's still within that fiscal year.

What you're talking about are application and payment deadlines versus fiscal years, so let's be clear about that. Now they apply, and they're going through to August, and they say: "We need some bridging because we can't pay our bills." So we're going to bridge them — right? They wouldn't get monthly cheques after August. They would get the balance of the $50,000 for the rest of the year in one cheque. We don't do monthly payments, so we do one cheque.

[1605]

The challenge which you describe and the questions it brings to me as a minister is that I'd like someone to explain to me…. Grants are for programs. They're not for administration. They're not for rent. They're not for utilities. They're not to be covering any operational overheads of any kind. They are actually for something that the charity is delivering to the community.

The cash-flow gap is one thing. We say: "Okay, how can you work with your institution or what…?" And this year we're bridging them, so it's not an issue. Next year we're going to have to do a transition for them to get them used to their date. We can do that. They'll probably have a two-year period where they can change their cash-flow operations to match up to the granting period.

We'll work with every charity to accomplish that, but the money they receive in any fiscal year is the payment that government makes in that fiscal year. It's not money to say: "We're taking you from August of 2010 to August of 2011." It's actually: "You're applying in that year. You receive in that year. That's the year the programs are delivered in."

Some of our organizations actually do in some cases run a line of credit, because they get the grants later in the year. Then they pay it back, and they continue on. Or else they get themselves into a cash-flow position where they don't have to do that. That's the transitional work that we're going to do with non-profits.

It's transitional work, whether we change the program or not, that needed to be done. What happened here was that over time the program itself has morphed to where people said, "This is my annual funding" versus: "This is an annual grant that I actually have to qualify for and justify." They took it as an entitlement grant and started to put it into their business plans as automatic cash flow on an annual basis. Unless you had a three-year contract, you shouldn't have been doing that as a non-profit, and most non-profits that I talked to didn't do that.
[ Page 4425 ]

Now the three-year contracts are running out, so I assume that the one you're talking about as an example had a three-year contract that runs out on March 31 and that now they're into the same grant program as all the other charities. If they qualify, particularly if they're in human and social services…. In human and social services we have 100 percent of the funding available that we've always had for human and social services. They're in the strongest area of funding for their types of services to the community for grants for the next number of years.

We know that there's this year to bridge and next year to transition, and we're going to work with the groups to get through the transition into next year as well.

S. Simpson: There'll be lots of other time to kind of talk about the philosophy behind the grant program. I'm much more interested in the practicalities of it.

Is the minister saying, then, for organizations whose money has expired this year, whether it's March or August or whatever their timeframe is, that if they've applied for funding — let's say the minister said that they're going to get $50,000, or that's what they apply for, and that's what they're eligible for because they meet all the criteria — they're going to get $50,000 for the 12-month period of that year?

And then next year they apply and, presuming that they're eligible again and get the $50,000 again, are they going to get the $50,000 for the 12-month periods with no losses or gaps between those kind of vacant periods where they're not getting money — assuming, of course, they meet the criteria and they qualify? And if there are periods of time that create cash-flow problems, will they be eligible to get some kind of transition funding to make this happen?

[1610]

Hon. R. Coleman: Out of the 6,500 grants, this affects about 750, max. The 750 max will be some this year and some next year, because some still have their three-year commitments to run on.

I had identified this on the first year when we had our discussions, when we were doing the grant, and we have been talking about it. We obviously haven't had a chance to meet on this since April 1. Our plan is that we sit down with those individual charities and give them a transitional plan so that they're getting the same money every year, and we'll be able to stagger it for them to transition over a couple of years to where they're used to when they get their money.

They'll always get their money. It's just that we'll transition, so if they do have a negative financial situation, they would be able to identify it with us and we would be able to advance. The only challenge we face with that is if an organization at some point…. This is what we would work with the groups with.

You could get an organization, for instance, that applies, and we give $20,000 sort of as a bridge financing to…. Then we find out that they haven't filed their Society Act papers or haven't done their financial statements or their board of directors are not correct or that they're not actually delivering the program, and then they're not eligible for the balance of the money because they haven't qualified.

That's the risk that we're prepared to take on the bridging and the transition for these groups. We think that most of them are probably pretty much…. Well, our records show that they're pretty much stable groups that we can do a pretty stable transitional plan with, and that's our plan to do that.

So our plan is…. This year we're fine. Next year we're going to have to work with each one of the individual charities to identify what their needs are. They'll make their application, but we will work them through their issues to get them through to keep them whole.

V. Huntington: I would just like to extend my gratitude to the lottery official for staying. I have two quick questions on lottery, and then I would like to discuss a grant issue with the minister.

I notice that the investigation division statistics are readily available for 2005, '06 and '07, but they don't seem to be as available for 2008 and 2009. I wondered if I could just ask whether you expect them to be available. Or are they, and I've missed them somehow?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's actually the gaming policy and enforcement branch. The statistics for '08-09 are actually posted on our website now.

V. Huntington: They are now?

Hon. R. Coleman: The annual report on the statistics for last year, which would be year '09-10, will be posted in June.

[1615]

V. Huntington: My research is obviously a couple of months out of date. Well, then I'll save my other questions because I can find them on site.

I would like to go…. Hopefully it's a lottery question. As you know, there was the discovery of the irregularities in expense claims for Ontario Lottery Corporation in '09. I wondered what safeguards BCLC or the ministry has in order to ensure that similar types of irregularities and thus firings and mass resignations don't occur in British Columbia.

Hon. R. Coleman: We have a significant expense policy at B.C. Lottery, and all expenses are reviewed. They're reviewed annually, as well, by the board of directors. We also do spot audits on expenses. So we have the
[ Page 4426 ]
rigour that's there to do spot checks and check this out.

We are live to the issues that were in Ontario, and we've made sure that our processes are stringent in order to protect us from that type of occurrence here.

V. Huntington: I said those would be short questions, and I hope they have been. My next, therefore, is on a grant question.

The minister knows that in last estimates and in question period I asked about the issue with regard to the loss of funding for the Orphaned Wildlife Rehabilitation Society. During estimates the minister was kind enough to agree that there may be some interest or validity in looking at categories for different environmental groups.

The minister asked if I would care to write a letter and perhaps give some opinion on which categories might be appropriate. I did that and unfortunately received a letter prior to the tabling of this year's budget that they decided that categories weren't going to be used.

What I'm extremely concerned about…. I do consider that those categories have great validity. As I mentioned before, when the province has a mandate to protect or when it is paying for a service that an organization provides that is a ministerial responsibility, when it requires permits from an organization for certain of its opportunities and when that organization is actively engaged in education of the public, I believe those categories are deserving of being looked at.

I would like to ask whether the minister and how the department determined that categories were not appropriate in the case of wildlife organizations that were engaged in wildlife, which are mandated by the province as protected.

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't have that great of a memory about which categories you recommended. Could you maybe just read those into the record so that I know what they were, and then I can respond?

V. Huntington: Unfortunately, I didn't bring my letter, and I wish I had. They included things like if a department is mandated to protect a species of wildlife or wildlife in general, and if that organization is undertaking the protection and rehabilitation of wildlife, which is a provincial responsibility. That was one.

[1620]

If the organization is engaged in educating the public, which I know was of interest in your department, on the care and protection and rehabilitation of a particular species of wildlife that was the mandate of the province…. If a department was paying that organization to provide a service or to respond on behalf of the department, I felt that was a valid category that the department should consider in extending grants to that organization.

Those are some. You may recall the letter that I sent. The letter was far more extensive because I got carried away, but I think there are three or four categories. When the province is mandated to protect those species of wildlife and paying organizations to undertake that protection, I did not see why the ministry withheld grants from those organizations.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm not sure what services the organization is being paid to deliver by another ministry. If it is, it's a contract with the ministry, and it isn't related to the grants.

I can tell the member that deliberately, when we redesigned the grant program this year, we included in education the ability for an organization like — I'm not sure whether I've got their title right — the OWL refuge, I think, which is in the member's riding. If they were doing education with youth with regards to the species and the stuff there, they could actually apply for a grant for an education program to deliver that, because that would be eligible under the criteria we established.

We wanted to make sure we were in the business of delivering programs that would be on the ground. Groups like that can apply for a grant for a program that says: "We're…." Whether it's schoolchildren coming through and learning or, as the member talked about, rehabilitation or whatever the case may be, our focus is not on adult programs but on youth programs, so the education side is focused on youth as well.

I don't know what quarter that application process would be in. If they have time, it's in human and social services. So they apply going into…. I think the application process actually closes in November for that category, and it's paid out shortly after that. That is one category they can apply to, and they can look at the other categories to see if there are any services that match up to the other services of the categories of the grant program.

I know we deliberately said that for education programs for those types of facilities that you're describing, we would be prepared to fund for youth education in those programs for grants. So if they would apply there, that'd be great.

I thought they might have found the letter and sent it in to me by now, but they haven't. So when they do, I might be able to respond to the balance of it.

V. Huntington: I sent it in last fall, and I just received your letter back. No, there is no contract that I'm speaking of, in terms of paying for services. It's when officials from a department will ask the organization to undertake a service or a job for them or to look after critters for them. Occasionally they will be paid to do that, whether it's food or time or…. But it's not a contractual obligation.

Well, OWL certainly didn't receive any indication that its educational programs to youth, thousands of youth a
[ Page 4427 ]
year, were of any interest to the department. I have just found out from another organization that did receive grant funding — they look after wildlife, big wildlife — that they were told to reframe their grant application as an educational application this year, whereas OWL was told nothing. They were just cut off again completely.

[1625]

I guess, Minister, I really feel that there has to be another examination of not just the educational component. I'll be sure to tell OWLS that they should be applying for that, because they have a schoolhouse on their grounds through which thousands of children move a year. I will be sure to tell OWLS that they should be reapplying.

I really do want to follow up with the minister and his department on precisely what mandates the province has that these organizations serve and that deserve to be considered for funding as a result of doing really what is provincial business. So I think I'll follow up again, if you don't mind. Or if I can meet with members of your department to follow up too, I would appreciate that, because there are organizations that are out there doing the provincial business that will not be done without them, and they deserve the support of the department.

Hon. R. Coleman: I've been very public about the education piece, and we've been very public in all our communications about the education piece, so if they haven't been told that, they may have not called and spoken to staff or picked up off the Internet. It's actually posted in the categories that are posted on the Internet.

On the other piece, if a department of government is asking somebody to perform a service, it's not this department of government, I can tell you. I would suggest to the member that she take the time with whichever ministry that is in estimates and ask those questions. If they are asking for a service, you could query them on why they don't have a payment schedule, or whatever the case may be, for this type of service, because I actually have no idea.

I know that we just have the grants. We don't have the other stuff and wouldn't be the ones making the call. I'll actually share your letter with the appropriate ministers as well. I'll get my staff to get that copy over to them as well, so they can be prepared for your questions.

N. Simons: My questions relate to a grant application that was approved in part but denied in full. It's relating to the Bruce Denniston Bone Marrow Society, which has been operating since 1988. They educate the public around the need for bone marrow donors, and they raise funds in support of work to publicize the OneMatch Stem Cell and Marrow Network.

It's a national organization based in my constituency of Powell River–Sunshine Coast. They've asked me to seek information and perhaps to rectify a situation which is, on the face of it, rather unfair.

The situation is as follows. In 2008 the Bruce Denniston Bone Marrow Society applied for direct-access funding for $30,000 for three years. Now, the letter that they received back indicated that one portion of their program had been denied, but their grant for the remaining one was approved.

On completion of their first year, they sent in the appropriate financial records and asked when their second year would be coming. They were told that the second and third years of funding were not available. It was clear that part of the funding had been denied, and that was enumerated, but the rest of it had not been.

They're concerned that the response to their application for the three-year grant didn't indicate that the second and third years had been denied, so when they received payment for the first year and received approval, they were under the obvious and understandable understanding that they had been approved for three years.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Now, members from the gaming branch acknowledge that this is a troubling situation. This is an organization with a very strong reputation and a commitment to the health of our communities. It seems to me that when their bingo licence ended and they were told to apply for three years' funding and then they did, they believed they were approved only to find out later that they weren't.

[1630]

I'm just wondering if the minister is aware of that situation and if he might just be able to comment on that particular situation.

Hon. R. Coleman: What I would ask the member, because I don't have it in front of me, is if he has a copy of a three-year commitment that this organization received. If that is the case, then that would be honoured.

If the organization doesn't have a three-year commitment but just continues to apply over the three years, then that's a different story, because at that time they would be assessed on their programs. For instance, last year they applied for $15,000 and received $5,070. That was because…. Well, I don't have the reasons for that.

If you have any record, or if the Bruce Denniston Bone Marrow Society has any record that they have a three-year commitment, I'd very much appreciate seeing it. And if it's actually valid, then we would honour it. It's actually that simple for us.

I'm not aware of it, because we don't have the three-year commitments here today. But if you have any record that may not be in our records, we'd certainly want to have it, because I'm familiar with this organization. I raised money for it many years ago. I actually knew the gentleman in question back many, many years ago in Kinsmen days, and the family.
[ Page 4428 ]

I'm certainly aware of the organization and some of the things like the Mountie Stomp, which I think it's called up in Kamloops that raises money for it every year, and those sorts of things. It's really a case of we'll look at their file, but if you have anything that says that they had a three-year commitment, I'd love to see it.

N. Simons: I don't have the actual letter itself, but it was clearly understood by those reading it in the society. Because they applied for funding that was approved and there was an element that wasn't approved, it was very clear that the part not approved was enumerated and clearly laid out to the society. The part that was approved was an application for three years' funding, and there was no indication whatsoever that the three years weren't coming.

So they were told to apply for three years. They applied for three years, and they were provided with their first year funding. If it's a question of fairness and if it's something that maybe I should just approach the minister at his office, I'm hoping that that can be adjudicated in a way that preserves the integrity of this whole process and allows for a fair argument based on what was communicated between the parties. Would that be an appropriate way to address this issue?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll advise the member what the correspondence process is on this. A group could apply for three-year funding, and if they got a letter back and they said, "You're getting X," or they get a letter back that says, "You're going to get X and then next year you're going to get this, and the next year you're going to get this, and this is when it's going to be paid…." If they have a letter on file that has the second, that's a three-year commitment.

If you could ask the organization to see what they've got in their records, then we could probably arrange a meeting or discussion with the director, with the assistant deputy minister or with Ursula to look at the file and have a look. We will have a look in our files. But I would appreciate it if the member could have them check their files, too, to see what they've got, because it may just be that they misunderstood the letter to begin with and have the assumption that something was happening that wasn't actually corresponded to in the form that the member thought.

There were opportunities for people to apply for three-year funding where people applied and didn't get it because they didn't have an ongoing program that qualified, and there were people that would have got a letter back saying: "This year's funding is X number of dollars." Or they could have got a letter back saying: "You have three-year funding, and this is how much per year for the next three years." If the member could just sort of correlate some information for us, it would be great. If not, if it's a problem, then we could have our staff contact the Bruce Denniston Society and work at it from that standpoint too, if he wishes — whichever you prefer.

[1635]

N. Simons: I'd be happy to do that. I think it's clear that Ursula, who does excellent work and is well respected, has understood that there's been a miscommunication in her interpretation. It seems to me that the Bruce Denniston Society says that they perhaps…. They suggest that maybe their letter to them was unclear.

I see that the gaming branch is taking the suggestion of the society to heart, because there is a lack of clarity in that. That lack of clarity…. When it says that a certain amount is going to be provided and a certain amount will not be, if it wasn't approved for the other two years they applied for, that that would also be indicated — that it wouldn't be approved.

So I will get the necessary information. I just hope that the minister recognizes that it's a question of how these organizations plan for the future and how they make multi-year plans. When they're under the impression, because of correspondence, that they will be receiving multi-year funding, it does throw an organization like that into a bit of a tailspin. I'm just hoping that through further examination, facts and fairness will be paramount in consideration of their concerns, and I thank you for your advice on that.

Maybe I'll just get to my next question, and the others will get to theirs, if that's all right.

Hon. R. Coleman: As Derek just said to me…. He's the assistant deputy minister, and he says if we've made a mistake, we'll fix it. So let's find out if there's a mistake.

N. Simons: Much appreciated.

My second question relates to Heritage Vancouver, actually. Is it in fact true that their funding has not been forthcoming through the gaming grants for this year?

Hon. R. Coleman: You're correct. Their application was denied. We don't have the reasons for it here. We can get that for you, if you wish.

M. Karagianis: I have two sets of questions. I know that this is really a time when we're to ask questions about gaming grants, but I do have one question not related to that. If the minister doesn't have the appropriate staff here, then I'd be happy to receive an answer on this later on.

I actually had written to the minister back in January about the skills development employment benefits program and the fact that it had been capped at a $4,000 limit on tuition. I asked the minister at the time about whether or not there was an appeal process for the tuition cap in the case of where individuals needed more than $4,000 in order to get this skills development.
[ Page 4429 ]

In particular, I was writing on behalf of a constituent of mine, the Saferway Driver Training School. They have had, certainly, a great deal of interest in their training programs as a result of unemployment, the continuing sort of job loss over the last number of months.

Unfortunately, for individuals to take this driver training and to get their upgrade to be able to work, they require more than what the current limit and cap is that's been put on this program.

[1640]

I have asked the minister, first, if there was an appeal process or how individuals could access more money if it was required in order for them to get the full course.

Secondly, I had asked for clarification on the temporary measure that had been imposed on this fund and how long that was going to last. I did get a letter back from the minister basically outlining the requirement for, as the minister presented it, "required measures to manage budget pressures."

I understand that a lot of people were trying to access this fund, but I didn't get any clarity from the minister on whether there was an appeal process and when, if the minister knows, this temporary freezing of the fund or cap on the fund would change. Perhaps if the minister could answer that. That's fine if he cannot; I can get an answer in the future.

Hon. R. Coleman: We did canvass this with the critic one of the days — I think it was yesterday or the day before — but it's not a problem. There is no appeal process. The reason we did it was because that was the average that we were finding of all across-the-board costs.

When we originally put the $4,000 limit on, it was because we had a number of places in the interior of B.C. that were going to run out of training money due to the economic downturn, particularly in the resource sector. This allowed us to do more training in the Interior for a number of organizations that were going to close down their training opportunities before the end of the fiscal year.

It's never been that this particular plan paid 100 percent of all training. It was actually to try and get people to have some money to help them get into it but also work with them for things like student loans and other ways that they could also get their training. It's like any other educational program. It's just that it's actually tied back into the job market.

At this stage there's no foreseeable change, because we know that's our average. We will, throughout the year, assess our numbers as we come through in our capacities and where actually priorities for training would be and any changes. But at this point in time our numbers say that we have to keep that as the level in place for now.

M. Karagianis: Do you anticipate that there might be any other way for these individuals to tap into this kind of skills funding in order to fulfil a course like the Saferway truck driving training? Many of these individuals now find themselves kind of stymied. They are partway there. They can't actually get the ticket that they need to fulfil their employment potential. Is there some other mechanism there for any of these individuals?

Hon. R. Coleman: If they had started it down the road and they thought they were being paid for prior to us putting the cap in place, that would be an individual file we would look at. It would be something where they may have had a commitment that we need to complete on.

Otherwise, the best thing is their student loan programs. Actually, today even some of the driving schools themselves have student loan financing programs, because they access some things.

People looking at future driving courses, for class 1 licences in particular, should probably do a little bit of competitive research, because the prices are quite competitive down in some ranges. There are some schools that are pretty expensive. I wouldn't want to tell them where to go to get their training, but there are different prices. That's just a piece of advice from the minister, for whatever it's worth. It's probably not worth anything.

If there is somebody that, quite frankly, was in and thought they had funding, then you should get that individual's name and information to us, and we'll look into the file.

M. Karagianis: I appreciate that, and I will pursue this further, if there's an opportunity there for individuals.

I do want to ask a couple of questions here about gaming grant cuts. Perhaps what I'll do is I'll just list the sports organizations. I have sports organizations, one arts group and a heritage association that have contacted me about their funding. In part I'm asking questions, but I'm also, if it's possible, advocating for these groups as well.

[1645]

The Greater Victoria Concert Band has had their funding turned down, and this is a 30-year-old organization that is now very much in jeopardy of having to close down the organization. I would like to know what options there are for them.

The Island Hoppers precision team, which is for young women between the ages of eight and 24 years old, have had their funding cut by 70 percent. Again, this is jeopardizing the possibility of this program remaining in place. I know that the comments I did receive from the Island Hoppers was around the fact that it is about sports, and it is about the equipment and other things that they need to maintain this sports program.

They said that the year before last they had received $5,000, and last year it was $1,500, and this year they have not received any dollars. I'm not sure whether
[ Page 4430 ]
they've actually heard one way or the other what the future of their grant application is.

The West Shore lacrosse organization has had a cut of over $27,000 to their program. Of course, this is again a huge blow to lacrosse for youth in the West Shore and Sooke communities. They've been in place for 36 years, and they are very concerned about the viability of their organization.

The Juan de Fuca Skating Club has received less than half of what they had been receiving for many years. I know the minister has talked about the fact that these organizations should not assume, just because they have been funded for many years in the past, that that will always be the case. Because this is a skating club and it is related to sports and youth, they really feel very concerned and somewhat frustrated about this. I'd like to know what their options might be.

Two non-sports-related organizations. First of all, the Victoria Hallmark Society, which is related to heritage preservation, had been receiving a grant of $9,000 for many years and has now been told that they will not be receiving any more money. This, again, jeopardizes their possibility of keeping any kind of storefront open for heritage.

Of course, here on the south Island, as I'm sure the minister knows, and in greater Victoria the Hallmark Society and heritage resources generally are very highly thought of. So the Hallmark Society has played a huge role in preserving a lot of heritage building stock here in the region.

The last one is for Theatre Inconnu, which has been receiving gaming funds for 20 years and now, I believe, either has been told no more funding or they're unclear. This will mean that Theatre Inconnu will cease to exist as well.

Perhaps if the minister could address some of those for me, that would be terrific.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll walk through these. Last year as we funded CommunityLINK, we did a 30 percent thing for sports. That's what they got last year. We have cut out adult sports altogether and repositioned the dollars. In this year, for instance, as long as it's youth sports, the expectation would be that if they were getting a certain number the year before that, they will be between 90 and 100 percent of that money, as long as they qualify.

With your Island Hoppers, the West Shore lacrosse and your skating club, if they're applying this year, if they qualify, the money has been reassigned so that youth sports would be funded close to 100 percent — okay?

[1650]

If the concert band has a youth component, that's what they should apply for, a program under youth component. Just like in adult sports, we're also not funding adult culture. So if it has a youth component, if it's a program for youth or they have one or they should develop one, then apply for that under that, because that's where they would probably fall, as well as the theatre that you described.

We may have the wrong name for the Hallmark Society. I don't know if they have other letters in front of their name. We can't find them on our list. We'll look. It would probably be the same thing. If they had a youth component, youth education, they can go under education, which is one category under human and social services. That would probably be the easiest fit for them. They can certainly talk to the branch. It would have to be a program that is geared to youth, and then they would be eligible for some funding under that.

M. Elmore: A question to the minister with regards to the announcement on March 10 — I saw the press release come out, anyways — in terms of the gaming grant cut of 50 percent to day care, child care resource centres, preschools and other resource centres, from the amount of $8.9 million last to $4.6 million this year.

I'm wondering if the minister is able to provide a list of those day cares that were funded that were affected by the cut.

Hon. R. Coleman: Are you referring to last year or this year? If it's last year, we can provide a list. This year the applications haven't been processed yet, so we wouldn't know.

All grants that would be approved would be on the Internet, on the gaming policy and enforcement website. So if the member wants to be specific about specific organizations, it would be even easier for us to find it.

I'm sorry, to the critic opposite and to yourself, but I do have to take another five-minute break.

The committee recessed from 4:53 p.m. to 5:01 p.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

M. Elmore: I'm just wondering if I could maybe, if it's possible, get a list of the current day cares and preschools that have had their gaming grants cut, and if I may be able to contact the assistant deputy minister to follow up on that list, if that's okay.

I can follow up in the future? That's great. Thanks.

I had a question specifically for…. I've heard from the Columbus Park Child Care Centre in Penticton, and they've had their gaming grant cut in half. They received $20,000 last year; this year, $9,600. They're in a hard spot because they've been trying to renovate their space and be able to expand their centre and are just wondering if it would be possible to have their gaming grant restored to allow them to continue with their plans. They've been planning for two years for these.

Hon. R. Coleman: If the member could maybe get us the legal society name…. It doesn't come up under
[ Page 4431 ]
Penticton under the Columbus Park day care, so it doesn't show up in our records as being somebody that's applied or received grants. That's not unusual. It could be a society. We did look under Knights of Columbus, but the Knights of Columbus have service organization beside…. There's not human and social services, so it's not them.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

If it's renovations that they've applied for, they would have been turned down, simply because there's no capital money this year. The money would be capital dollars, if that's actually what they applied for. I don't know what they've applied for. If we get the society, we can look it up for the member.

But it was capital. Capital has always been if there was money left over at the end of the fiscal year. In the last 30 to 60 days at the end of the year we had the capital grant program. But it was only available if, after all our other grants were played, there were any additional funds available. There weren't any this year. That would be why.

You can contact my staff at the office right here, just walk it down to them — any one of them, any one of my staff — and they'll take the information. We'll get it to Derek and follow it up.

M. Elmore: Yeah, it was told to me as the Columbus Park Child Care Centre, but I will ask them for their official name — the society. Okay, great.

Just in terms of…. I've also heard from other child care providers. They're very concerned about the 50 percent cut, that it's huge and it will have quite a grave impact for day care centres. Most likely they'll have to increase their fees to parents, and it will be a big financial hit.

As child care is currently the second-largest expense for families, following housing, and there's a current shortage of spaces, low salaries for early childhood educators, and parent fees are approximately 75 percent of the total cost, there's a concern at this cut to child care centres and preschools. I just would ask if the minister would consider reversing that cut and restoring the full funding for gaming grants to day cares and preschools.

[1705]

Hon. R. Coleman: In '09-10 no day care would have received any funding cut. It may have been the capital, because it wouldn't make sense otherwise.

In '10-11, which is this fiscal year, the funding envelope has been cut by 50 percent, and those that apply will qualify based on what their programs are, etc., into that envelope. We did that because we wanted to make sure we protected human and social services, particularly on the issues like food banks, those types of social issues, search and rescue as well as youth sports and those types of things — to make sure we had funding for all of those.

We had to make some decisions. We had an envelope of money, and we had to look what was going to go, what was going to stay and what was going to be reduced. If the fiscal plan turns around this year, I'm sure that I'll be back in Treasury Board talking about the size of the grant envelope for next year. But for this year that's the envelope, the $120 million we have. We've had to manage the envelope and see what applications come in and what we can fund.

S. Chandra Herbert: My question to the minister is relating to gaming. In particular, I wanted to ask for some clarity around what the exact policy direction is for gaming policy analysts in regards to arts and culture. I'll give some examples.

I've talked to people who have called and said: "We work with youth." They asked the ministry: "What is your definition of youth?" Because for some, it's up to 29; for others, it's 25; for others, it's 19 and under; and they have been given conflicting advice. They've also asked questions of: "We do a festival. It's a one-day festival." Well, that might not qualify as a festival.

My question is specifically: is there a clear set of guidelines — for example, what is a festival, what are children, and what are youth — that a ministry analyst would go through? I'm hearing from people that there is different advice given to different people.

Hon. R. Coleman: All our analysts are told that youth is 18 and under, so I don't know why there would be any confusion there. We'll make sure that that is clarified with our analysts. As far as festivals and museums, there's evidently a briefing note in my office for a meeting with the assistant deputy minister to define that in more detail so that we can put it on the Net. We just haven't had the time to get together yet. We'll make sure that gets done in the next week or so.

S. Chandra Herbert: I thank the minister for his answers. Certainly, that's been a question that is raised consistently, and as the application process has already started for the money, people have already put in their grant applications. It's concerning to me that that information wouldn't already be available, since some groups could be disqualified, potentially, because they put in under their understanding of what a festival or a museum is, and it may not be the understanding that the ministry comes to after the fact.

[1710]

Another question. Some have been questioned: "Are they a youth-serving organization? Do they work with youth?" They say: "Yes, we do, but we also work with adults." What I've been told is that they've been told:
[ Page 4432 ]
"Well, you're actually serving adults, so you may not qualify for this program. You may not be allowed to apply." Yet they're specifically trying to do a program with youth out of the company.

My question is: specifically, is there some sort of a quota? Do you have to be 50 percent youth-focused, or 80 percent? How do we determine what is an organization that serves youth, and are those records available? I have not seen any record of those available on the website, and the people I've talked to haven't been able to get any records that determine answers to those questions.

Hon. R. Coleman: Any group that has applied already, we will be contacting them to clarify their application form once we firm this up, so it won't be a difficulty for them. As far as the other, the second part of the question, it has to be a program aimed at youth. You can't just say, "We've got youth in our organization," because then you start to split hairs.

I used to do grant applications many, many years ago. My middle nickname was "Grant," actually, with one organization I served with. You have to read the application information, and you have to come up with a description of a program that works, that would fit within the description. I think if these organizations spend some time to make sure that they've got a youth-focused program within their arts group or whatever the case may be, they should be able to find a way to actually qualify for some grants with regards to youth within their organizations. It'll be a bit of a learning curve, I think, in the first year as we do this, but they'll share information between each other as to what's successful and what have you.

Of course, we have very good staff to work with folks anyway. It has to be a youth-focused program. It's not that you can just say: "Well, we have some youth, and that must qualify." That's where it's focused at.

S. Chandra Herbert: I thank the minister for his answer. I guess that the concern I have is that on one day, depending on how the person might talk to the analyst and explain their program or might be writing it out, it may be interpreted in one way, but if it's a different analyst or if it's a different grant writer, it could very easily be interpreted in another way. Maybe the program is a youth play, for example, but it involves some adults in other roles in the performance, or something like that. Or it could be a place that is half museum, half art gallery.

Because it's an individual analyst, and because it's not a peer-review kind of granting situation, that could pose problems. Certainly, I have heard of groups that have made applications before and are now finding that the rules have changed since they've submitted them.

I'm wondering. Can the minister clarify for me: if a group has put in an application before the announcement of these rule changes, do they get an opportunity to pull that application back and put in a different application, or are they kind of stuck? That would also relate to the discussion around, I believe, museums and festivals.

The minister said a letter would go out to them, but if they need to reapply or rejig because the rules have changed after they put in their applications, will they have the opportunity to do that?

[1715]

Hon. R. Coleman: We do that anyway. We'll work with them. I don't know that they need to reapply. If we see an application that obviously has some issues with it, we would contact the organization anyway. Even if they happen to not be successful, we do have a reconsideration process for them, where they can just write a letter and ask for reconsideration of their grant, based on whatever. Then it goes past the analysts to the next level, and they have a look at it, and they'll work with the organization.

We do, from time to time, go into communities. We have good staff who go into communities and sit down with community groups and walk them through if they're having issues with how it works for them so that they can have a better understanding of the grant process. We're happy to do that as well.

S. Chandra Herbert: I know that my other colleagues have a number of other questions, so I'll be quick. Just to reiterate how concerning it is for folks who work in the arts and culture industry to work a long time to create an application, put it in and then find that the rules have changed after the application has gone in.

I don't find it respectful for the organizations — which are often voluntary organizations, charities, that are struggling to get by in tough financial times especially — for that kind of thing to happen or to have letters go out after the thing has gone in saying: "Oh, the rules have changed." We're here in, I guess, April. The application period started at the start of February, and for rules to still be changing in arts and culture is really concerning to me.

The question that I have would be…. I don't need an answer on it today, but I would appreciate an answer in writing, if possible. I'm wondering how much gaming policy analysts…. What is the cost for that process to go on? How many applications traditionally come in, in a year? Basically, I'm looking for an understanding of what the cost is per application, I guess — for them to be assessed, for them to be responded to — so that we can get an understanding of that.

Hon. R. Coleman: It's not something that we could break out for the member today, but I can tell the member this. We have 18 analysts. About ten of them deal with about 8,000 grant applications a year, and the other
[ Page 4433 ]
12 are dealing with 20,000 licence applications a year. That's what they do. They have licences for lotteries, raffles, all those sorts of things.

So that's what they do, and those would be our numbers. To break it out, what it costs per application, would take a bit of mathematical work that we don't have here today.

S. Chandra Herbert: I appreciate that. If I can get that in writing, I would really appreciate that. Within the next, I guess, three weeks would be appropriate. Thank you.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, we'll look at it. To be honest with you, if it's going to take somebody a lot of time and cost a lot of money to find out what it costs for an analyst to process one application…. I think we'll probably do some basic math but won't get down to really, really heavy detail for you, because it would mean somebody is doing a bunch of work but I don't know what the value of the work is, at the end of the day.

We'll make sure we'll give you a ballpark or an average across the board sort of thing, because the challenge is that some applications are a lot more complicated than others. Some of the licences are a lot more complicated than others.

You could have a $5 raffle application that's done over the Internet that takes five minutes. You could have a house lottery application that requires a whole bunch of audit work and analysts and stuff like that, and to make sure the prize package matches up to the numbers and calculations and stuff. So we'll sort of give you a ballpark, I guess, would the best way to do that.

[1720]

S. Chandra Herbert: If I could just clarify, I'm looking for the gaming grants to charitable organizations, not lotteries and those kinds of things. So specifically, for gaming grants — which are now, I guess, all direct access: the number of organizations, the number of staff, what the cost of the staff is. It should be fairly simple, over a year, to just break it out on average. So I'll just leave that on the record.

I know that my colleagues have other questions. Thank you, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: Again, we'll try to do that, but they do dual work. That's the challenge, so we'll probably take a number that will be the number of FTEs that we think would fit into the category for grant applications, do a thing of division and give you that number.

M. Sather: Social service non-profit organizations in my communities are very concerned about their gaming grants. Grants applied for by December 15 are normally distributed by April 1. They were told in late March that the funding would not be confirmed until August 15 or maybe November 15. Why is the government delaying in letting these organizations know whether or not they're getting their gaming grant?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, none of what the member just said fits up to our categories and our time frames and our fiscal year, so what I would need from the member is some examples of organizations. Get the names of the organizations, and we will give him a response on each organization, the application period they're in.

If they're in the social services side, human and social services has always had their applications done, in by the end of November, paid for by the end of February into March — always been the case. That's always been the cycle in any fiscal year, and anybody applying this year would apply in that cycle again this year.

The challenge is that the general comment doesn't fit with our process. So if you have any specific organizations that you'd like to ask us about, we can get you that information.

M. Sather: Well, these are all social service non-profit organizations in Maple Ridge, and they're completely thrown off by what's happening to them. In fact, their programs are being put in jeopardy because of the decisions of the ministry. These are tough times. People need services, and some of them are not going to get them. They don't dare to start spending money because they don't know if the money is going to be there.

Now, they tell me the ministry said…. The minister can say that it's not right. I don't know. They tell me that the ministry said to them that what they're calling crisis grants — and maybe that's what the minister referred to earlier as transition grants; I don't know — would be available to them. They tell me that all the groups in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows have applied, and none have been given the money.

So why have none of these groups…? Staff must have some familiarity, I would think, with the organizations in Maple Ridge. Why has none of this, whether it's called crisis or transition money, been given to the groups in my community?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is now mid-April. Anybody that wanted transitional money is actually being processed now and probably would get their money by the 26th of April, probably in a week or so. If they haven't identified to us that they need it — because they're going to just wait until the money arrives later in the year, because they're in the fiscal year and that's the dollars — that's their choice. They have been communicated with, that they can ask for the money. If they have, that's all in process right now.
[ Page 4434 ]

M. Sather: Well, it sounds fairly benign listening to the minister, but what these groups tell me is that basically it's an attack on social sustainability in our communities. Having to go from the bingo affiliation to direct access, government has forced all these groups to apply directly to government for funding. It's difficult for them to structure programs to fit local needs. Instead they have to fit them into rigid government structures and requirements.

Making the grants year-to-year has made it almost impossible to plan ahead for a budget — these are the realities on the ground — and be able to plan out their program for the whole year.

[1725]

Also, these agencies tell me that they were nearly all audited. Can the minister tell me why groups in my community would be, almost en masse, audited?

Hon. R. Coleman: There were 1,500 bingo charities receiving one-third of the money and over 5,000 charities receiving two-thirds of the money. The charities that were receiving less, which is the other 5,500, felt it should be fair for everybody.

Now, I guess that the member opposite is advocating on behalf of the bingo charities in his community but not for the other charities in his community, because he doesn't actually believe in the fairness of the dollars being spread to the charities across the board.

In addition, anybody in social services, which, as the member keeps talking about, have all got 100 percent of their money last year… They'll get 100 percent of their money this year, as long as they qualify, as long as their society is in good standing — that the board of directors are doing the right thing, that their program is true.

The auditing takes place on an annual basis in different areas of the province. It's a regular process. There's no grassy knoll here that's any different for Maple Ridge than anywhere else with regards to societies. They have to accept the fact — they do accept the fact — that they are subject to reviews and audits, because we actually want to know that the money is being spent where they say they're spending it.

That's a pretty standard practice. It has been a standard practice for decades, quite frankly. It hasn't changed, and it won't change.

You know, the member opposite may want to tell his charities in his community to just contact the gaming policy and enforcement branch if they need to deal with some transitional dollars. They know that they're available. They may have already applied. If they are, they're already in process, and that process is ongoing. The money will be moving into those accounts as they're approved, which is also the normal process in gaming grants and always has been the case.

M. Sather: Here's the rub. The minister says: "If they qualify." They believe, and time will tell, that they're being audited and that they won't qualify as a result of this audit. So a lot less of them are going to be getting money.

It's chaos over there. You know, the minister can, "Oh, pshaw. It doesn't count," but this is what is happening on the ground. This is the chaos that this government has created.

I'd like to switch quickly to some questions regarding environmental groups and some of the problems that they're running into. The T. Buck Suzuki, Sierra Club — a number of organizations — involved in things like green boating programs, commercial fishery, fleet, marine habitat education — all of this — have not received funding, I am told. Can the minister explain why that would be?

Hon. R. Coleman: Because we have cut environmental programs out of the community gaming grants.

M. Sather: So if I clearly understand the minister, then, no environmental groups will be getting any funding from gaming grants and nothing whatsoever through his ministry?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, except if they have a three-year commitment, which is continuing to be honoured, or if they develop and produce a program for youth — an education program in the environmental community for youth — they can apply under the education category of the community gaming grants for that particular use.

M. Sather: So the B.C. Wildlife Federation got a funding cut. They used their grant for training and land-based stewardship. They supplement the Ministry of Environment, of course, as the eyes on the ground, which is needed more than ever due to cuts in that ministry.

So would they be one of the ones, then — a large organization that the minister would know, I think — that would have the opportunity to get funding this year?

Hon. R. Coleman: So 8,000 groups a year apply for grants; about 6,500 organizations actually qualify on an annual basis. Any group can apply. They just have to read the information, pick the category for the grant application and make the application. If they make the application and they qualify and are successful, then they get a grant.

[1730]

There are a number of reasons an organization might be turned down. It could be that they're not in good standing under the Society Act. It could be that they haven't filed their financial statements.

It could be a case where they don't have any membership. There is a requirement under the granting program.
[ Page 4435 ]
You don't just have a board of directors. You have a certain number of members from the community so that we know that you're actually a community organization and not just a small board that's getting grants for money to do certain things. Also, that the program fits with the category that it has and that it's being delivered.

M. Sather: What about the Wildlife Federation?

Hon. R. Coleman: The B.C. Wildlife Federation may have a youth program. I don't know. If they do, and they chose to apply for a grant for it, then they may be successful, but I'm certainly not deciding who gets grants or not during estimates debate. That's why we have people that analyze each application, make sure that the societies qualify and make sure that they're delivering the program they say they're delivering, because that's what the grants are for.

H. Bains: Considering the time constraints, I will be quick and direct. I have a few questions about the Surrey Crime Prevention Society. The minister knows that I asked questions in the House, and the minister's answers actually weren't what would satisfy the society.

I will draw the minister's attention to this March 8 information bulletin that was put out. Out of this, I think that the society has a concern, saying that "the province will continue to honour multi-year gaming grant commitments. All other organizations will apply for single-year grants of up to $100,000 each throughout the year."

The Surrey Crime Prevention Society is on its third year of their three-year program. My understanding is that they get about $156,000 per year. Reading from this, the maximum is $100,000 after their contract expires. The question is: will their grant be reduced to $100,000? Is it a $100,000 maximum, as this bulletin shows, or will their grant be maintained?

Hon. R. Coleman: The maximum has always been $100,000 except for non-provincial organizations. Some crept up over the years to higher numbers, which is the case with this particular organization, so they'll get $156,000 in the last year of their three-year commitment.

What we've done with these organizations is that then we have a three-year reduction plan to bring them down to $100,000 to where they're supposed to be over three years, so they won't get the hit in year one. They'll actually have transition time over three years, which they'll be able to adjust to over the three-year period to what is the provincial maximum for local organizations, which is $100,000.

H. Bains: Their fear is being realized, as they say, that when they reapply…. I mean, they're putting programs together. It's a very important organization for our city. They do a number of wonderful…. You know, they have programs to deal with the crime, so I think that is exactly where the minister is saying that they are going — from $156,000 down to $100,000 over, perhaps, a three-year reduction program. They will not maintain $156,000, as was the case in the last three years. That's one thing that the minister probably…. I just wanted the minister to restate that.

The other issue that we have here is that under public safety — this bulletin is March 8 — it talks about search and rescue organizations, marine rescue organizations, volunteer fire department and amateur radio clubs. The question then again is: if they are providing programs such as the safe rider bicycle rodeo program, the Surrey Citizens Crime Watch patrol, the Surrey mobile patrol team, the traffic safety–speed watch program and a number of other programs that they have…?

[1735]

Under this criteria that is under the reference table — it says the budget and priorities — will they even qualify under this definition, which is under public safety? The organizations that I mentioned are the only ones that are covered.

Hon. R. Coleman: Those were just examples, and yes, they will continue to qualify.

H. Bains: The first question was that it means they will not maintain the $156,000, the money on the grant they received in the last three years, to put these programs together. It means that they are looking at a reduction to a maximum $100,000 over a three-year period. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: They're scheduled for their payment of $156,000 in August 2010. Then they will start reducing from August 2010 over the next three years down to the maximum allowable to organizations that are not provincial bodies, to $100,000. That is correct.

H. Bains: Is there any number…? I mean, from $156,000 in the three-year reduction program, what are they looking at in the first year, second year and third year?

Hon. R. Coleman: Because there are not many of these, we're actually working with each individual group. They'll be working with us individually on their particular issue.

H. Bains: I think — on behalf of the Surrey Crime Prevention Society, many of the groups that depend on the services that are provided by Surrey Crime Prevention Society and the many citizens who actually feel that the Surrey Crime Prevention Society is doing a wonderful job — that it means fewer services. They
[ Page 4436 ]
will not be able to provide services that they provide today — at a time in Surrey when we are working hard, the community is working hard and the city is working hard to reduce crime, and they play a major role in that goal.

For the minister to say that their funding will be reduced over three years, I think, is something that is not acceptable to our community. On behalf of my community and on behalf of Surrey Crime Prevention Society, I ask the minister if they could reconsider, if there's a way that we could maintain that funding so that we can continue to provide those services to continue to tackle the crime issues that we have in the community.

Hon. R. Coleman: No, there's not. This organization has actually been paid more than what they were supposed to be paid, at the maximum of $100,000 as a local community under this gaming grant program, for some time. They are going to be transitioned, not cut down dramatically each year. They will actually have a little less money each year, and they'll have time to change their fundraising program and adapt their programs.

There will be no difference to the services of this organization over the next 18 months because they've received the same money this year as they received last year in August. We will work with them as an individual organization.

I know that the member is advocating for a special deal for one organization, but the reason that we had to actually put standards in place is because there were some things that were anomalies in the system. If you take $56,000 and give it to one organization over another, another organization that may qualify for $100,000 might only get $80,000 and, then, in the community they have, they'd be affected.

So we've gone back to making sure that the standards of $100,000 maximum for any organization within a community is the maximum they can receive on an annual basis, with the exception of provincial organizations which serve the whole body of the province, where their maximum is $250,000. We're not going to change that.

I know lots of people in the Surrey Crime Prevention organization, and they're great fundraisers and planners and organizers. Quite frankly, I'm sure they'll understand that (a) they're not being affected this year, and (b) this organization, which is the gaming policy and enforcement branch, is very good at working through people's issues with these grants as we transition the dollars. Then they'll know where they're at for the long term until such time as there's….

[1740]

Well, even if there were additional funds, it would just mean that we would fund more organizations rather than actually change that level, unless at some point in time government decided they were going to raise the maximum per individual community in a community above the $100,000 mark. But they are getting more than the maximum of other charities across the province, and they have been getting it for some time.

S. Simpson: I think we're done. The questions have been asked. I just wanted to close estimates from the critic's point of view with a couple of quick comments.

These are the two. The minister had committed to providing information on full-time-equivalents in the core business areas. We're looking forward to getting that in writing. Also, I believe that there was a commitment to provide just some data related to the 17 sites that are funded, plus there are eight in Vancouver that are still…. Just as to where those are in the development process or completion of that.

The last matter, which is a grant-related matter. I know the minister would've received a letter in the last day or so, so he may not have seen it yet, but it's a letter from the Vancouver Status of Women. I don't expect the minister saw it. I know the letter was only sent in the last day or so, but their grant of $75,000 was refused.

In a response with Mr. Sturko, there were three very specific issues raised as to what the problem with it was. I know they have now responded. I have a copy of the letter, with a very detailed response to those three questions.

Whether it be through the minister's office or Mr. Sturko's office, I would appreciate the opportunity maybe to discuss that further, outside of the estimates process, as to the response to these very specific questions that I think Mr. Sturko raised about why the grant was rejected because of some things or processes that weren't done in a proper fashion. I think they've dealt with that, and there may be, I hope, a miscommunication in relation to these three issues. They're detailed in a letter, and it's not necessarily a conversation to have here, although I'm happy to have it.

Other than that, the response to that, we're done here — from this side.

Hon. R. Coleman: Obviously, I haven't been in the office in the last three days, to read any correspondence. We'll look at it. Basically, if it's a reconsideration, it goes through the proper process through the assistant deputy minister's office at the gaming policy and enforcement branch. They don't let the minister make granting decisions. I don't know why, but I guess it's to make sure that it's not partisan.

I do think these guys do a pretty good job, so I want to thank the critic for the last couple of days and the questions and stuff. I think it was actually worthwhile.

I want to thank all my staff who sat through this and who now, I know, get to, hopefully, go and enjoy a little
[ Page 4437 ]
libation as a group, to celebrate the end of estimates debates, as they do every year. I will, unfortunately, not be there because I will, at the very least, be on a ferry to Vancouver.

I want to thank all my guys. They do a terrific job. They really are one heck of a team that I have in this ministry. It's almost $2 billion in operation, with four Crown corporations on top of it. It's a pretty big operation, and they do one heck of a job.

Having said that, I actually call the vote.

Vote 39: ministry operations, $2,719,996,000 — approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the committee rise, report completion of the Ministry of Housing and Social Development and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:45 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 © 2010: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175