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)

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 2

[ Page 4557 ]

TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2010

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

C. James: I'm very pleased to introduce someone who is no stranger to this Legislature. He is here looking healthy, looking strong. I'd like to introduce the former MLA for New Westminster. Chuck Puchmayr joins us today.

Hon. G. Campbell: Today in the House there are 50 visitors from University Hill Secondary School in my constituency of Vancouver–Point Grey. They are grade 11 students travelling with some parents and their teacher, Mr. John Yetman.

They're here today to experience the history of the buildings. They're evidently going to take some pictures and go back and talk to their families and their friends about what they've discovered here in Victoria. I hope that everyone in the Legislature will make them welcome.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Today in the members' gallery we have a very special visitor from New Zealand. I'm pleased to introduce His Excellency Andrew Needs. He is the High Commissioner of New Zealand to Canada and is accompanied by Claire Eeles, consul general of New Zealand at Vancouver.

[1335]

I look forward to meeting with the high commissioner later this afternoon. I know he's met with a few of my colleagues today already. I look forward to some very productive discussions on how we can continue to advance the positive relationship between our two jurisdictions. So please join me in giving His Excellency and the consul general of New Zealand a really warm welcome to British Columbia and to this House.

Hon. J. Yap: I'd like the House to join me in giving a warm welcome to a very special group of public servants. Today I had the opportunity to meet with members of the B.C. Public Service green teams. This is a group of hundreds of members of the public service who are helping transform British Columbia's public service to a carbon-neutral public service this year, in 2010.

We have a number of leaders in the green teams, which cut across all ministries of government, and I'd like to give a warm welcome to them. Some of them are joining us for the first time today in the Legislature, in the public gallery.

We have with us Aaron Brown, Michael Cormack, Claire Doherty, Rheannon Harriman, Craig Harris, Gillian Henuset, Natasha Horsman, Kristyn Kaitila, Bev Kallstrom, Kim King, Brooke McMurchy, Jane Price, David Stewart, Angela Weltz, Michael Westby, Jennifer Williams, Lindsay Wood and Sandra Henson.

These are public servants who serve with distinction and who are very enthusiastic and high-energy about helping the public service of British Columbia become carbon-neutral. I ask all members of the House to join me in welcoming them, especially this week, because Thursday is Earth Day in the province of British Columbia and around the world. These folks are helping members of the green teams around the public service recognize Earth Day this week.

Hon. S. Bond: I am absolutely delighted to have four very special guests to the Legislature today. They are from Prince George. Three of them are young people, and they are actually in Victoria to receive one of the highest honours in the scouting program. Chris Forseille, Stan Gordy and Dylan Adams are recipients of the Queen's Venturer Award from the Lieutenant-Governor today.

The award is based on a number of criteria, including volunteer service and demonstrating outstanding leadership in a peer environment. They are members of the 13th Carney Hill RCMP Venturers, led by Const. Davy Greenlees, and he is also in the gallery today. He is an incredible volunteer in our community. This is just another example of it. I know that every member in this House will congratulate these young people for doing a phenomenal job in reaching this achievement.

Welcome to the Legislature today, and on behalf of all of the members, congratulations on an exceptional job. We're very proud of you all.

E. Foster: In the House today is a longtime friend of mine from Lumby who moved here, to Sidney, a few years ago — Dave Carroll. Dave is a veteran, the past president of the Lumby Legion branch No. 167. He's also a past president of the army-navy. Dave's volunteer hours in Lumby, through the Legion and other community organizations, is a thing that legends are made of, so I would ask that the House please make this veteran and great volunteer welcome.

D. Barnett: Today in the House I am very pleased to introduce members of the Redstone Band from my riding of the Cariboo-Chilcotin. We have here today Chief Percy Guichon, Coun. Otis Guichon, Coun. Rocky Guichon, Coun. Clayton Charleyboy, Coun. Wanda Charleyboy, Coun. Terry Char, Coun. Agnes Case and Melanie Johnny. I ask the House to welcome them here today.

Hon. P. Bell: We're joined in the gallery today by a number of individuals who are here for the Wood Enterprise Coalition announcement. These are all
[ Page 4558 ]
members of B.C. Wood and include Grant McKinnon, Richard Kauffman, Colin Chornohus, Brent Comber, David Conway, Brian Hawrysh, Scott Thompson, Mike Pidlesecky, Jim Barker and Charlie Wicke.

[1340]

Also joining us in the gallery is Brian Menzies, who works very closely with B.C. Wood and used to be part of these halls in his day, a previous ministerial assistant to a previous Minister of Forests.

Would the House please make everyone very welcome.

Hon. B. Stewart: Also here today for the Wood Enterprise Coalition and in the precinct is one of the Gorman family, Mary Tracey of West Kelowna, who runs the wood innovation centre. I know that Mary and her family are a large part of British Columbia's forest industry and keep 325 people working in my community.

More importantly, Mary and her husband Doug were one of the unfortunate families that lost their home in the fires in West Kelowna last summer. I know that I saw it under construction when I was up in their neighbourhood just a few weeks ago. Please have the precinct welcome Mary Tracey.

Tributes

IAN McTAGGART-COWAN

Hon. B. Penner: I rise in the House today to pay tribute to a remarkable man who devoted his lifetime to studying, teaching and conserving the natural resources of British Columbia. Dr. Ian McTaggart-Cowan, who was renowned as the father of conservation, died this past Sunday, just a few weeks shy of his 100th birthday.

I ask all members to join me in extending sincere condolences to his family and friends.

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: I have two special guests here again today. One is Barbara Steele, city of Surrey councillor, my constituent and a very hard-working member and vice-president on UBCM. Also with her is Mary Sjostrom, the mayor of Quesnel, one of the hardest-working mayors in that area. They are holding a UBCM executive meeting. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill M202 — Members Conflict of
interest amendment act, 2010

C. James presented a bill intituled Members Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 2010.

C. James: I move introduction of the Members Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 2010, for first reading now.

Motion approved.

C. James: I'm pleased to introduce the Members Conflict of Interest Amendment Act. British Columbians expect politicians and their appointees to conduct themselves by the highest ethical standard and to discharge their duties in the public interest. But far too often ordinary citizens feel that the public interest is crowded out by private interests. That perception has a corrosive effect on public confidence, undermining people's faith that the decisions made in this chamber or at a cabinet table result from no other consideration than what's best for British Columbia.

The Members Conflict of Interest Amendment Act seeks to address these concerns. This bill establishes more stringent conflict-of-interest laws to restore public confidence and promote greater accountability. This bill also expands the scope of conflict-of-interest rules to apply to public office appointees such as ministerial staff, former deputy ministers and advisers. Finally, this bill requires members of cabinet, parliamentary secretaries and deputy ministers to place their assets in a blind trust for as long as they hold that position.

The opposition has put forward similar legislation in the past. However, given recent events, it seems timely to introduce it again in hopes the government will finally take action to toughen up conflict-of-interest laws.

I move the bill be placed on the order paper for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M202, Members Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 2010, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

TISSUE AND ORGAN DONATION
AND WORK OF EVA MARKVOORT

D. Black: This week is National Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week. Right now there are 335 British Columbians on the wait-list for an organ transplant. For these British Columbians, each day is filled with uncertainty.

Since 1968 over 4,850 British Columbians have received a life-saving transplant, including former MLAs Ed Conroy, Sindi Hawkins and Chuck Puchmayr, my predecessor in New Westminster who is here with us today. But there are still too many people who never get that chance. Dr. Robert Levy, a transplant respirologist
[ Page 4559 ]
on the provincial lung transplant team, says a lack of donor organs means one out of three patients dies waiting for an organ transplant in Canada.

[1345]

I want to take a moment to tell you about a remarkable young woman in New Westminster. Eva Markvoort was on the wait-list for a second double-lung transplant for cystic fibrosis. Instead of letting her illness defeat her, she decided to reach out to raise awareness of cystic fibrosis and the importance of organ donation as the subject of an award-winning documentary and by creating a blog called 65 Red Roses, named after a mispronunciation by children of cystic fibrosis.

But last month, just days before her 26th birthday, Eva died. She was a talented actress who just a month earlier had received her bachelor's degree from the University of Victoria. It's heartbreaking that someone so young, so promising and so courageous had her life cut short waiting for a donor.

Eva's spirit reached millions around the world through her blog, and now it's up to us to ensure that the causes she championed are not forgotten. I urge all members of this House to ensure that their names are on organ donor registry and to take this message back to their communities so that we can make sure people waiting for a transplant do get a second chance at life.

SITE C POWER PROJECT

P. Pimm: I'd like to talk about a historic announcement in my area yesterday. I have been a resident of Fort St. John all my life, and as long as I can remember, Site C has been on the drawing board.

Yesterday our Premier and our Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources announced that the Site C clean energy project would be moving forward to stage 3 of the consultation process. This means that the project will now undergo a rigorous environmental assessment, continued consultation with local communities, stakeholders and First Nations. Subject to a positive outcome from that process, B.C. Hydro will proceed with the design and construction of Site C.

In 1961 W.A.C. Bennett had a vision for the province, and that vision was the W.A.C. Bennett dam on the Peace River. This dam has been a cornerstone for our province. Along with the Peace Canyon dam, our area provides the backbone of the province's power system and supplies over 30 percent of the province's power needs.

Site C will continue that vision and supply an additional 900 megawatts capacity and produce about 4,600 gigawatt hours of electricity each year. That's enough electricity to power 410,000 homes. The Site C clean energy project will use the upstream storage from the Williston reservoir to generate one-third of the energy of the W.A.C. Bennett dam while using only 5 percent of the footprint.

Site C will contribute to the local and provincial economy by creating approximately 7,650 jobs throughout the construction period, with the possibility of up to 35,000 direct and indirect jobs during the entire project.

Like I said previously, I've lived in this area my entire life. I understand the beauty of the Peace Valley, and I also understand the concerns associated with this project. Site C clean energy project will build on the vision W.A.C. Bennett had in the early 1960s for the future of our children and our grandchildren for the clean, green, reasonably priced energy that we all so dearly need and desire.

VOLUNTEER ACTIVITIES
OF HILDA VENABLES

B. Routley: Hilda Venables recently won the Cowichan chamber's Black Tie Award for her volunteer activities. She will be 90 years young in May.

Hilda tells me that she started visiting seniors with her mom when she was just five years old. When she was in her 20s she remembers putting her children in the buggy to go and visit seniors at a care home, and she recalled how the seniors all loved seeing the children.

She volunteered at the Upper Room and for a suicide-prevention help line when she lived in Victoria. Living in Shawnigan, she volunteered for the white cane society. She explained that most of the people who were part of that group have now died.

About a year ago she saw an ad asking for volunteers for what became the 1to1help group in Mill Bay. Hilda went to the founding meeting of this new group. They talked about calling themselves "I was going that way anyway." However, they chose 1to1help.org. She loved the idea of helping one another and agreed immediately to volunteer. She drives people to the hospital, to the doctor, shopping, hairdressing or anywhere they need to go.

I asked her what she would want to teach others about being a volunteer. She says that a great volunteer would be someone with a heart full of love who enjoys helping others.

[1350]

Volunteering gives her lots of new friends and many great memories. She offers that the world is not reaching out to one another, and she is sad and concerned that all this electronic junk that people are sitting around staring at is making things much worse. She says: "Life is much fuller when we reach out to one another. Connecting with others gives you a joy for life you simply won't find in all that electronic junk."

We thank you, Hilda, for being a great volunteer, and we honour and thank all volunteers who, like Hilda, are reaching out and helping others.
[ Page 4560 ]

RICHMOND CENTRE FOR DISABILITY

R. Howard: Recently an organization in Richmond celebrated its 25th anniversary, the Richmond Centre for Disability, founded with the aim of raising awareness about accessibility for those in the community living with disabilities. Over the past decade we have seen our buildings and public spaces designed with accessible features aimed at offering everyone complete access. These changes are often because of organizations like RCD that keep accessibility in the forefront of our thinking.

Take, for example, the Canada Line and the various stations within this route, which are 100 percent accessible for all riders. A quick and easy way to board for everyone is something that only became a reality in the last decade, and it's thanks to partnerships with groups like RCD that these options are possible. Many of our buses are equipped to take wheelchair passengers, and our new schools contain elevators, wider doorways and desks to accommodate wheelchairs. The RCD has worked to ensure that bus stops in our city are all outfitted for wheelchairs, as well as the curbsides and our intersections.

There is always more to be done in terms of changing attitudes, and the RCD will be working to make these changes happen in our communities for as long as it takes. Richmond is one of the most accessible communities in the province, and it is Richmond residents such as Frances Clark and Vince Miele and their hard-working board that give tirelessly to this success. Let us all thank and congratulate RCD for their 25 years of creating awareness and for service to the city of Richmond.

ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

J. Kwan: May is recognized as Asian Heritage Month across Canada. On May 29, 2001, Sen. Vivienne Poy introduced a motion in the Senate to recognize Asian Heritage Month in order to acknowledge the long and rich history of Asian Canadians and their contributions to Canada.

Quoting from her speech, the senator said: "While various cities in Canada hold events to celebrate Asian heritage, British Columbia is the only province to have officially declared May as Asian Heritage Month. It first declared it in 1996 and has since proclaimed it on an annual basis." Indeed, since 1996 the annual festival is called explorAsian.

The Vancouver Asian Heritage Month Society has organized diverse events that showcase the rich Asian cultures in British Columbia. The definition of "Asian" is inclusive and broad. It includes East Asia, South Asia, Central Asia and Southeast Asia. The art, cultural and educational programming organized by the society provides audiences with an opportunity to further their knowledge, awareness and appreciation of cultural expression through workshops, lectures, displays and exhibitions.

From building the railroad where B.C. joined Confederation to the development of Chinatown and Japantown, the history of Asians in B.C. can be tracked back to the 19th century. Decades of discrimination legislation such as being denied the right to vote, to attend professional schools or even to eat at certain restaurants were only some of the barriers to inclusion that Asian communities faced.

Our province has come a long way, and now we have a large and prosperous Asian community that contributes to B.C. economically, socially and culturally. From the B.C. Legislature, I would like to congratulate and thank the organizers and volunteers for their fine work in the celebration of Asian Heritage Month and encourage everyone to attend this year's explorAsian festivities.

SHERRY BRUCE

D. McRae: Today I wish to pay tribute to a truly amazing woman from the Comox Valley. Sherry Bruce, along with her mother, Deanna Gagnon, started making chocolates 25 years ago and decided to turn this passion into a full-time career. In 1986 the mother-daughter team opened Hot Chocolates in downtown Courtenay and have not looked back since. The company specializes in the crafting of handmade Belgian chocolate truffles and has outgrown three different store locations.

[1355]

In 1994 Jorden Marshall joined Sherry both as a partner in business and in life, and this partnership flourished. Now, Sherry Bruce was an enterprising woman who did not limit her success to just one business. Sherry, her mother and Jorden opened two more businesses — Pomegranate, which sold beautiful home décor, and Uranus Card and Gifts, which offered a variety of products for the young and young at heart.

With three successful businesses, you'd think that would be enough for Sherry. But no. In 2006 her dream for an artisan bakery began to take shape. Sherry opened Cakebread Artisan Bakery, and as a testament to her skills, she was able to successfully challenge the exam for the Red Seal baker qualification. Even more, she was later asked to sit on the board that reviews the Red Seal bakers program.

While Sherry's contribution to the business community in the Comox Valley is outstanding, her charity work goes even further. Donations to organizations that focus on children and community arts and culture were always a priority, and Hot Chocolates helped many local organizations achieve their goals.

However, Sherry did not limit herself to philanthropy in the Comox Valley. After her son Aaron volunteered in an orphanage in rural Uganda, Sherry saw a chance
[ Page 4561 ]
to make a difference in a global sense. Hot Chocolates and Sherry rallied support in the Comox Valley to provide clean drinking water, proper beds with malaria nets, a medical fund, school supplies and building improvements for the 150 students who live at or attend the New Hope Academy and orphanage. This current project has made, and continues to make, a positive impact on so many people, both in Africa and in the Comox Valley.

I am very sad to say that on March 18 Sherry passed away at home after a two-year journey with breast cancer. She was only 52, but she made every one of those 52 years count.

Thank you, Sherry.

Oral Questions

CONDITIONS AT
VERNON JUBILEE HOSPITAL

C. James: Doctors are speaking out against the dangerous levels of ER overcrowding at the Vernon Jubilee Hospital — the worst, they say, they've seen in ten years. Yesterday Dr. Mike Concannon said that far from being prepared for a serious incident, the hospital isn't even "prepared to deal with a Smart car crash."

To the Minister of Health. Doctors and health care professionals have raised these concerns for years, and for years the B.C. Liberals have ignored them. What does the minister plan to do today to deal with these serious concerns?

Hon. K. Falcon: First of all, we recognize and appreciate the exceptional work that emergency room physicians do every single day in this province of British Columbia. Like many emergency departments, the Vancouver General Hospital does experience periodic cases of severe crowding.

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: I apologize. Vernon. Thank you, Member. Vernon.

See, there are many. I was honest about that fact. Vernon does see some of these challenges, too, and I think that's why it's important to note that actually at that exact site there is a $180 million investment underway, with construction underway, for a new hospital tower. It's one of the reasons why we've invested over $400 million in 30 emergency departments across the province.

It's why we're building a new hospital in Fort St. John and in Surrey. We built the new Abbotsford Hospital. We're building new hospitals from every end of the province to try and deal with some of these challenges. They are not issues that can be dealt with overnight, but we are absolutely making sure we deal with these issues.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: If this minister and this government want to show support for doctors, they can begin by listening to them and acting on their concerns. That's what they should be doing for those doctors.

These are issues that have been raised year after year after year. The doctors have said repeatedly that nothing short of additional space, more acute care beds and OR spaces will address these concerns. And yet, what have the doctors said? Physician Dr. Hwang says: "There's no plan to provide funding to increase the number of beds or operating rooms."

Again my question is to the minister. Will he stop pretending that he knows best? Will he listen to those professionals, and will he make sure the supports are in place now for Vernon?

Hon. K. Falcon: The Leader of the Opposition should know. Actually, the leader should go travel up there and see the construction underway on the new $180 million tower. I think that would be step No. 1.

[1400]

Step No. 2. It's a little hard to listen to the lecture from the members opposite with respect to the need for more acute care beds when, in the ten years that the NDP were in power at that hospital, they cut the beds by 23 percent. That is a little inconsistent with what I'm hearing here today.

The fact of the matter is that a $180 million investment is under construction and is to open in the spring of 2011 that will help address these very real shortages the doctors are dealing with. I can tell you that when I met with them last year, we had this discussion and we agreed to move that project forward and get it done as quickly as we possibly can.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: I'd again raise the voice of Dr. Hwang: "No plan to provide funding to increase the number of beds or operating rooms." These are concerns that have been going on for years.

Let's take a look at 2008 alone. This hospital, Vernon Jubilee Hospital, was forced to declare code purple over 50 times — 50 times. The doctors say that crowding is now at the worst level they've seen. It's running at 30 beds over capacity today.

Again, my question is to the minister. Will he be upfront with the public? No more words. Let's talk facts here. Will he admit that he's not prepared to take the action to help the people in Vernon today?
[ Page 4562 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: With the greatest of respect to the Leader of the Opposition, it takes time to build a brand-new critical care tower, which is exactly what is under construction in Vernon today.

The challenge would have been a lot easier if even some investment was made at Vernon Jubilee or in Salmon Arm or, indeed, in Kelowna by the NDP government. Sadly, there was no investment made in those facilities. That's why $180 million is in the ground. It's rising up out of the ground. It's being built for the benefit of patients in Vernon, and those emergency doctors will also benefit with a brand-new tower in Vernon.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: The minister clearly isn't listening to doctors in Vernon — clearly isn't listening. Two years ago in April they had 16 code purples in that emergency room in 21 days. The government has done nothing about it.

Oh no, I stand corrected. I want to be fair to the government. They stopped telling people how many code purples they had. That's what they did about it.

Their plan. The minister talks about the record on health care. In this hospital that's short of acute care beds, they transformed acute care beds into administrative offices. That was their plan. That's what they did at this very hospital.

What's the minister going to do now? They did nothing in 2006 when this issue was raised; they did nothing in 2008 when this issue was raised. Their plan doesn't include any new acute care beds in the foreseeable future. What is the minister going to do now to help doctors in Vernon deal with the crisis in their emergency room?

Hon. K. Falcon: The first thing I would hope the Health critic would know is that a crisis, as the member incorrectly describes it, actually doesn't happen overnight. It happens particularly when you've had ten years of zero investment of capital in the region. That does not help. So when you are faced….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

[1405]

Hon. K. Falcon: I do think a reasonable person would recognize that when you have a growing population in an area like that, it would have been nice had a lot of these capital investments been made a lot earlier. Sadly, they weren't.

What did we do? We invested $2 million in the Vernon Jubilee emergency department to deal with the initial challenges they were facing a few years back and, at the same time, entered into the process of making sure we build a brand-new critical care tower — $180 million for a 181,000-square-foot facility — which will help deal with the very real challenges they face at Vernon Jubilee as a result of a complete ignoring of the problem for ten full years of NDP government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat, Member. Just sit down.

The member has a supplemental.

CONDITIONS AT
VANCOUVER GENERAL HOSPITAL

A. Dix: The minister finally said something right. We have had ten years of zero on health care from this government. We all know that change is just around the corner. But this is the government at that hospital…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: …that closed acute care beds and made them administrative offices. Is that what they call innovation? We know what the minister calls innovation. It's diverting funds from patient care to bureaucracy. That's what he calls innovation.

In Vancouver…. Let's bring the minister back to Vancouver, because he's apparently familiar with the situation there. Doctors at Vancouver General Hospital are directly talking to communities they serve about how they are unable to assess, admit and treat patients in a medically acceptable time frame.

Interjections.

A. Dix: Oh, I know that when anyone speaks out against this government, they get angry, but we're just going to keep talking. We're going to keep talking.

When doctors raised these issues yesterday, the minister criticized them. But doctors say that at Vancouver General Hospital there have been over 30 cases of near misses in the last 14 days.

Mr. Speaker: Could the member pose the question, please.

A. Dix: So 30 cases of near misses in the last 14 days. Does the minister find that circumstance acceptable in our public health care system?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat.
[ Page 4563 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: The Health critic is always very good at rhetoric; he's very weak on facts. The fact of the matter is…. These are what I call uncomfortable NDP facts that they never will tell the public about, so I'm happy to share them.

One of them is that in the decade of the '90s in which, actually, the Health critic was chief of staff in the Premier's office and responsible for making these kinds of decisions, we saw the number of acute care beds at Vancouver General Hospital go from 913 to 720. That was a 21 percent drop in acute care beds.

That was your record, Mr. Health Critic.

The other thing we saw that was quite fascinating during the 1990s was that there was a building built by the Social Credit government called the Jimmy Pattison tower, and the Jimmy Pattison tower sat empty for the entire decade of the NDP government.

We filled it. We staffed it. It's serving patients today, along with the new $95 million Gordon and Leslie Diamond out-patient facility. That is a record we are proud of on this side of the House.

[1410]

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
FOR CHILDREN IN KOOTENAYS

K. Conroy: Emergency rooms across the province are also being left to deal with this government's decision to undercut mental health programs. In Castlegar the child mental health office is currently only able to respond to urgent referrals. What does that mean? To receive help, you either have to be suicidal or homicidal. Report after report signals that without prompt intervention, these issues get worse.

Why is the minister putting youth at risk? Why do problems have to escalate to dangerous levels for these children and youth to receive the help that they need?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, in fact, that's entirely why you want to make sure you intervene as early as possible. It's one of the reasons why we've been working with the general practitioners service committee of the BCMA to actually bring together in GPs' offices, family practitioners' offices, a module that provides mental health training so that they can identify early on when some of these young people present with symptoms of mental illness. There are early indicators that we now allow the doctors to address early on so that we can get help and intervention early on in young people's lives.

That is a program the members opposite would certainly be unfamiliar with, because it didn't exist in the 1990s. It is something that is underway today in almost every single family practitioner's office right across the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Conroy: That just isn't the reality in the Kootenays. The wait-list for Castlegar children and youth continues to grow, and it's growing rapidly. They do not have the capacity to deal with it. This is just not acceptable. It's not acceptable to the youth, to the children, to the families. The children that are being put at risk because of no one there to help them, to intervene for them when their needs are being needed…. It's increasing — the need for service. There's a rapid deterioration.

The minister needs to do something now. The minister needs to do something for children and youth in the Kootenays before the situation reaches a crisis.

Hon. K. Falcon: I apologize. I didn't quite get the question. The issue, and I think what the member should be comforted by, is the fact that since 2003, funding has more than doubled, from $42 million to $85 million, to deal with issues of community mental health services. What that means is that almost 20,000 children are receiving those services today in the province of British Columbia.

But I would agree with the member opposite on the fact that the job is hardly close to done. The fact of the matter is that what we have to do is make sure we intervene as early as possible with young children when they start to exhibit symptoms of mental illness.

That's why we are working with family practitioners to ensure that when they identify some of those early symptoms that present, they have the opportunity to immediately put them in touch with services. That can range — anything from the DVD, through the Bounce Back program, we created with the Canadian Mental Health to provide information for those young patients…. It can range from that to connecting with 811 HealthLink line to provide counselling services and, indeed, additional services.

SPECIAL ADVISER TO
VANCOUVER SCHOOL DISTRICT

R. Austin: Yesterday the Education Minister refused to explain why the terms of reference for the special adviser that she's appointed for the Vancouver school district didn't include a mandate to examine whether the funds being received by the district were adequate. It's no wonder, since even a cursory glance at the government's own numbers show the Vancouver district is drowning in unfunded costs.

My question to the Education Minister is this. Will she expand the mandate of the special adviser? Or will she admit that school districts are not getting the funding they need to deliver the education our children deserve?

[1415]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The Vancouver school board is anticipating this year 5 percent fewer students than
[ Page 4564 ]
they had ten years ago. In spite of that, they're receiving increasing funding this year, as they have every year. Their funding per pupil is up 33 percent.

I must ask the member opposite: when will they stop protecting and insisting on the status quo? When will they come along with us and look at a future where we're investing in early education, where we realize that the needs in the province have changed with 60,000 fewer students?

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: You know what? It's an insult to the intelligence of parents around this province to believe that millions of dollars in extra costs in Vancouver can be offset by a hundred less students in a district of more than 55,000. Yesterday parent Tim Waring said this: "The government is pointing fingers at the Vancouver school board, saying that they're mismanaging their money. But that doesn't explain why Surrey is having a shortfall — Coquitlam, Richmond, Prince George, Victoria, and I could go on."

Again to the Minister of Education: is the real reason that she appointed a special adviser for the Vancouver school district because they were the source of too many embarrassing headlines?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member opposite is well aware of the history of the Vancouver school board, where, in the last 17 years, every single year they have projected huge shortfalls. They predicted doom and gloom, and every single year they've ended up with a surplus — last year $16.7 million in the surplus of their operating funds.

Vancouver is facing significant declining enrolment. In Vancouver there are schools that are 60 or 70 percent empty. It's time for all of the school boards, the 52 that are facing declining enrolment, to start to do things differently. It's incumbent upon all of us to look for administrative savings where we can. To think about the 55,000 students that are attending school in Vancouver today — that needs to be our focus.

D. Thorne: Well, I take exception to what we've just been hearing from the Minister of Education. It is ridiculous. It is ridiculous to talk about one school board, like the Vancouver school board, as if it was different from almost every other school district in British Columbia, which are all facing the same kinds of issues.

Districts of every size are facing tough choices across British Columbia. My home district of Coquitlam is looking at a $4.1 million shortfall, despite the fact that the enrolment in Coquitlam grew by hundreds of students last year — grew. The district is holding a meeting tonight where they will be discussing making cuts to supports for special needs students, cutting school days, laying off three youth workers and nine specialist teachers. These are all options that are being contemplated by most other districts.

My question is again to the Education Minister. Why is she picking on Vancouver when districts across the province are all experiencing these massive shortfalls?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The decision was made to provide the special adviser in Vancouver because this school board did stand out from the others, in that they consistently made statements about their inability to manage. They made statements that they couldn't cope. They talked about the fact that they were making decisions that they thought were unacceptable.

[1420]

There are 55,000 students in Vancouver and their parents, and they are counting on us. They are counting on us to have the will to do things differently. Education funding….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I would remind the members opposite that education funding is at an all-time high, that we are investing more than we ever have before. Not only are we investing more than ever before, but we're investing in a new program next year — a full-day kindergarten, which is being welcomed by parents and by educators alike around the province.

DELTA SCHOOL DISTRICT
COSTS AND FUNDING

V. Huntington: The Minister of Education has repeatedly said that school boards must do things differently, and I'm proud to say that the school board in Delta does do things differently and is constantly searching for innovative ways to supplement its budget shortfall. But despite developing specialized academies and closing schools, despite heeding the minister's advice in untold ways, the Delta school board is still facing a $4 million deficit this year. It's laying off 34 full-time positions, depleting its reserves and cutting programs to vulnerable students.

What else does the minister expect Delta to do? Does she want us to go back to split shifts or two grades per classroom? Does she have any specific suggestions on how she wants things done differently in the system?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: In Delta next year's enrolment is expected to be 10 percent lower than it was ten years ago — so a substantial decline in enrolment. In spite of this enrolment decline, the per-pupil funding is up 36 percent in Delta — a 36 percent increase in per-pupil funding.
[ Page 4565 ]

What we expect of this school district — and we know they are working hard — is what we expect of all the districts: to think about things differently; to pursue things like shared services, perhaps a common payroll system; to look at doing things with the municipalities. There are a number of ways that we can gain administrative savings and put these savings back into the classroom. That is what we expect.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

V. Huntington: If there is an increase in the funding, it's because of the innovations the Delta school board has put in place. In the face of government cuts, Delta school district has developed sports academies to draw additional students back into the system.

One was recently proposed for English Bluff Elementary, and to its credit, the board responded quickly to parents concerned about the social impact of segregating young children of seven, eight and nine years old and the effects on the other children who wouldn't be in the academy and who would watch their peers being treated differently.

Since the minister has asked school districts to do things differently, what oversight and accountability measures is she putting in place to control these innovations, or will there be a free-for-all of creativity in this province, with no rules, guidelines or controls?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: One thing that we know is that parents do want choice for their children, and Delta is responding to that request for innovation from parents.

But the member is mistaken when she talks about funding. This district is going to receive $2 million of additional funding next year above and beyond what they received previously, and this is in spite of their declining enrolment. Not only is their per-pupil funding up…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: …by 36 percent over the last ten years, but there's also been substantial capital investment in Delta. In spite of what the members opposite would try to lead the public to believe, we are investing record amounts in education in this province, and we will continue to do that.

[1425]

RICHMOND SCHOOL DISTRICT
COSTS AND FUNDING

G. Gentner: Let's move from the non-friendly Liberal territory called Delta to across the river, to Richmond. Enrolment is on the rise in the Richmond school district, yet just last night trustees unveiled a plan to cut almost a hundred staff.

Richmond school trustee Donna Sargent had this to say about the government's campaign of misinformation: "I think it's disgusting the minister says we're getting more funding than we have, ever, and yet in the last two years we've had to cut $13 million."

My question is to the Minister of Education. Given the fact that school trustees across the province are contradicting what this minister has said, will she appoint a special adviser to look at her own books in order to ascertain whether this government has kept their promises to the parents of B.C.?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We're investing $2.4 million more in Richmond next year than we did in the previous school year. Their per-pupil funding is up 27 percent since 2000-2001. In every school district around this province we are continuing to invest record amounts. We are embarking on new programming, which is valued by educators and parents alike — full-day kindergarten.

Let me remind all the members opposite of what former NDP Finance Minister and Education Minister Paul Ramsey said about this. "A shortfall is a fiction on paper. It's not a real deficit, but it's a wonderful game that school districts use to jam ministers of education."

[End of question period.]

B. Ralston: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

B. Ralston: I would like to introduce to the chamber the mayor of Surrey, Dianne Watts, who's in the gallery. May I ask members to make her welcome.

D. Hayer: I would also like to do an introduction. City of Surrey mayor Dianne Watts is a very hard-working mayor, and I think she's doing a good job overall. Would the House please make her very welcome.
[ Page 4566 ]

Petitions

C. Trevena: I have a petition to present. I have a petition with hundreds of signatures calling for the closure of logging of old growth on Vancouver Island in certain endangered areas and the phasing out of all old-growth logging in the rest of the Island by 2015.

L. Popham: I present a petition. I have hundreds of signatures to a petition to protect Vancouver Island's ancient forests and B.C. jobs.

S. Fraser: I have further petitions calling for the phase-out of old growth logging on Vancouver Island and the Lower Mainland and to protect B.C. jobs by ending raw log exports.

Orders of the Day

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

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Consumption Tax Rebate
and Transition Act

(continued)

On the amendment (continued).

[L. Reid in the chair.]

R. Howard: Prior to lunch, I had taken my place here with great pleasure to speak about Bill 9 before us and, more specifically, to speak in opposition to the referral motion that is before us.

I think that before lunch I closed with a statement that this government has the courage to do the right things and do them now. But I also want to talk about credibility, because I hear from the opposition lots of confusion on several fronts.

[1430]

One opposition member wants to remove this tax, another wants to leave it in place, and yet another wants to replace it with a different tax. It seems remarkable to me that they actually prefer the PST.

I'll tell you what, Madam Speaker. I hear this sitting in my seat here in the Legislature. I hear it every day. They want to increase taxes. Let there be no doubt about that. They want to increase the machinery and equipment tax. They want to bring back the corporate capital tax, and they want to increase taxes on banks.

I've heard this clearly on a weekly if not a daily basis in this House. It seems to me they want to tax all the businesses and job providers, and that's why the job providers left this province in the '90s. Taxes and red tape had gotten out of hand with the NDP in power, and now, remarkably, the NDP wants to take us back to the '90s.

Does the opposition believe the PST is a better tax? I ask them to clarify that for the people of this province. In this very important debate, both sides have agreed this is important. We in government have put our position on the table for all to see, backed up by significant professional opinion.

They have a website, or at least they did have a website, which contained incorrect information, it turns out. Their website linked to Bill V.'s website, which contained more incorrect information. Yes, Bill V. and the NDP. There's a partnership for the ages.

I see that the opposition has trouble formulating a vision, and I know their business sense comes into question from time to time. I saw it firsthand in the '90s. But when the member for Delta North puts out a brochure claiming that the price of a meal will go from $20 to $25.40 as a result of HST, that is taking even NDP math to new heights.

We may have to come up with a new name. Perhaps we can call it, as the AG so delicately expressed, crapola — crapola math. Even when they have a concern for the cost of meals, they can't get the math right. The twisted logic does not stop there, so I ask: where is the credibility?

We have the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, who is the Forests critic. Now, let me frame this because this is something. The NDP Forests critic was supposed to offer up advice on how to improve conditions for our forest industry. Along comes the single most important thing government can do for the short-, mid- and long-term health of the forest industry, and he pans it, saying that it takes us in the wrong direction.

Let's look at the forest industry. Who supports the HST and moving forward now? Well, the B.C. Lumber Trade Council, Coast Forest Products Association, Council of Forest Industries, Truck Loggers Association, Canfor, West Fraser Timber and more.

These job creators support this. It sounds like strong support to me, and I think the opposition critic is going to have some explaining to do when the rhetoric stops, reality starts to sink in and the people of this province realize this is a good thing. So I ask: is the opposition credible when it comes to protecting jobs? I don't think so.

Other comments have been made as we debate in this House the merits of HST from the Leader of the Opposition, no less, and from the opposition member for Surrey-Whalley, who is also the Finance critic. We heard HST would be a job killer. Madam Speaker, 129 jurisdictions have a value-added tax system. Doesn't sound like a job killer to me. And 29 out of 30 OECD countries have a value-added tax system. Still doesn't
[ Page 4567 ]
sound like a job killer to me. These are countries like Australia, France, Germany, Korea, Japan, Mexico and others.

The vast majority of economists support a value-added tax system, so I guess I must ask: are all these economists and business groups conspiring to kill B.C.'s economy? Who has credibility on protecting jobs?

[1435]

Another economist, Dr. Jack Mintz, an internationally recognized expert in this field who studied and reported on the B.C. case specifically, concluded that the implementation of HST would result in an additional 113,000 jobs over the next ten years. A job killer? I ask British Columbians: who has credibility on the issue of protecting jobs and creating a strong economy? I do know of a job-killing tax. It's called the corporate capital tax. Now, there's a job killer, this interesting little item on the NDP's last platform. CCT, they called it. They didn't want to spell out its full name, and I think I know why.

I had the dubious pleasure of trying to explain to an international investor what this CCT, this corporate capital tax, was — the government taking back some of your capital each year, whether you made any money or not. He looked at me and said: "You mean I must give your government" — the NDP government, I should note — "money based on the value of my capital assets each year?" "Yes," I replied. "Even if I had lost money?" he asked, which I confirmed. He commented: "So the government will, over many years, take all my capital away via this tax."

Well, you can see where this conversation went. It went south real fast, as did the 35 jobs we were hoping to create with our proposal to him. There's a job-killing tax, the NDP's CCT, or corporate capital tax, which this B.C. Liberal government got rid of.

There is more on the HST and more on why it's important that we move forward now with certainty. In one of his more interesting moments, the member for Cowichan Valley claimed the HST would pick the pockets of the poor and the disabled. To that I say hogwash. If that isn't fearmongering, I don't know what is. The opposition member's comment is so bereft of fact that it's hard to deal with.

We have seen many real examples calculated by Finance Ministry officials of low-income British Columbians who, especially after HST credits, will be even or ahead financially once HST is implemented.

HST is a job-creating tax. We now have the lowest personal tax rates in the country, courtesy of this government, and over 325,000 British Columbians pay no provincial income tax at all. That represents money in taxpayer pockets.

Most British Columbians now pay between 30 and 75 percent less tax than in 2001. I must say that opposition members have voted against every tax-reducing measure that we have introduced as government. So I suggest that it is this government that has credibility when it comes to creating and protecting jobs. I think the evidence is clear.

I would like to talk about confidence. I referred to this earlier when I first talked about the referral motion and how difficult it would be to refer, creating further uncertainty and creating less confidence in this economy at just the wrong time. I have heard a few opposition members talk about this, and I'm very happy to talk about confidence.

We were elected in 2009 to keep B.C. strong, and that is what we are doing. We have made the tough governance decisions that will keep this province on a strong economic foundation for decades to come. This government has enjoyed seven consecutive credit-rating upgrades since coming into office.

I want to spend a minute on this, because this is where the rubber hits the road in many ways in the discussion on confidence. The public can be excused if they're confused somewhat, because there is a lot of misdirection going on here on behalf of the opposition and lots of misinformation when it comes to HST. It's a pattern that appears on many fronts. So I think British Columbians can be expected to say: "Show me proof."

Who has the high ground when it comes to claiming to know what is best for B.C.'s economy? Does the government know what it's doing? So let's look to the experts who spend their professional life evaluating and projecting economic performances — independent third-party judges, if you will. If you are a government or a corporation, they by and large get to decide what you have to pay for your debt.

When we do all this, all of a sudden the confusion falls away. All of a sudden there is clarity on the issue of confidence.

[1440]

This government has produced seven credit-rating upgrades for the provincial economy, which now has a triple-A rating. Over the last 20 years there have been seven credit-rating upgrades in total for this province, and this government has produced every one of them.

The score then is this government, seven; the opposition, none. Compare these seven credit upgrades to the accomplishments of the opposition when they were in power in the '90s. There is a contrasting vision for you to contemplate. Seven credit-rating upgrades since this government has been in power contrasted to no upgrades. I'm reminded by the member for Richmond-Steveston that there were some downgrades during the NDP's time in power.

Independent bond-rating agencies have confidence in this government's actions and have awarded us with the highest credit rating available. This is a statement that should cause pride for the citizens of the province, and when contrasted against the record of the opposition,
[ Page 4568 ]
they show a stark difference in how the most senior credit evaluators view our two different approaches.

The harmonized sales tax is an important tax policy, and it's important that we move forward with certainty and speed. It will make our economy more competitive. The numbers are as straightforward as they are compelling. First, $30 million comes out of the cost of operating the department for the province. Some $30 million gets pulled out of the cost of the provincial government. That's a savings of $30 million to the taxpayers of this province, and that's a lot of money.

Second, over $150 million comes out of compliance costs, comes out of the cost of doing business in this province. This is the cost represented by businesses across the province having to fill out forms and deal with the separate tax issue, the PST.

As a small business owner, few things made me more angry than having to deal with complex forms and reading the regulations associated with the government taxation department — phone calls to clarify, web searches to confirm. All this time spent on dealing with government. No revenue associated with that activity, just time.

As if the bond-rating agency's scoring wasn't conclusive enough, and the other 130 countries using a value-added system wasn't enough, and the 29 of 30 OECD countries wasn't enough, and pretty well every major economist who supports this wasn't enough. Then let's look to the internationally known expert who has studied the British Columbia case specifically, Dr. Jack Mintz.

Dr. Mintz has studied and reported on the B.C. case. He's a leading international authority on taxes, and he has concluded that British Columbia will gain 113,000 jobs as a result of harmonization. As I have said, the opposition Finance critic has called this a job killer.

I urge all British Columbians to think about this. Some 130 different countries and the vast majority of economists, including the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives — which is a left-leaning, left-funded organization — have said that this is a positive thing for the economy. Many have said that it is important to the future success of the province and our ability to attract investment and create jobs.

So who do you place your confidence with? A government that has laid out a vision backed up by experts? Or an opposition who is simply opposing, making misleading statements and, by all accounts, led a disastrous government in the 1990s?

I'd like to talk briefly about two specific examples, because some of the fearmongering that is happening is damaging, especially to seniors. Seniors have been the subject of some misinformation.

A specific example of a senior couple with $30,000 of income was circulating on the Internet, claiming they'd have to pay an extra $2,100 in taxes, which is nonsense. The couple will pay approximately $1,000 under the new system versus approximately $750 that they paid under the PST system. An increase of about $250, when considered with the HST tax credit, will offset the increased costs, and they will likely be even or ahead of the game at the end of the day. This senior couple would pay less, not more.

I have another example. I have a friend who is an electrical contractor. They are pleased with the elimination of the PST, and they don't want to wait. They don't want to wait and refer this to committee. They want some action now.

[1445]

The existing PST is a complicated system for them. They have to differ their accounting depending on if they're working in a manufacturing facility or not. At each and every month end they have to comb through their invoicing in order to determine if it's PST-able or not. If they install a fan on the ceiling, they have to double-check through their invoices and see if the struts and the screws and the fan components are PST-able, provide two different invoices, then remit and report. They are very happy that this government is moving to a harmonized system.

There are just two examples, and you have to know there are a thousand more success stories relating to HST. I think the opposition will have some answering to do later this year when the citizens of this province realize that they have been misled. They have been purposefully given incorrect information, all to try to scare individuals, seniors specifically, for political advantage. I think it's irresponsible.

In closing, this government has set out a vision for a certain kind of province. It is the kind of province that I want to live in and raise a family in. It's the kind of province I am proud to call home.

It's the kind of province where I'm sure that my son and his children will have a bright future, a secure future, a prosperous future; a government that truly respects choices for individuals; a government that looks after those who cannot look after themselves; a government that invests in the development of our young because they realize this is the best investment of all; a government that wants to set the table for responsible entrepreneurship and then, by and large, get out of the way for you to succeed; a government that recognizes the value of competition and partnerships; a government that recognizes the value in our natural setting; a government that is prepared to lead, not just to take the easy road to re-election but to do what is right in the longer term.

I want to create a province that when it is time to pass the leadership mantle onto the next generation and the next generation after that, both generations will look back at this time and feel strongly that we made the right decisions, that we set the table for them to succeed and that we have done many things.
[ Page 4569 ]

We have made it easier for low-income families by relieving their taxes to the point where over 325,000 British Columbians will pay no income tax at all. The NDP voted against all of our tax-reducing measures. We have cut corporate income tax by 39 percent and small business taxes by 44 percent. The NDP voted against those measures as well. By 2012 the small business tax rate will be zero.

For all these reasons, British Columbia can be sure that this government will lead them into the future with a plan that puts jobs and the economy at the forefront, which puts prosperity at the forefront.

I use the word "prosperity" on purpose, because it reflects more than just money. It speaks to a successful society; a balance between taxes, jobs, services and recreation; a balanced approach that respects the past, embraces the present and looks forward with confidence to the future. Prosperity — a little less worry, a little more peace of mind, a lot more confidence. Prosperity — people interacting with confidence about the future, because it is the economy that will allow our communities to prosper and remain the greatest place on earth.

I for one am not willing to take tax and economic advice from the NDP opposition. I lived through the '90s as a small business person, and that is part of the reason I got back into politics — to ensure we never go back to the days of big government, red tape and high taxes. The HST now helps us set up a sustainable province. It will make our tax structure and our economy more efficient and therefore more attractive to those who will create jobs we seek. That's good news for job creation, which is good news for me. It's good news for you, and it's good news for our families.

Madam Speaker, we were elected to keep B.C. strong, and that is what we're doing.

L. Popham: I stand today to present my argument against this government's version of a consumption tax rebate and transition act and to support the referral motion.

I would like to start by expressing my discontent with some of the arguments I'm hearing from the other side of this House. There are moments in this House when I feel excited by the debate, when I understand and am clear that two sides can have different passions and different ideologies that drive us all to fight hard for what we believe in. That's politics. That's why I'm here, and that's why I'm up for the fight.

[1450]

But I think this debate is quite different, and I find it quite hard to stomach. There is a tone of arrogance and haughtiness coming from the other side, and it's very upsetting to listen to.

I listened to the first throne speeches made in this House last September. I heard most MLAs from both sides thanking their voters who gave them this privileged seat in this chamber. There were words used in speeches like "privilege," "honour," "humbling" and "gratefulness." These words were used to express the gratitude we were each feeling, our thankfulness for such an opportunity to be here, and with these words came promises to never take what we had been given for granted.

We are all in this House because of democracy. We each presented ourselves to the voters of B.C. — what we believe in, what we stood for. We chose parties to run for, parties that reflected our political philosophies. I am sad to say, now that I have spent 11 months in this seat listening to this government, that I feel very confident that the voters of B.C. were bamboozled.

On May 12, 2009, this was a day that the voters took part in a critical event called an election. They voted. They voted in safe surroundings. They voted because they felt it was their responsibility, and they voted because many people before us and even still today lost their lives for this privilege. In B.C. we have a democratic process, and we're proud of that. It's something to protect. But now I see how blasé an attitude the Liberal government takes towards the idea of democracy.

I am here to register my opposition to the Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act and to support the referral motion. I oppose it for many reasons, but I would like to have it put on the record that I oppose it because it's being shoved down the throats of B.C. in an undemocratic manner.

I am opposing this act because I was elected by the people of B.C., and they don't want it. That's clear. They would have liked a heads-up before the election, they would liked to have been part of the consultation process, and they would have liked to have been asked before this government decided to shift a $2 billion tax increase on to them.

Is that too much to ask? In fact, maybe the question should be: why didn't the government ask? Now we're here in this House exchanging insults and verbal attacks. This government didn't ask, and now we have a referral motion in front of us which, if supported by this House, would lead to the consultation with the people of B.C. That's what they deserve.

We on this side of the House are engaged because we respect democracy. The other side of the House keeps proving day in and day out that they don't believe in it and that they don't respect the people of B.C. They believe in hiking taxes more than they respect the voters. That didn't seem to be the case on May 11, when we were all making promises, and that leads me to this question. What has changed over the past 11 months? It's not even been a year, and what I have heard coming from the other side shocks me.

What happened to being humbled? What happened to the indebtedness to the people who voted for you? What happened to the honour in representing the people of B.C.? I have to tell you that I reached a point last week
[ Page 4570 ]
in which I felt miserable being in here. This point came when the member for Comox Valley stood and gave his 30-minute rendition of his support for the Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act.

I was shocked at what he had to say, and I felt like taking a drive up to Comox and personally apologizing to the people who put their faith in this member. Verbally attacking each other is a crazy but accepted part of this job, but what's not part of this job is attacking the voters.

Perhaps I feel attached to this member's constituency because I grew up in the neighbouring riding. I spent many, many hours on Mount Washington, with many weekends training with the Mount Washington ski racing team. I spent years climbing around Mount Albert Edward, hiking around Forbidden Plateau, field trips to observe the Comox Glacier. Most every summer, over 16 summers, I've gone to Hornby Island with my family. They have vacationed there for 45 years straight. The Comox Valley is an incredible area full of opportunity, with agriculture and recreation, and is home to many small businesses.

[1455]

The member began his debate last week by taking issue with what the member for North Island said. The record from Hansard shows that the member for Comox Valley thinks he knows what the economy is based on up there, and he definitely knows it's not built on coffee and haircuts. How insulting to those small business owners in the Comox Valley.

Let's start with the hair industry. How upsetting it must have been to those people who own hair salons, and to barbers, in the Comox Valley. How insulting to those who voted for this member during the election. About 30,000 people voted in the Comox Valley in the 2009 election. Approximately 14,000 voted for the member across the way.

We can also think of it as about 30,000 people getting haircuts every couple of months in the Comox Valley. I'm going to use the number 30,000 for this discussion. This, of course, doesn't take into account kids' haircuts or the haircuts of people who didn't vote during the last election, which was over 50 percent.

Let's use the number 30,000 for argument's sake, but keeping in mind that the actual population of the Comox Valley is about 62,000. Say 30,000 people need a haircut every two months, and the average cost is approximately $25. That's taking a low average of the cost of a woman's and a man's haircut — so 30,000 people, $25 every two months. That's $750,000 every two months going into the Comox Valley economy from this sector.

Looking at what it contributes per year, I would estimate the total is around $4.5 million. Remember, that number could actually be doubled if we used the population to work out that equation. That number could possibly be as high as $9 million per year.

That says to me that the local economy is partially built on this small business sector. It doesn't seem insignificant at all. It seems like part of a small business sector that should get respect and consultation. The member for Comox Valley gives them neither.

I suggest that the member for Comox Valley take a look at it for himself — at how much this sector contributes to the Comox riding. It's not insignificant, and as a small business owner, I would be insulted to hear such dismissal from an MLA who represents them.

Bill 9 affects these small businesses by adding 7 percent more onto the cost of doing business, a cost that they will have to pass on to their customers. Of the $2 billion tax shift onto customers that this government is trying to implement, the fact is this government is raising taxes on people in B.C.

As far as coffee shops go, another blatant affront from this member to business owners — which, if the member cared to notice, play an important role in the vibrancy of the downtown core in Comox. The Comox Valley attracts many visitors, as it's the home of many attractions in the recreational tourism business. These visitors arrive downtown to visit a vibrant, creative centre that hosts many coffee shops. There are places to gather, to make plans, to mingle and to be a part of the community, and the member for Comox Valley feels they are insignificant.

The economy is not built on these businesses? What a slap in the face. Perhaps the member didn't read his local paper, the Comox Valley Echo, when they reported:

"Restaurant and food service business owners in Courtenay's downtown core are almost unanimous in their opposition to a provincial HST. 'People are already having a hard time getting by as it is,' said Darla Curror, a co-owner of Mudsharks Coffee Bar, in the downtown area. 'This is one more reason why they won't be able to afford to dine out.'

"Ryan Liebert, owner of Bean Around the World, on 4th Street, noted that a cup of coffee will go up by 14 cents, lattes will go up 28 cents, and lunch will increase 50 cents to 60 cents. 'That's no profit to me. That's profit to a government that doesn't deserve it. If you think people aren't going to feel that, then you're insane,' he says, 'and that's certainly going to impact my business.'"

The member claims that he supports business, but as far as I can tell, small and medium-sized businesses don't fall under his area of interest. If they did, he would not be supporting Bill 9. It is clear that this government supports tax hikes and loves spending our money. Look out, folks, the tax-and-spend Liberal government is like a runaway coal-burning train.

I say coal-burning because they've also decided to abandon their environmental ethics with this tax. The HST is going to raise taxes on consumers across the tourism sector, from restaurants and meals to hotels and accommodation, and even green fees on rounds of golf.

[1500]

With this member being in a prime tourism destination for Vancouver Island and the Lower Mainland, how can this member support a bill that would devastate that industry?
[ Page 4571 ]

This area is well known for its amazing golf courses. Guess what. Golf resorts will have a triple whammy of HST on golf, accommodation and food. Thirty percent of golf resorts' customers in that area are from Vancouver Island. They've already been hit with the economy being in trouble and then adding the folding of Tourism B.C. The HST is another added burden.

What was this member thinking? There was no consultation. That's clear. I hope that this member will consider his community when he votes for the referral motion and will vote in favour of it.

Now, talking about the coal-burning train out of control, why on earth, after 30 years, would a government decide to take an exemption off bicycles? It's unbelievable that this government wouldn't fight for such an exemption while it was going down this path.

I attended the estimates last September with the Minister of Small Business, and the amount of e-mails I was getting in my office regarding the bicycle tax was so much that I decided to create a petition/survey and ask people around B.C. if they had any idea that this was happening and also if they had been consulted. I e-mailed every bike store in B.C.

I went into the estimates, and this is from Hansard. My question was:

"My questioning will be regarding the HST on bicycle purchases. I think there has been a real lack of communication to the public about moving them into transportation choices that are good for…climate change…."

Now we're going to be taxing a bicycle, which falls in line with our carbon emissions reduction plan.

"…for almost 30 years bicycles have had an exemption to the…tax. It included the repairs…and helmets, and now we see the HST affecting bicycle purchases and the repairs. I don't think the cycling community, the small business community that sells bicycles, was consulted at all, because I don't think you would find anyone in support of that tax coming in."

The Minister of Small Business responded. He said that those questions were best directed to the Minister of Finance. I was then reminded that my question was relevant to the Minister of Finance, but I decided to try again. "I think that I would like to know whether the minister is hearing that sort of conversation" — from the cycling world — "on his consultation tours." The Minister of Small Business said: "I've heard nothing from the retailers of bicycles. I'm advised by my staff that they are similarly lacking in any direct correspondence with people who retail bicycles."

Well, that's completely untrue. I have letter after letter after letter in my office and copies of letters that were sent to the minister asking why this tax would come in on bikes after 30 years. So I'm not sure why the Minister of Small Business wouldn't just have admitted that there was no consultation process.

A constituent of mine who owns a bike shop wrote me and said: "It's kind of frustrating, especially with things like helmets. Helmets are already a chunk of change for some people. You have to wear them, or you'll get a fine, and now the cost of wearing them is going up. The cost is going up on other accessories too — oil, grease, patch kits, reflective stickers and locks. All of that was PST-exempt."

So what kind of message is this government sending to the people of B.C.? You want us to reduce our emissions, yet you're going to tax bicycles. It's unbelievable.

I had a rally here at the Legislature, and 500 people showed up — almost 600 people, actually — and the letters haven't stopped coming. This Squeaky Wheels site that I've created is really a site for people to vent their anger over this tax, but really, it's turning into a place to vent their anger over this government, its lack of consultation, its lack of caring and its lack of explanation for changing its message.

You don't want people to take green choices as far as transportation goes. You're going to exempt gasoline. First of all, you've got this carbon tax, which is going up, but you're going to exempt gasoline. So your message is falling apart. What do you want us to do? What do you want the people of B.C. to do? Nobody understands what you're up to anymore.

Deputy Speaker: Member. You need to….

L. Popham: Yes, sorry — the government. Sorry.

[1505]

I think the narrative is falling apart. I think that's really obvious, because the members across the way are getting very grumpy and chippy. I think that, for it being my first time elected…. I find the behaviour quite unsettling. It makes me feel embarrassed sometimes to be a politician. The balance of power is out of whack, and there doesn't seem to be very much honour in this job.

I would like to move on to agriculture. That's because the Minister of Finance tends to single me out when talking about how I should be supporting the HST because of the support from the agriculture industry. Well, you know, I think that's kind of making a big statement, again with not much proof.

A couple of weeks ago the Finance Minister said something that was really shocking. It shocked me, and when I sent it out to every single contact I have in the agricultural industry, it shocked them too.

I've been getting letters back, and I've got a really good letter to read to you. Maybe it'll add a little bit of reality about how the agriculture industry feels about the HST.

I hear from the other side of the House: "Oh well, farmers love it, because each year that they go out and buy a $40,000 new tractor, they're going to be thanking us."

Well, I don't know if anybody across the way knows the state of agriculture in B.C. It's not that good. There are not a lot of farmers I know that are going out and buying brand-new tractors. Some of them are, maybe the really big operations, but not small to medium-sized
[ Page 4572 ]
farms. They're going out, and they're buying used tractors, or they're trying to fix the one they have.

A couple of Thursdays ago the Finance Minister said that the B.C. Agriculture Council fully endorses the shift to the HST. "You know why? Because it's good for farmers and ranchers in British Columbia. It actually allows them to remove costs from their cost of doing business so…they can provide prices to the consumers in British Columbia that are cheaper."

I couldn't believe it when he said that. He must not understand anything about agriculture in B.C. Nobody who understands the finances of agriculture right now would insinuate that farmers could drop their prices as part of a business plan. So I don't know what school of economics the Finance Minister goes to, but it's not the school of real life when you're a farmer.

"…they can provide prices to the consumers of B.C. that are cheaper. That makes them more competitive. It means that there are going to be more British Columbians buying British Columbia agricultural products rather than imported products with which they're trying to compete." Well, you know what? That's absolutely false. They're going to be buying imported products because there won't be any more farmers left in B.C. if those are his expectations.

When I sent this out to my huge list, I can tell you that it was not well-received, and that included the Agriculture Council.

I got a very good letter back from somebody that explains the plight of the farmer and how the HST probably isn't what's going to be saving them in B.C.:

"Thank you for this most interesting update, Lana. I can't believe anyone would actually suggest that because of the HST benefit, we can somehow drop our prices and be more competitive, with product continually sourced from jurisdictions where labour and other costs are considerably lower and where governments push the limits on domestic support and direct subsidies.

"By our estimates, retail and wholesale consume, on average, 55 percent of the final selling price of apples. These margins would only increase if we dropped our prices. We're only realizing half our cost of production as it is. The HST will only affect one side of our production costs as labour. The largest direct cost component in the apple business will continue to be higher than that of our competitors.

"The government needs to realize that no farming sector in B.C. can compete on the basis of production costs versus other jurisdictions, which is why they need to invest more into agriculture, including extraordinary assistance measures and resurrecting and funding programs like Buy B.C.

"The Canadian dollar reaching par has already made our apples cheaper, and this factor easily erases any advantage, and more than that, that the apple industry might gain in HST tax credits.

[1510]

"Yes, we do support the HST from the perspective that it reforms the PST system and will, hopefully, include more items that previously provided either only GST rebate or were not PST-exempt. But the jury is out because farmers are going to have to put the faith in the government that this will be the case.

"We have received no explanation of what is eligible and non-eligible for the HST tax credit. We are only assuming that farm inputs that had either or both taxes or were exempt in the past will qualify. For example, do farm pickup purchases get the entire HST back? Do they qualify? Previously we received only the GST refund.

"If only it was as simple as waving a magic HST wand and making the financial issues of the apple industry go away. It is far more complex than that, and hopefully, I've illustrated this for you and for the government. The HST will not provide relief for the many farmers in my industry who desperately need the resources to purchase crop protection products and other farm supplies to grow the coming year's crops.

"It will clearly take years before we can assess what impact the HST would actually have. Hopefully, it will mean more than just paperwork, but we don't know."

So there you go. That's a farmer — a real, live farmer — who is out there trying to make a living. He doesn't even know if the HST is going to affect him in a positive way because the government hasn't actually explained it very well.

The way the HST was rolled out…. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to say the word "pathetic" or not, but I think it was quite pathetic. The information wasn't there at the beginning, and now we're almost at the end of this thing rolling in, and there's still a lack of information.

There's talk of a pamphlet going out. It's a little too late. If the government cared to notice, people are really ticked off. It's a marketing problem on the government's side, but — you know what? — I think unfortunately it's too little, too late. B.C. doesn't trust this government anymore. There's no reason to trust. Jamming something down the province's throat is what they're doing.

And you know what? On this side of the House we're trying to get information as best we can, but it's even hard for us to get information because the letters we've been writing, the questions we've been asking in this House, don't get answered by this government. It's a mockery. This government's making a mockery of the province.

"Figure it out yourself." I've also heard comments like: "The public is confused." Well, this government has confused the public.

You know, there is a list of things that are going to be going up, and I got this list from Bill Vander Zalm's website. I'm just going to list them off.

Maybe, if someone's watching this Hansard, it might be one of the first times that they've heard exactly what it's going to affect. They're not going to hear it when the other side talks because it's so vague coming from the other side.

Restaurant meals are going up, and we can actually talk about restaurant meals in regards to agriculture. On southern Vancouver Island there's a very critical relationship between restaurants and farmers, mostly small- to medium-lot farmers on this end of the Island. This relationship is based on the restaurant owners and staff valuing what's being grown locally on this end of the Island and supporting farmers.

The restaurant industry has been very outspoken as far as how much they think that this new tax will harm their industry. They have been crying out for consul-
[ Page 4573 ]
tation. They've been crying out for the government to make some changes, and I think the government has basically ignored them. Why? I have no idea. The restaurant industry in British Columbia is massive.

If the restaurants on the southern end of the Island, who support local farming, lose part of their purchasing power because they're not making as much money, they will not be purchasing agricultural goods from southern Vancouver Island. They won't be able to. They won't be able to afford it.

[1515]

You're killing two industries at once; the government's doing that. The government is killing two birds with one HST stone. So I think it's irresponsible.

I think there's a lot of talk of supporting business, and I don't think they do. I think they support large business, and they have handpicked a few businesses to support, but everybody else is just going to have to figure it out on their own, see how it affects them.

I'd like to know: what happens if it doesn't work? What happens after a year and people are like: "No, this isn't helping me at all"? What happens then? We're stuck with it, because we've signed on.

Restaurant meals, non-prescription medicine, hockey tickets, prepared foods. Prepared foods is interesting, because that's sort of a value-added product from the agricultural industry as well. I'm not sure where the support of agriculture…. I can see the input argument, but there's so much that hasn't been sorted out for the agricultural industry. It would be fantastic to see an explanation for all of these things about why they don't fit, what was important.

We've also got haircuts, as I've mentioned. There are so many people in the hair industry in B.C. They were not consulted. I've gone out and talked to quite a few hair salons and barber shops. The problem is that they don't have a well-organized group speaking for them, so there was no way to consult. Some of us don't need monthly haircuts, but some of us do.

They're ticked off, but they're working so hard that they don't have time to organize themselves to approach the government and say: "This is going to affect us. This is a cost that we're going to have to put onto our customers. We can't take that cost on ourselves."

We've got theatre tickets, magazines, newspapers. You know, newspapers are struggling right now, because of on-line access. Adding a disincentive, more cost, to buying a newspaper is another slap in the face to that industry. That industry is suffering, and they have with the Internet coming on line. I think that's a bad choice. I love newspapers. Nothing's better on a Saturday morning than to sit down with a couple of newspapers. But you know what? It comes out of your pocket. It's change, and some people won't be able to afford it.

Taxi fares, oh my goodness. How mad are the taxicab drivers? They're really angry. You know, we talk about taking people out of their cars, single-occupancy drivers. Some people use taxis now, and that's an added cost. So we're exempting fuel and making carpooling and car-sharing more expensive. It doesn't make sense to me.

Airline tickets, golf fees, skiing fees. You know, the member for Comox Valley has got a really successful ski mountain, ski resort in his riding. Skiing fees. It's amazing that he can stand up and support this bill. Spa services, massage therapy, parking, coffee shops.

The coffee shops are part of our culture here. A cup of coffee is not going to break the bank, but if you start adding more costs onto it, people are going to choose not to get that cup of coffee in the morning. It's cheaper to do it at home, and they have to think about that. I feel that this tax is really putting coffee shops in harm's way. I love coffee, so when somebody from Bean Around The World is telling me it's going to hurt their business, I don't like it, because I like to go there for coffee.

School supplies. Really, school supplies? How could that have a new tax on it? How could that have an added tax, school supplies? Aren't we supposed to be trying to educate our kids? It doesn't make sense. I don't understand. It's a lot of mixed messages.

I think the problem is that this government didn't really have a message, so they stuck a whole bunch of them together, and now the narrative's completely falling apart.

We've got home maintenance, consulting services. I've heard from the other side….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Hon. K. Krueger: I rise to speak against this amendment to Bill 9. For those watching from home, Bill 9 is a bill to end the provincial sales tax in British Columbia.

[1520]

Strangely, our NDP opposition is en masse speaking against and clearly intends to vote against Bill 9 and doesn't want us to rescind and end the provincial sales tax.

The harmonized sales tax — being the harmonization of the federal goods and services tax and the provincial sales tax — the HST, as it's called, has already been legislated. That is federal government legislation. It's complete, and it comes into effect — the HST does — on July 1 of this year.

If we didn't rescind provincial sales tax, in theory we'd still have a 7 percent provincial sales tax in addition to a 12 percent harmonized sales tax, or 19 percent. Surely nobody wants that.

What you see here is an opposition wasting time in this Legislature, wasting time resisting a bill to eliminate a provincial sales tax that obviously needs to be eliminated. I spoke to second reading, and before this amendment was moved, about the fact that small business hates the provincial sales tax, finds it tremendously
[ Page 4574 ]
burdensome with its long schedules of exemptions, with its onerous accounting responsibilities for small business — small business that always creates the most jobs of any sector of our economy.

Month after month, quarter after quarter, year after year, as our economy grows, small business leads the way. There are 380,000 small businesses in B.C., employing 1.05 million British Columbians. It really matters to them, by and large — most of them — that we harmonize the sales tax. They want it. They have asked for it. It will be good for retail. It will be good for most small businesses.

We're dealing with those who didn't have provincial sales tax up until now on their goods or services. For them it is more of a shock. I spoke with the Council of Tourism Associations this morning. We'll be working with them for the coming months to try and make sure that the negative effects are not what they fear that they would be.

What you see here this afternoon is the government and the opposition debating an amendment which the opposition has moved, essentially wanting to delay this whole matter, even though they know that the HST, by federal law, will come into effect on July 1 of this year. Such a bizarre outcome, should it happen…. It won't, because we have the majority, and although the Leader of the Opposition has said many times that she hopes to turn seven of our members to their side in such a vote, that won't happen. And if it did, things would be chaotic because it would disorganize everything.

The federal law would still be in effect, and we, instead of being the leading economy in Canada, which we've become under the leadership of our Premier and under the B.C. Liberal government in place since 2001 — nine years now, almost — would go from being the leading economy in Canada to becoming very disorganized. It's a bizarre and ridiculous thing for the opposition to be wasting the month of April on this initiative.

The global economy has been very tough for the last 18 months — going on two years, actually. We want to see the recovery that has started accelerate. We were one of the last jurisdictions in the world to be hauled into the whirlpool of this worldwide recession, and we are one of the first and strongest coming out of it.

We're hitting all of our financial targets. We had to budget for a $2.7 billion deficit last year, and that really goes against our grain. We don't believe in deficits. We don't believe in running up debt. We don't think it's fair that taxpayers of tomorrow and the indefinite future would have to spend their tax money overcoming the problems that governments of our day and previous have left them.

We worked hard to pay off debt all through our first seven years in office, and we've been absolutely dismayed to have to run a deficit last year and this year. But we'll get back to paying off debts, and the first ones we'll pay off will be those deficits we've had to run.

We want the private sector to flourish, and they told us time and again — job creators told us; investors told us — that harmonized sales tax would be a tremendous boon to them in terms of getting rid of the layers and layers of taxation that exist presently and have existed for many years in British Columbia, and in terms of saving them a tremendous amount of administrative burden doing government's books. We want the private sector to flourish because that's where the jobs are created that build the economy.

[1525]

We're working hard to support families in British Columbia, and our throne speech and our budget this year are all about that. We care very deeply about the less fortunate in our society. With the HST, as with everything we've done, we've ensured that lower-income people are protected against possible negative effects, and 1.1 million British Columbians will get HST rebate cheques.

Our government, with its fiscal prudence, has led Canada — one of the leaders in Canada in our economy — and Canada has led the world in resisting the effects of this worldwide recession. The fact that we have a sound fiscal plan in British Columbia, the fact that we exercise fiscal prudence, is the reason why people have so much confidence in British Columbia and why they've been moving here and creating jobs.

In spite of the worldwide recession, we're still hundreds of thousands of jobs better off in British Columbia than we were when the NDP lost power after the sad decade of the 1990s. So it truly is, in my mind, a waste of time — and I think in the mind of anybody who is really following this debate — for us to spend the month of April of the spring sitting of this Legislature in an attempt by the NDP opposition to somehow stop us from eliminating provincial sales tax. That's what this debate has been all about.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

For most taxpayers, British Columbians' personal income taxes have been reduced by 37 percent or more since 2001. Some 325,000 low-income British Columbians pay no provincial income tax whatsoever. We've lowered the small business tax rate from 4.5 percent to 2.5 percent — the second lowest in Canada. And we're on track with all our financial targets so that by April 1, 2012, we're going to drop the small business income tax rate to zero — the lowest in Canada. That's a very good thing for a sector that employs 1.05 million British Columbians.

It was only since we became government that we passed the point where two million British Columbians are drawing paycheques. You think about that. That's an achievement that the previous government and any before them never reached. We're way past two million now, but 1.05 million work for small business.
[ Page 4575 ]

Just before this recession we were all facing a human resources shortage. The government was; the private sector was. Businesses big and small. It was really tough to get the number of employees that they needed.

Small business people would tell me, when I was responsible as minister for their sector, that they couldn't find anyone to purchase their businesses when they were ready to retire. Their children didn't want to because there were so many other things that they could be doing, and many of them didn't want to work as hard as their parents had, to put in the long hours building a business and so on. Small business people work very hard.

We're going to be back to that soon, and the HST is going to take a burden off those small businesses, and it's going to make us a more attractive place to investment. It's going to create hundreds of thousands of jobs in British Columbia.

In spite of the recession, we're presently at an average wage of over $21 for working British Columbians. We're at an average wage for youth of over $13, and that's quite an achievement. It makes small business and businesses of all sizes wonder why the NDP opposition continually harangues us about raising the minimum wage. The $13-an-hour average for young people is well above the minimum wage, well above any minimum wage in this country.

I listened to the member for Saanich South, and I quite like her. She's a very honest person, a good person and sincere. She said that she's been embarrassed by the debate in this House, and I would be embarrassed if I was her and on that side of the House and heard the things that people are saying.

What I'm sure they know is that they aren't accurate. They must know that. They've said that things will have HST applied to them when they surely know or should know that they won't. They have been relying on Bill Vander Zalm, of all people, with his website full of errors.

[1530]

He and Chris Delaney are mounting this petition campaign, going around spreading false news all around the province, and 18 NDP MLAs have signed up to go work for Bill Vander Zalm, of all things, as a canvasser.

They used to oppose him vehemently and say that he was the worst Premier that British Columbia ever had. I think they're right about that. The way he ended his career in provincial politics was an absolute disgrace — a paper bag full of cash in a parking lot on a real estate deal; a Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner's review, where the commissioner just couldn't believe the lack of understanding that Mr. Vander Zalm had, presumably still has, of the difference between right and wrong.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, if I might remind you, we're talking about the motion.

Hon. K. Krueger: We are indeed talking about an amendment to this bill, which attempts further to delay and derail the elimination of the provincial sales tax.

That whole caucus, throughout this debate, has been offering false news and misrepresentations and is in league with Mr. Vander Zalm, of all people, in these initiatives.

The member for Saanich South talked about farmers and farming, a subject near and dear to my heart. I used to be a farmer. My father was a farmer as he grew up and went off to the Second World War. He was in the army, went up the beach at D-Day. He didn't want to shoot people, so he was a stretcher-bearer. He saw terrible things, and he was determined that governments would never, never resort to that sort of violence if there was anything he could do about it.

He made me think about issues all my life. One of the issues we talked about, of course, was farming. We homesteaded 1,600 acres in the North Peace River. We started off with bush, trees and, regrettably, some muskeg and turned it into a productive farm — a thousand acres cleared over the course of my childhood. So the things that the member raised about the difficulties of our agriculture industry are things that I care about very deeply, and so do my colleagues on this side of the House.

The member for Saanich South made it clear she doesn't approve of people wanting to impute motives to other people and pigeonhole people and make generalizations about them. She'd like this place to be honourable, she said. I think it's dishonourable to take positions, to allege things about the government caucus and our intentions with the HST that the members know or should know are false.

The federal government put very substantial incentives….

Deputy Speaker: Minister, I'd ask you to be very careful about your language. I'll remind you that we're talking about the motion.

Hon. K. Krueger: Yes, Madam Speaker.

In negotiating with the province to implement a harmonized sales tax, the federal government put very substantial incentives on the table — $1.6 billion, for one. People on the other side talk as though that's money that somehow the government is putting in its own pocket, when the books are very clear.

The books are constantly audited by the Auditor General. Everybody knows what we spend on health care. Everybody knows what we spend on education. Everybody knows what we spend on social services, on the services of the Ministry of Children and Families.

That money is needed to meet the needs of British Columbians without going even deeper into deficit and debt. It's not money for the government. It's money for
[ Page 4576 ]
the services to British Columbians, and it was a very welcome bonus when the negotiations took place, a welcome bonus for British Columbia.

The HST had become the right thing to do regardless of a bonus, regardless of the fact that the federal government would take almost 400 people off of the provincial payroll, would become their employer for the rest of their working lives and take care of their pensions. That was part of the package.

The fact was that the largest economy in Canada, Ontario's economy, had moved to harmonized sales tax, and if we did not respond, we would be left in a position of not being able to compete with Ontario to attract investment, to attract job creation, to employ more British Columbians. It was the right thing to do.

The federal government, for the first time, offered us latitude, offered us the ability to charge a smaller HST than what had been required up until those negotiations. It always had to be 13 percent. It's only going to be 12 in British Columbia which, for almost everything, is just the sum of the existing 5 percent GST and 7 percent PST. So once again, we'll have the lowest taxes in Canada, with regard to HST, of all the provinces that use HST.

[1535]

Already we've got the lowest taxes in Canada for income tax up to $118,000 income. As a British Columbian, you keep more of that money in your pocket. If you're a British Columbian business, you keep more of that money in your bank account than you would anywhere else in the province — the money that you have earned.

The NDP decried our income tax cuts for years and said they were giveaways. I've never been able to understand that. Why would you call allowing someone to keep their own money a giveaway to that person? It's allowing them simply to keep their own money.

As I said, the member for Saanich South spoke fondly of farmers and agriculture. I feel the same way. My dad was a farmer. In the winters up in the Peace River country you couldn't do any farming. Everything was frozen solid, often deeply covered by snow. My dad would go to work on the W.A.C. Bennett dam. He was a great handyman. He built his own carpenter's carry boxes for his tools. I remember looking at him as a kid, and off he went to work, to the W.A.C. Bennett dam.

In those days the government ridiculed W.A.C. Bennett. They called him Wacky. They made fun of his initials. But he was a great man, and he did great things for British Columbia.

One of them — everyone speaks of it and thinks of it when they think of him — was the creation of the wonderful hydroelectric legacy that British Columbia has profited from ever since. That has led to huge numbers of jobs being created and still makes us a tremendously attractive jurisdiction.

The Silicon Valley talks about the reliable hydroelectricity that we have from here. Down there when you suffer brownouts, which they have had some problems with in the past, it's a very serious issue for those businesses in that mighty industry.

They love British Columbia's power, and they're willing to pay a premium for it when they need it. We're going to have more of that if the consultations with First Nations that are underway and the environmental review come to the conclusion that we hope for. We're going to have a third dam on the Peace River, and it's going to add 30 percent to what the big dam that was first built is able to generate. It's going to be enough to power 410,000 homes.

Deputy Speaker: Minister. Minister, I would like to bring you back to the debate on the motion, the amendment to Bill 9. If I might just read in the amendment again to remind you.

It's: "Be it resolved that Bill 9 not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be forwarded to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and further that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberation."

To remind you that that's the issue we're debating, Minister.

Hon. K. Krueger: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was just getting back to that.

The point is that when we create these hundreds of thousands of jobs as a result of the implementation of the HST, people will be very glad that this NDP opposition was not able to derail this legislation with this amendment. That would be an incredibly negative, disruptive, perverse result for us. It's not something that we want to see.

The restaurant industry and the tourism industry in British Columbia are part of my mandate, obviously, as Minister Responsible for Tourism, Culture and the Arts. It has been one of the industries that has been the most concerned about HST. But many people don't realize the benefits to the restaurant and the tourism industries of eliminating PST, which is built in at many levels of their business — into the products that they use in the course of providing goods and services.

Today for most products they purchase other than food, restaurants pay 5 percent GST and 7 percent PST but only get the 5 percent GST back. They'll get the full sum, the 12 percent, back when the HST is in effect. But if the opposition were successful with this amendment, this attempt to disrupt the operations of government, it would be a real issue. It'd interfere with our ability to deliver these benefits. As of July 1, 2010, with the HST, restaurants, tourism industries will get a full refund of the 12 percent HST.

As business entities, restaurants will derive the same benefits of the HST that any other business will — a
[ Page 4577 ]
reduction in costs — when the embedded PST comes out of the business inputs for things like linen, dishes, cutlery, cooking equipment, fridges, stoves, brochures, uniforms, signage, renovations, the construction of new businesses.

[1540]

Our economy is going to flourish again, and one of the reasons it'll flourish is the tremendously successful staging of the Olympics that British Columbia just completed — the best Winter Olympics in history, pretty much everyone is saying. It brought attention to this province that is going to bring tourists and investors here, who would very likely have to consider going to Ontario instead if this opposition were successful in its attempts to prevent us from implementing a harmonized sales tax when Ontario is doing so.

I've been concerned for the restaurant industry that they've been creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by frightening customers about the HST. Customers could easily think it was already in effect by the amount of noise that's been created and the illusion that the HST will cause huge price increases. It shouldn't, and it won't.

Competition will be an ameliorating factor to keep businesses from inflating prices with the excuse of the HST. The HST itself, when people really think about it….

I asked the lobbyist who came to me from McDonald's, lobbying against the HST: "What does your average customer pay for a meal in McDonald's?" He said it was $7. So the HST is only going to add 49 cents to the cost of an average meal for his customers. I said: "Do you honestly think anybody is not going to come to your McDonald's because it's going to cost them an average of 49 cents more?" He looked like it was the first time he'd realized that.

People talk about what they think the GST did to business back when it was first implemented. We're in a whole different world than we were then. The world has changed with this recession, and it's changed forever. It's not going back to the way it was before.

We're one of the strongest economies in Canada, which is one of the strongest economies in the world, and harmonized sales tax is a progressive way to go. Value-added taxes have been implemented right across Europe at substantially larger percentages than the HST will be charged here in British Columbia, at 12 percent. Many of them are up to 20 percent in economies that are considered very progressive around the world.

The HST is a shift to a consumption-based tax system with consumers deciding where and how they spend their hard-earned dollars. The member for Saanich South is very fond of bicycles, as am I, and very energetic in her work with bicycles. Well, a bicycle costs a whole lot less than a motorcycle. People who choose to buy bicycles and ride them will pay a fraction of what people pay for motorcycles.

You only pay HST on what you spend. People who have lots of money to spend will spend 12 percent of that on items that are taxable with the HST. People who have a little money to spend will only pay HST on that, commensurate with the amount of spending that they actually do. What could be more fair than a tax that a person has control over entirely, which is applied across the spectrum to the rich and to the poor but with HST credits for the low-income people?

The HST will enhance competitiveness, it will stimulate economic growth, and it will encourage investment and job creation. So this amendment, in my mind, is folly. It's preposterous, and it's hard to believe that anyone is serious about wanting to do it and that it isn't just a tactic for churning up the time of this House when we could be getting on with helping British Columbia accelerate out of the recession and get back in the black, which is where we're going to go.

If every British Columbian keeps more of his or her paycheque than any other Canadians up to $118,000 in income, if every British Columbian pays the lowest HST of any province with HST in Canada and if every British Columbian knows that this government has cut taxes over 120 times and has every intention of cutting them further — as we can — then why wouldn't everybody want to be a British Columbian? I think many people do. You'll only be paying HST on what you spend. If you have less to spend, you have less to pay.

It is difficult to see why this opposition pours its time into such an unproductive exercise as this. We want a strong economy in British Columbia again, which provides jobs and better incomes for more British Columbians and which benefits all sectors, including the tourism and restaurant industries, where all sectors reap the rewards of economic growth and rising incomes.

[1545]

We've seen a steady increase in people's income in British Columbia with this government. We saw the opposite under the NDP government of the '90s. There were 400,000 people on welfare in the '90s in British Columbia, and it was directly attributable to government policies of overtaxation and overregulation.

Restaurants, tourism venues and industries across the board will benefit from a more efficient and streamlined tax system, considerably lowering their administration costs and reducing their paperwork.

It's true. We didn't exempt lattes; we didn't exempt cappuccinos. We exempted home heating costs; we exempted the fuel to fill up your car or truck. We are creating a situation where businesses will be able to build new businesses and do renovations with substantially less taxation built in than they've had up until now. It'll be far less expensive to do those things with the HST.

Not only will the provincial tax portion of HST become reclaimable, but HST will lower the costs of goods
[ Page 4578 ]
and services. A $1 million renovation job, where today the business renovating that property could claim a $50,000 GST credit, will allow a $120,000 HST credit on July 1, 2010. It's $70,000 more to employ more people in British Columbia's economy.

To help support tourist communities and regional destination marketing organizations, the 2 percent AHRT, the additional hotel room tax that many tourist communities have in place — 50 of them now — will remain. The Finance Minister wrote an e-mail early on to assure people that until the end of June 2011, things would continue exactly as they are.

We have every intention of making sure that we continue with this three-tier marketing program — community destination marketing organizations, regional destination marketing organizations and the ministry itself, the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts — so that we can continue to market tourism in the progressive, successful and orderly way that we have.

Once again, we don't need the disadvantage of having a different sales tax system than the provinces of the country that we compete with. We want to be the leading economy in Canada — as we already are and have been for some years, since we eliminated the deficits we inherited from the NDP government of the '90s.

The province will have time to consult fully with stakeholders between now and the middle of 2011 to decide how we're going to go about continuing the AHRT-style arrangement.

Getting to the close of my remarks, I want to talk about the damage that is done in this place when false news is propagated, when seniors are frightened by things that people say are hanging over their heads and that aren't. I want to talk about the damage to civil servants and their reputation.

I want to talk about Rick Turner, a great man in British Columbia who does yeoman service for British Columbians chairing the Insurance Corporation of B.C. His term is coming to a conclusion, although he extended it for us. He chaired the B.C. Lottery Corporation. His reputation has been sullied by the members opposite when he did nothing untoward. His name has been mudslung by the NDP opposition throughout recent weeks, and it's just wrong.

Every time they frighten seniors about the HST….

Deputy Speaker: Minister. Minister. Please return to….

Hon. K. Krueger: Every time they frighten seniors about its effect on them, that is wrong. Fear makes people sick. Fear causes people's health to deteriorate, and those things should not be said.

Interjections.

Hon. K. Krueger: People who are living in poverty. The NDP member opposite raises poverty. People who live in poverty won't be paying HST. They'll have HST credits. They'll be protected, as they constantly are by this government.

I urge the members opposite to stop slurring a good man like Rick Turner, to stop frightening British Columbians and delivering false news, and to get out of bed with Bill Vander Zalm once and for all.

[1550]

M. Elmore: It's my privilege to stand here and take my place speaking in favour of the motion to refer Bill 9 to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and to allow the committee to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberations.

I'm going to talk about the main argument, in terms of the referral of this motion to allow an opportunity for Bill 9 to be considered and to have some discussion and debate. The main arguments I have around that reflect and are held by the majority of British Columbians in terms of their desire to have an opportunity to voice their concerns and have discussion about the proposed HST.

Bill 9 and the HST, the harmonized sales tax. We've heard a number of arguments from the government and, as well, arguments against the HST. That's part of the democratic process in terms of debating issues, public policy changes or legislation. But I think what is distinctive about the HST, and why I'm in favour of the motion to refer, is the public sentiment and the disappointment, I would say, of the public in terms of the process and how the HST was proposed by the government.

To start off, during the election the government, the Liberals, explicitly said — they made a promise in writing — that they weren't going to implement the HST. They were asked, and they put it in writing that they had no intentions and that it was not on the agenda to implement the HST.

We heard earlier this week, through documents obtained under freedom of information, that there were indeed discussions that were happening three days after the election in May between bureaucrats in the Ministry of Finance. Discussions were happening between British Columbia and Ottawa on the implementation of the HST.

Certainly, in my time in British Columbia and being involved in community issues, I haven't seen anything like it in terms of the visceral response from voters, from constituents, from businesses.

As reflected in the recent polling numbers, 82 percent of British Columbians are opposed to the HST. I think that fundamentally speaks to the perception in the public of the lack of a democratic process, the lack of an opportunity for people to voice their concerns one way
[ Page 4579 ]
or another about the HST, the lack of an opportunity to have the debate and discussion about arguments for and against the HST.

I think it fundamentally reflects that from the public. Certainly, when I was on the doorsteps last weekend — I often do that in Vancouver-Kensington, go door to door talking to people about their feedback on the HST — it was pretty much overwhelming in terms of people who were disappointed about the HST itself, in terms of their views that it's an unfair tax and an unfair tax shift onto consumers.

I also heard a very similar and consistent theme of the disappointment of voters and their disillusionment with the government. They felt that they were deceived by this government and the broken election promise on the HST.

[1555]

I think that is what we're seeing, fundamentally, right across the province from a broad spectrum of people from every walk of life, constituents of mine and also constituents I know from rural areas to urban areas and suburban areas on Vancouver Island. I think that's a theme that certainly is resonating.

I was reflecting on that in terms of getting a sense of the public disappointment in the government's decision to introduce the HST in this manner when they had explicitly said during the election that they weren't going to bring it.

The motion to refer to committee will be an opportunity to at least have some discussion around the merits and the criticisms of the legislation and also an opportunity to have witnesses present and organizations and individuals attend and have their say in terms of their feedback to the legislation. It's an opportunity to bring those voices out. The opposition that we're seeing and hearing, which is manifesting, reflects a desire to have a say in the democratic process.

In terms of the response and the opposition to the HST, I think it also shows a disappointment in the deception of the government in breaking their election promise. It also shows — unparalleled in terms of my years here, anyway — quite a resurgence of grass-roots democracy and of people spontaneously participating in their communities, in shopping malls, on street corners, talking to their neighbours.

There is a real desire for people to express their opposition to the HST. They're doing that on the streets, and they're hoping that message will be conveyed to the government.

I know that voters feel they were betrayed during the election because the HST explicitly was not a policy platform plank for the Liberals. They didn't run on it. The way it was introduced, I'm seeing that people are responding right across the province. They want to have a say, and they want to exercise their democracy.

I'm hoping that the referral to committee for Bill 9 will be an opportunity to convey to MLAs and to also take heed of their constituents' desires and concerns, and to reconsider their position and vote against this legislation.

I've had conversations with constituents and small businesses particularly who feel they're going to be impacted in Vancouver-Kensington. One of the themes I hear is that they feel that the imposition of the HST legislation in the manner they've brought it in has really been a distortion of the democratic process.

They feel that it hasn't been an honest process in terms of how it was brought in just a few days after the election. People feel that they want to exercise their democratic rights against the tyranny — this is what a constituent told me — of this government decision.

It's specifically for the reason that during the election, it was explicitly promised. The Liberals promised British Columbians that they wouldn't bring in the HST. It was in writing. Now we hear that a few days after the election, the Liberals betrayed British Columbians and broke that promise.

[1600]

I was in a small coffee shop, the Big Bite on Fraser Street, and the owner there was telling me about the difficulty. He's just starting the business. He'd been there for six months, and he was just getting established. He felt very upset and disappointed and felt that it certainly wouldn't help his business. In terms of the implementation of the HST, it would discourage his patrons and would be damaging to his business. So he was against the HST and also the manner in which it was brought in.

G. Hogg: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Hogg: We are joined in the House today by 25 students, teachers and parents from what I am told is the very best school in all of British Columbia, White Rock Christian. Would the House please make them most welcome.

Debate Continued

M. Elmore: I've canvassed and talked to a number of businesses in Vancouver-Kensington, because I also wanted to hear from them what their feedback and what their perspective was and to hear directly from them how they felt they would be impacted. It was a pretty consistent message. They felt the HST certainly wouldn't be a benefit for them, they were shocked and upset at the manner that it had been brought in, and they were opposed to the HST.

That's the response I've been hearing from constituents and local businesses. I think the betrayal runs very
[ Page 4580 ]
deep. I think that it is certainly a reflection of the displeasure that British Columbians feel about the HST. It also is a broader sentiment of displeasure with the record of this government, but we're seeing it specifically around the HST.

The motion to refer to committee at least would be an opportunity to have some measure of discussion and debate, to hear witnesses, to invite concerned individuals and organizations to have their say, and to put into practice the principles that we stand for here in terms of a representative democracy to represent our constituents and to represent our concerns.

Even though it's after the fact, one of the tenets of a democracy is a fair, open and accountable election process. Part of the expectation of a healthy democracy is the expectation that political parties and individuals place their platforms, their policies, their plans and their vision before the electorate and allow the electorate to make an informed decision and vote according to what the individuals or parties have laid out.

The breaking of the promise of the HST is a fundamental undermining of the democratic process. I think that is something that is reverberating with people. It has certainly motivated and inspired, I guess, a number of individuals who haven't been involved in either electoral politics or our political campaigns to get involved in their communities, to express their displeasure.

Their hope is that their message will get through to this government and, in particular, to at least seven MLAs and for those MLAs to stand up and represent the interests of their constituents and, at the end of the day, when the vote is called, to vote against the….

[1605]

I know that people across B.C. are organizing and also talking to their respective MLAs. One outcome of this process is that I think a lot more people know who their local MLAs are now and are contacting them. I also encourage them to contact their local MLA, to visit them at their office, to make an appointment to meet with them.

Part of the democratic process is for constituents to communicate with their MLAs, to hold them accountable and also to be proactive in coming forward and asking the MLAs to represent their issues here in the House.

In terms of speaking in favour of the motion to refer Bill 9 to a committee, it would be an opportunity to address some of those fundamental flaws about how the HST was implemented by the government — the blatant election promise being broken — and an opportunity to have some discussion and debate.

Just in terms of my support for the motion to refer, my opposition to the HST, a lot of that is shared by…. I think one of the fundamental threads that are connecting these issues and connecting people throughout B.C. is the disappointment with the process and with how this government introduced the HST right after the election.

I'd also like to talk about and address some of the arguments against the HST. We've heard that one of the claims for the HST is that it's going to benefit small businesses. I've heard pretty conclusively, through the businesses in Vancouver, that they're very concerned about the impact on their jobs. They're concerned about their ability to make a profit. They're concerned about the ability of their businesses to succeed. I've had meetings with the massage therapists who are down the street. They're very upset that they're going to be hit by this additional tax.

I also have a friend who has a golf course, and he's going to be negatively impacted. As well, local businesses — beauty salons, these types of places that provide services — are going to be negatively impacted, and it's certainly going to be more difficult for them.

Also, the shift of the tax onto consumers is a concern that I share and that many constituents and businesses have expressed to me. We're seeing another tax shift. That has pretty much been the pattern of this government for a number of years and is the continuation of a nearly $2 billion tax shift onto consumers, which will also impact people who can least afford to be impacted.

I think it's an irony, as well, to hear arguments that people who have lower incomes won't be impacted that much. They don't spend that much on services, so they won't have to spend that much. It's an argument, certainly, that I don't agree with. The HST will be putting an increased burden on these families and individuals who can least afford to pay more for necessary services, goods that they need.

[1610]

I'm also speaking in favour, to refer the motion to the committee, as it's an opportunity to at least undertake a process of examining and an opportunity to hear from qualified researchers and experts on the HST. We've been denied an opportunity, and we haven't been presented with arguments. We haven't been presented….

There's one paper that's been put forward in terms of support for the HST. That certainly doesn't qualify as an exhaustive or any kind of an impressive support for justifying the HST. There's need for a thoroughgoing investigation and research conducted into the impact of the HST.

If the HST had at least been put on the agenda and if the government had been honest about their intentions, number one, I don't think we would be seeing the uproar from British Columbians. Certainly, we've seen that the HST is being implemented in Ontario, but the difference between B.C. and Ontario is in terms of the process.

At least the Ontario government had the backbone to be honest and to put it on the table that they were considering bringing in the HST and have a discussion and debate in public on it. I think that's what has lacked here and what is lacking. That is the response, certainly, from
[ Page 4581 ]
the public and the criticism from people — the lack of opportunity, number one, to have that debate in public and to express concerns and arguments on both sides about the proposed benefits and disadvantages.

The process has, I think, been what we're seeing a huge opposition to. In addition to that, the particulars of the HST and the arguments, I don't find them very compelling in terms of the advantages that the proposed HST is purported to bring to our economy.

When the government says that the HST wasn't on their radar, I think that is also…. The citizens of British Columbia don't buy into that. Besides the huge opposition to the HST, I think we're also seeing, accompanied by that, a lack of credibility for the government. I think that it has undermined their credibility and that British Columbians certainly don't believe this government anymore.

It's unbelievable to me that the largest restructuring of the tax system in British Columbia could be implemented just overnight. Certainly, the contradictions and statements that were made show that, and the public is responding to that. We're seeing them respond in droves, pretty much right across B.C., through all types of communities and organizations participating in their opposition to the HST.

We are — and I am — hoping that the government will agree with the necessity of supporting the referral to the standing committee to have a debate and discussion on this matter and to have an opportunity to have an informed discussion and debate on the HST.

[1615]

The claim that the HST is the single best thing that can be done for the economy is also quite surprising. I was surprised to hear that, and if it is being touted as the main policy position for the government in terms of reviving the economy and supporting the growth of jobs and investment, it's surprising that that claim wasn't made before the election and that it wasn't a significant plank in the election platform.

To hear now that the HST is being touted as the best thing that can be done for the economy, it's just not believable, and it hasn't been shown to be the case. It hasn't been shown in terms of the literature. It hasn't been quantified in terms of papers or reviews that are being carried out. The purported results from the HST being implemented are inconclusive. That is what is also missing from the process.

A referral to committee will allow for at least a measure of this discussion and debate — and also with encouraging the Liberal MLAs to represent their constituents and to stand up in this House to vote against the HST and to stop the HST. That is what their constituents want.

I think that is the message that I'm hearing. I know that's the message that is being brought more and more every day, increasingly, to each MLA, to their offices — that expectation, with community events, rallies, petition drives and messages going to the members. The expectation is that these members will represent the concerns of their constituents and vote — stand in this House, represent their constituents and vote against the HST.

When we look at the argument that the HST will benefit consumers because prices will fall, we haven't seen that. That hasn't been shown to be the case. Also, I want to address the issue or the argument that the HST will increase investment and create jobs.

This is one of the essential arguments, I think, one of the main arguments in terms of the benefits of the HST, and it's also one of the main positions of the restructuring of the tax system in B.C. We've seen it since 2001, where production machinery and equipment was exempted from the PST. The argument is that it's to encourage investment in that sector, in terms of capital investment — greater investment in machinery and equipment — and to raise productivity and increase productivity, which is a main measure of the strength and growth of an economy.

It hasn't actually substantially been shown as to why we see that exemption of the PST. Certainly, the sectors pay less in terms of machinery and capital costs. It hasn't been shown to be tied to investment. At least if the tax exemptions were tied to concrete investments, expected investments in sectors, then that would be shown to benefit, to be a shown benefit.

So this argument is not a very compelling argument. It hasn't been shown to be effective, and we've seen under this government a restructuring of the British Columbian economy. We've seen a hollowing out. We're seeing a shift from high value-added jobs now to service sector jobs. The implementation of the HST will disproportionately impact service sector jobs.

[1620]

The implementation of the HST along with a host of a number of other tax measures hasn't shown, I think, conclusively that it has benefited the economy. A referral to the committee would allow for more discussion and debate and a more conclusive encouragement to vote against the HST.

T. Lake: It's a great honour to rise in the House today to speak against this referral motion to refer Bill 9 to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. I'll speak to that in just a sec.

Before I do, I want to just welcome the students from the White Rock Christian here this afternoon to listen to our debate. I also want to recognize and acknowledge my constituency assistants back in Kamloops, Kirsty Morris and Rob Scherf, and the legislative assistants whom I work with here in Victoria, Kiel Giddens and Evan Southern, for the tremendous support that they give me.
[ Page 4582 ]

While I'm at it, I want to just say hi to my dad, who is stranded in England because of the unpronounceable volcano in Iceland. I doubt if he's watching, but on the off chance that they are showing the B.C. Legislature on the television at the Jolly Taxpayer pub in Portsmouth, I want to say: "Hi, Dad. Hope you're home soon."

The reason I stand to speak against this referral motion is fairly simple. I want to talk about why that is and talk about some of the aspects of the HST as it is connected to that motion to refer to the Select Standing Committee on Finances and Government Services.

Really, the key reason why I speak against this is because this committee has seen this issue before. The report of November 15, 2008, on the 2009 budget consultations by the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services recommended, under tax policy, that the provincial government consider conducting a cost-benefit analysis of the harmonization of the provincial sales tax and the federal goods and services tax.

Well, you can check that one off because we actually did do a cost-benefit analysis, and now we are here today to implement the HST. So sending it back to this committee doesn't make any sense at all. I know that many British Columbians want us to debate in the House the serious issues that we face, and rather than send things to committee, the debate can be held here. That's, in fact, what we are doing.

I know that after my completely riveting and eloquent speech this afternoon, many members of the opposition will stand up and vote in favour of keeping B.C. strong and voting for the implementation of the HST.

The Finance Committee has looked at it before, and the government has looked at it in the past, and it wasn't implemented in the past. Of course, things change. The world doesn't stand still. We live in a very rapidly changing world. When we found out in the fall of 2008 that the economy dropped off a cliff, we all realized just exactly how quickly the world can change, and we had to react to that change.

Also changing was the government in Ottawa and their attitude and rules around the harmonization of the PST with the GST. There's a reason that federal governments have for years encouraged the harmonization of these two taxes. They changed some of the rules and regulations around how that harmonization would take place, which weighed into the cost-benefit analysis of implementing this type of policy.

Previous rules did not give enough perceived benefit to make this transition, but with the change that we saw and that the Finance Minister for British Columbia was able to negotiate with the federal government, it does make sense to do it at this time.

[1625]

First of all, we were told in the past that HST had to be 13 percent across the country. That would have meant an increase in sales taxes in British Columbia. But we were able to negotiate a 12 percent harmonization — the 7 percent provincial portion and the 5 percent federal portion.

There was little flexibility in the past about exempting some goods, and we know there are some basics of life that we want to have exempted from the sales tax. So that gave us the flexibility to go forward, not to mention the financial contribution of $1.6 billion from the federal government to the province of B.C.

This is significant. For many, many years British Columbians have been contributing to equalization payments supporting other places in Canada, and I think it would be foolhardy of us to turn down an offer to bring some of that money back here to benefit British Columbians.

All of these types of issues were looked at, examined. The cost-benefit analysis was recommended by the Finance Committee which, of course, comprises members of both sides of the House. A unanimous recommendation to look at the cost-benefit analysis was done, so sending this back to that committee simply doesn't make any sense.

Much has been said about the fact that the switch to harmonization of the sales taxes was not discussed at the provincial election one year ago and that questionnaires answered by the party from a central point said at that time that the move to the harmonized sales tax was not under consideration at that time. That was the way the world was back in April and May of 2009.

After looking at the cost-benefit analysis under the previous rules, it simply didn't make enough economic sense to switch to the harmonization, so the platform did not include the switch to the harmonization. We know that things do change, and following the election the full brunt of the economic downturn became apparent.

What also became apparent was that Ontario's decision to harmonize their sales taxes would put British Columbia at a severe competitive disadvantage. When you look at forestry, mining and other resource sectors, we would lose investment to Ontario.

One thing that we did campaign on — and this was very, very clear — was to keep B.C. strong, and people elected us to do just that, to make very tough decisions to keep British Columbia strong. So I see no malalignment in terms of our election campaign and the decisions we are making now after the election. It is simply following through with our promise to the people of British Columbia to keep B.C. strong.

Sometimes that comes at a political cost because some of the things we have to do take time to explain. Some of the benefits may not be immediately obvious to people, because this is not a 30-second sound bite. We're having a huge debate in this Legislature about the benefits of HST. It's not something that can be explained in a 15- to 30-second sound bite.
[ Page 4583 ]

This type of topic requires us to go through the process we are going through now. British Columbians expect us to go through that debate and, at the end of the day, not to refer it to a committee once again but to make the tough decision that will create jobs, create opportunity and keep B.C. strong.

Many speakers have said that we need to send this to a committee so that we can look at all the details. Well, we've been talking about this since the fall. All of the information has been going back and forth. It certainly is a developing story, as people understand the benefits of HST.

But first of all, it's really important that people do understand that over 80 percent of the goods and services that we currently purchase will not be affected by the harmonization of the current PST with the federal GST. That's something that is really important to let people know, and unfortunately, we've seen that some people are misrepresenting that fact.

[1630]

Also, the provincial sales tax is an archaic tax. Study after study has shown that retail sales taxes are a detriment or a barrier to investment. At every stage of the production cycle, that provincial sales tax is embedded in the price. Whether or not they charge PST on a good or a service, you can bet that the PST was an input cost going in, an input cost which that business could not claim in any other way except by charging the person they're selling their goods or services to.

The cascading job-killing PST is recognized by study after study as being a detriment or a barrier to investment. This cascading tax is built into every stage of production and should be replaced by a harmonization of sales tax, which will increase our productivity in Canada. People like the former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge…. I think we can probably consider him pretty knowledgable in fiscal policy. David Dodge says that without productivity improvements, we will condemn ourselves to a standard of living which is in decline relative to the rest of the world — in decline.

Madam Speaker, I don't stand in this House to recommend that we decline relative to the rest of the world. I didn't get elected on a platform of falling behind. I didn't get elected on a platform of sending something to a committee that has already been to that same committee. So we're going to move forward with this, because there are many benefits. I like to tie back the benefits, which this referral motion seems to think will be elucidated in a committee when in fact they're very, very obvious already.

As parliamentary secretary to the Ranching Task Force, I have come to know and appreciate the tremendous characters, individuals and families working in the ranching sector, which contributes over $250 million a year to our economy. This is an industry that has been battered by a multitude of things, including the bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, by a multi-year drought, by the high value of the Canadian dollar and by the country-of-origin labelling requirements of our biggest trading partner and biggest importer of our beef products, the United States.

The Ranching Task Force doesn't need to go to the Finance Committee to tell the people of British Columbia that the HST is a real benefit to ranchers, leaving more money in their pockets.

The Agriculture critic for the NDP said in estimates that the cost of food is too low. Well, I don't know many British Columbians that are complaining about the cost of food being too low. I think what she meant, because I know she cares about agriculture, is that our ranchers and farmers should be compensated for their efforts in a better way than they are — that more money should come to them.

Well, there are two ways you can do that. You can increase the profits, or you can decrease costs. Ranching and farming, those industries, generally speaking, have to take the prices as they are. They don't create the prices, especially the cattle industry. The price is set, and they have to go to auction at that price. But if you can reduce their costs, at the end of the day those ranchers are going to benefit. More money will be left in their pockets, supporting those ranching families being able to stay on the land.

The president of the B.C. Ag Council has said that this will have a significant and positive impact on agriculture overall and is consistent with what their members have been calling for. The B.C. Agriculture Council doesn't need to see this debate go to a committee where it has already been. They expect us to implement something that is just plain good common sense from an economic point of view.

In forestry in my constituency, there are many, many forestry-dependent jobs. We know that's another sector that has faced tough times with the crash of the housing market in the United States, our biggest importer of wood products. We've seen the forest industry take a real beating, and of course, the high Canadian dollar contributes to that as well.

[1635]

The introduction of the HST will benefit forestry by $140 million a year. Now, this is an industry that needs all the help it can get right now. These are hard-working British Columbians that have been contributing to the B.C. economy, well, since B.C. has been around. Do you think that they would be happy to see their input taxes reduced, to see their costs go down? Absolutely.

It's not just us on the government side saying this, but this news release today from the B.C. coastal forest industry says that each 1 percent movement of the Canadian dollar means a loss of revenue of $90 million for the B.C. forest sectors. That's the real crunch they face, Madam Speaker. "We're in survival mode and are
[ Page 4584 ]
bracing ourselves," says Rick Jeffery, president and CEO of Coast Forest Products Association.

But reducing the cost…. The coastal forest industry views the HST through a competitive lens. As a major industry, the coastal forest sector provides 12,000 jobs for communities up and down the coast and is a key driver of the provincial economy. With the introduction of the HST, B.C.'s resource and manufacturing sectors are expected to benefit significantly — in the forestry sector alone, as I mentioned, $140 million less in investment-killing taxes. In addition, the removal of the PST makes the playing field more level with competitors around the world not subject to this taxation.

That is another obvious benefit of the HST. We don't need a government committee or a select standing committee to tell us that when we export our goods, if we remove the provincial sales tax from the cost of those goods, they're going to be more competitive on the world market.

Now, we've seen in Mackenzie, for instance, that the forest sector there has been devastated. But the light is starting to shine a little more brightly in Mackenzie, with the cost of wood going up and the introduction of the HST as a perceived benefit on the horizon. We've seen two of the sawmills reopen in Mackenzie and just recently an announcement that the pulp mill in Mackenzie will reopen. That will mean at least 200 jobs in a community that desperately needs those resource jobs. Those jobs will be more sustainable under a harmonized sales tax system.

In my own constituency of Kamloops–North Thompson in Vavenby, which is part of the district of Clearwater, the Canfor sawmill there has been on hiatus for about nine months, and 200 workers there are hoping and hoping, clinging to the hope that that sawmill will reopen.

Well, of course, we know that this is a very competitive industry. Anything that we can do to increase the ability of these companies to be competitive, to reopen their mills, to put those people and those families back to work, to support communities like Clearwater, like Mackenzie…. They don't want us to send this to a committee. They expect us to make the tough decisions to keep British Columbia strong so that they can go back to work.

In Kamloops — Domtar pulp mill. Domtar is looking at an upgrade of their cogeneration unit that not only creates pulp but creates clean, green energy for British Columbians. They're looking at spending upwards of $60 million. Well, part of their decision, of course, looks at the input costs of reinvestment.

Study after study after study shows that harmonization of the sales taxes reduces the barrier to investment, and on $60 million that is about $4 million in savings. The 430 people who work at the Domtar pulp mill in Kamloops will see the benefit of the HST, because their jobs will be sustainable into the future with the investment of $60 million in a new cogeneration plant.

In manufacturing in my community of Kamloops…. The Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts — in his part of the community he has a wonderful manufacturing facility called Inland Glass. They made all of the glass featured at the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre, which, of course, was the International Media Centre during the Vancouver Olympic and Paralympic Games.

[1640]

There's a manufacturer in Kamloops that will save 40 percent of input costs. The marginal effect of tax rate on his input costs will come down 40 percent. The glass, the aluminum, the machinery, the hardware — all of that material, much of which is subject to the provincial sales tax at the moment, will no longer be subject to a job-killing tax. It will become an input tax credit, and the cost of production will come down, making sure that the jobs for those people in our community of Kamloops will be kept whole.

A good friend of mine owns an industry in Kamloops called NRI distributors. NRI distributes sporting equipment, snowboard equipment and clothing all over Canada. When I discussed this with him on the weekend, he said: "Terry, it's obvious. You don't have to sell me on HST. I spend over $40,000 a month on leasing costs between space and equipment and things like that. That's going to save me $3,000 every single month."

That makes a huge difference to that distributor in Kamloops who employs many, many young people in our community. The HST will be a huge benefit to his company and to the people that are working for him.

It is clear that some of the services that we currently do not charge a retail sales tax on at the provincial level will see some changes because of the HST. I can speak from my experience of owning a veterinary practice. I remember that when I purchased my veterinary practice back in 1989, there was no GST. There was no PST on many of the different things that we performed as services. The introduction of the GST was worrisome for people in that profession, but as the economy grew and people were working, it simply didn't translate into a loss of business.

The small businesses like veterinary services will see a benefit from the harmonization of our sales taxes. It's certainly true that there will be a small additional cost for their services. But on all of the inputs that they have to pay for, whether it's an anaesthetic machine at $5,000 to $10,000, an ultrasound machine at $10,000 to $20,000, radiographic equipment at $30,000 to $40,000…. All of those are subject to provincial sales tax. Under the HST, those will be input tax credits that they will be able to claim against their business costs.

I can tell you this, Madam Speaker. People use services like veterinary services. Certainly when you own a
[ Page 4585 ]
pet, and it's a member of your family, it feels like it's an absolute must-have. That is for sure. But it is still discretionary income.

I'll tell you this. As an owner of a veterinary practice that went through tough economic times when Canada, and British Columbia particularly, was going through some tough economic times…. Then as we came out of those tough economic times, I can tell you that in tough economic times, people are reluctant to bring their pets in for services. When they do, they want to do as little as they need to do because of the tough economic times and the uncertainty they face.

They may not be working. They may not know that their job will still be there in the future, but under robust economic times I can say unequivocally to everyone in this House that when people are working and feeling confident about the economy, veterinarians, massage therapists and other services will do much, much better. Under a strong economy, under HST, our economy will continue to improve. British Columbia will be robust, and people will continue and in fact increase their use of those services in a good economy.

We don't need to send this bill to a committee to know that productivity in our country is a challenge. We know that already. We don't need another committee to tell us that. Of course, productivity is the ratio of output to input. That may seem simple, but if your input costs are too high vis-à-vis your output, then your productivity declines.

[1645]

We look at people like Gwyn Morgan. Gwyn Morgan is the retired founding CEO of EnCana Corp., someone that knows business fairly well and on a very competitive world market. He talks about the difference between capital investment of modern equipment, which means vastly higher worker productivity in Canada and immensely better working conditions.

Higher productivity means better working conditions, and higher productivity of things in Canada generates surplus value, which flows through taxes and through to shareholders as profits. So taxpayers benefit. Increased productivity contributes to the tax base and allows us to supply the services that British Columbians have come to expect.

"Economic growth driven by high-productivity enterprises creates more, not fewer, higher-paying opportunities for qualified workers." These are the words of Gwyn Morgan — high-quality, high-paying opportunities for workers. We can think of mining. We can think of the pulp mills in my region that have high-paying jobs. Increased investment means more high-paying jobs for those people and for those families.

In 2008, of the 34 OECD countries, Canada ranked 16th in labour productivity — 12 places behind the United States. So I don't think it's any surprise that we need to increase productivity. That is what we intend to do with the introduction of the HST.

If I can quote again, not needing to send this back to a committee, but quote the Michael Smart report Lessons in Harmony, on what experience in the Atlantic provinces showed about the benefits of a harmonized tax system. "Annual machinery and equipment investment in the harmonizing provinces rose 12.2 percent above trend levels in the years following the 1997 sales tax reform."

We've heard speakers from the opposition saying: "We need to find out if it really does increase productivity, if it really does create jobs." Madam Speaker, those studies have been done. In fact, they're done all around the world. If a value-added tax system doesn't make sense, why are we one of the few countries in the developed world that hasn't gone to a fully developed value-added tax system?

You know, there are a lot of people that have looked at this from both points of view and that may not always agree with my point of view politically. Yet they see the benefits of the HST. Let me quote from former NDP Education Minister, Mr. Art Charbonneau, who recently wrote to the editor of the Kamloops Daily News and had this to say:

"The tax rebellion brewing in B.C. puzzles me. How can our citizens deplore the lack of government services on the one hand and complain about tax levels on the other?

"I like paying taxes, because they allow me to live in a country with good services and good regulation. Across northern Europe, countries like the Netherlands pay higher taxes than those we complain about, and they enjoy a better social safety net and lower poverty levels and lower crime levels.

"The VAT" — equivalent to the HST — "in the Netherlands is 19 percent; in Denmark, Sweden and Norway, 25 percent. I would point out that these countries have often been governed by social democrats, close brethren of the NDP."

He goes on to talk about his puzzlement on the NDP getting into the political bed of Bill Vander Zalm. He finishes by saying:

"So I'm puzzled. How do people think we can fund education and health care at the levels we all desire unless taxes are increased? How can people complain endlessly about the level of government services and want lower taxes at the same time? But most of all, I'm wondering: when did the NDP become an anti-tax party? Why aren't they standing not with Vander Zalm but with social democrats of Europe in support of better social benefits? Tommy Douglas must be spinning in his grave."

It is clear that the benefits of the HST have been demonstrated time and time again. We don't need to send this to another committee. We're debating it here in the House, and all the people have had an opportunity.

I know that so many of our NDP colleagues will be voting for us, for a stronger British Columbia, because they've read the article in Maclean's about harmonization. It isn't a tax grab. Prices won't increase. They talk about the opposition to the HST:

[1650]

"Rather, the proposition they seek to uphold is this: that the two provinces, Ontario and B.C., should continue to tax some goods and services but not others; that the tax should apply where it does apply, at wildly uneven rates, depending how many times it has been imposed at various stages in the production chain from raw input to finished goods; and last, that we should, through
[ Page 4586 ]
the combined operation of two separate and uncoordinated sales taxes, federal and provincial, each with their own set of exemptions, in effect maintain four different regimes in each province, depending which of the two taxes applies in any given case."

It's clear that this archaic, Byzantine — which we know means overly complicated — provincial sales tax system that we have in place must be replaced by a harmonized sales tax that not only increases jobs but decreases costs to government, provides better value for taxpayers and keeps B.C. strong.

H. Lali: I stand here in this House on the debate of the bill amidst the cheers of the Liberals saying to me: "More, more." They liked what they heard last week. They want more of it, and they're going to get more. They're not just going to get more from myself only. They're going to get more from the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who's going to be speaking a little later, and they're going to get more from all of my other colleagues who are sitting here in the House.

If they think that's enough, wait until they get outside this building and start to tour British Columbia and start talking to real people out there. They're going to get more of the same from them.

Hon. Speaker, I've got to tell you. Here's the motion that's before us on Bill 9. It's called a referral motion, and what we want to do is contained right here in the motion. I'm going to read it out to you so that all these Liberals know what it's all about, instead of all this stuff they're talking about. If they really mean what they're talking about, they'd be out there, as a part of this referral motion, alongside us New Democrats talking to people in British Columbia.

I'll read: "Be it resolved that Bill 9 not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be forwarded to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and further that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberation."

In the interests of consultation, in the interests of democracy and in the interests of serving all of our constituents — us on this side, they on that side — what could be better than to actually go out there and talk to people and listen to what they have to say? What could be better? Then ask them what they think about the HST and what they would like to see. Now, what could be better than the Liberals actually joining hands across the floor to support this motion, to sit alongside us?

Let's travel throughout British Columbia and talk to people. That's what this says.

Interjection.

H. Lali: Well, why not? The minister asks why not.

It's a select standing committee. You know, if the select standing committee advises the Premier and the cabinet…. "Give us a little bit of a budget. We'll go travel."

There are folks all throughout British Columbia, as the hon. minister would know, especially in northern British Columbia, especially in remote British Columbia, especially in rural British Columbia and especially on Indian reserves spread out all over the mountains and the lakesides of this great, beautiful province of ours who don't have that kind of ready access to come to Victoria or to Vancouver to talk to this committee.

That's why you would travel — to go to them to hear what they have to say. Now what better democracy would you get in any place around the world than to have the elected representatives of the people actually go to the people and talk to them?

Oh, I forgot. This is the Liberal Party we're talking about. They're not ready to talk to people. They don't want to talk to everyday people who live all over British Columbia. They don't want to talk to all of the lower- and middle-income earners of this province. They don't want to talk to people in rural British Columbia, as this referral motion would say.

Why would they go talk to them when all they have to do is take a floatplane or a helijet and go over and meet the folks in the boardrooms on Howe Street in big corporations? That's where the Liberal policy for the last nine years has been written.

[1655]

It sure as heck isn't written by the people of British Columbia, because if it was, to the person, every single Liberal in this House — what is it? about 46 of them, somewhere around there, I think, or 45 — would all be in favour of going out there to speak to the people. But they're not. Why travel all the way out to Pouce Coupe or up there to the Atlin country or to Fraser-Nicola or some other communities on the north Island? Why go out there?

It's too far for them to go out there and reach out to real people, as this referral motion would suggest, when all they have to do is just take a hop, skip and jump from this hallowed hall here right over to the boardrooms of the corporate heads of all the corporations in British Columbia located on Howe Street. Why would they? That's what this is all about.

They didn't do any study. They haven't done any analysis. The Liberals haven't done any reports. They haven't talked to any independent people to go out there and actually start talking to people and see what kind of a cost benefit there would be by bringing in the HST.

They didn't put it forward during the election time. Asked point-blank: are you going to bring in the HST if you win the next election…? "No, we're not. It's not on our radar," says the Premier and the Finance Minister and every Liberal across the way.

They all said that, but we know what happened. Those people were misled. They voted for the Liberals, and lo and behold — what was it? — three days after the election they were already negotiating with the federal Conservatives on the HST.
[ Page 4587 ]

People were not consulted. This motion is about consultation. It is a sober second thought. That's what it is. You know, there might be the odd Liberal on the other side of the House who might even be thinking: "Maybe we ought to have talked to somebody." You know what? We've still got time. We haven't passed this legislation. We haven't voted on the final aspect of their legislation yet, and it's not supposed to come into effect, supposedly, until July 1, even though HST is already being charged.

There's got to be somebody who says to another caucus colleague, to another cabinet colleague or perhaps to the Premier or the Premier's staff: "You know, maybe those New Democrats might be right on this particular issue. Maybe we ought to go out there and talk to some real people — just maybe."

If it isn't that they truly believe in their hearts that it's the right thing to do, just maybe somebody — one of those political think-tankers that they've hired, all those 200, 300 people working at PAB…. Maybe somebody might even be saying to them, "You know, guys, it might be good political advice for us to even just do this," because if they did listen to maybe that one voice, they might turn around and say: "You know what? We're going to let this referral motion pass, and then we're going to go out there and talk to people."

But they're afraid to talk to the people, because it means consultation. It means democracy. Why are the Liberals afraid of democracy? Why are they afraid of the people? People in British Columbia are angry for having been misled by the B.C. Liberal Party during the election. It wasn't a part of the….

A big $1.9 billion tax shift, a massive tax shift, and the imposition of 12 percent on the people for goods and services. That's a huge, huge, major shift in the policy platform. If that can't be debated during an election to see what your thoughts are, especially when the question was asked, then what is there left to have an election over? Why not just set up a dictatorship?

Oh, I forgot. That's what we've got in British Columbia. For the last nine years we've had a dictatorship. That's how this Liberal Premier and this Liberal cabinet actually do things — edict, dictatorship, autocratic rule. That's what's happening.

I just want to switch the focus here and take a look at what it is the people of British Columbia are upset about and why they want to be consulted. Well, because people are being taxed from birth until death. Last week I stood here in this House and talked about how the Liberals are going to tax you for around the average 80 years that we live, and perhaps in the future it will be longer than that. They'll tax you from birth until death.

[1700]

You know, you have a baby, and at the celebration of the baby, all these guests are invited to the House. I talked about how, all of a sudden, before that little certificate that officially says you're officially born, as a baby, the Minister of Finance is going to be standing there with his hand out and saying: "Uh, uh, uh. I'm sorry, but pay 12 percent on that birth certificate."

The same thing with the wedding. You decide you want to get married. You want to get that certificate. That same thing would happen there. The uninvited guest, the Minister of Finance, will be standing there. He wants his 12 percent.

It's not just on the wedding certificate. An average wedding costs about 10,000 bucks, I guess, with the food and the spirits and the rental of the hall, etc., all the gowns and the dresses and everything, then, for the groomsmen and the women who stand up for the….

Interjection.

H. Lali: The bridesmaids. Thank you very much.

Well, you know, depending on how much you've got, it's 10,000 to 20,000 bucks. If you happen to be from certain ethnic groups — you know, my ethnic group or Italian folks, people around the Mediterranean, East Asians, South Asians, etc. — it's a little bit more. It's a little bit more — $50,000, $60,000 or, for some people who've got lots of money, $100,000.

Well, guess what. If you happen to be one of these folks from one of these ethnic groups or if you just happen to be independently wealthy and you want to put on a big show or whatever, and you spend 50 grand on a wedding, figure out 12 percent. It's going to cost you $6,000, or if you happen to spend a lot more money, that's $12,000. The uninvited guest, the Minister of Finance, is going to be standing there with a cap in his hand: "Give it up."

Then, of course, when you die, it's the same thing. There's the funeral, and at the funeral it's the same thing. You don't get to cross over to the other side of the universe or wherever we go after we die — I remember talking about the ghost whisperer, where they've got the white light, and you can't cross until you've done all your business — because the Minister of Finance will be standing there right at the portal, the portal that you kind of cross through. Yeah. "No, no, no. You're not allowed to the other side unless you give up 12 percent here. Pay up before you die. Pay up."

You're not even allowed to be dead — officially declared dead — in this province until the Minister of Finance collects 12 percent. Isn't that something? It's a death tax — isn't it? It's a death tax.

Interjection.

H. Lali: Yes, the hon. member says that it's a death tax. That's what has happened. Anyway, it's….

Hon. G. Abbott: Get some new material.
[ Page 4588 ]

H. Lali: I'm getting to it, getting to it. He wants new material, but I have to put on the record for the minister from Shuswap….

Hon. G. Abbott: You're reading from Hansard.

H. Lali: No, it's not Hansard. Actually, look at this. It says NDP on the front.

Hon. G. Abbott: You're reading from your own Hansard.

H. Lali: No, actually, I'm going to read from you.

Here are some of the groups — I didn't put it on the record the last time, but I'm going to do it this time — that are actually in favour of the HST. I'm going to read a list of them.

There's the B.C. Business Council. There's the B.C. Progress Board, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce — folks across the way know a thing or two about all these boards that I'm talking about — the Canada West Foundation, the Conference Board of Canada, Chartered Accountants of British Columbia, Retail Council of Canada, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, Certified General Accountants of B.C., Certified General Accountants of Canada, B.C. Trucking Association.

When I read this list of the supporters, I sort of see the who's who of the B.C. Liberal campaign donators. Most of these folks, the vast majority of these folks, the members who belong to these organizations — they're going to get a handsome reward. Do you know how much that reward is? You know all those campaign donations going to the Liberal Party? You know how much that reward is, hon. Speaker? It's $1.9 billion per year, that massive tax shift away from these folks and their friends and those big corporations.

You know who's going to pay? All the lower- and middle-income earners in this province. That's 98 percent of the people in this province. They're the ones who are going to be paying, and the small businesses in this province are going to be paying, the tens of thousands of small businesses. They're going to be paying while corporations are at the trough again — $1.9 billion per year. That's every year. That's what this is about.

I also want to put on the record some of these folks who are actually against it. I'm only going to read a few out of a long list.

[1705]

B.C. Restaurant and Foodservices Association. You know how many hundreds and hundreds of restaurants belong to that organization? They're saying that when you add it all up, an additional 7 percent tax on meals will cost the industry $750 million each year in lost sales. They want to have a say. That's why they're supporting our referral motion.

This is according to the Canada restaurant and food association's econometric model. That's an annual loss of 7.5 percent, or nearly $50,000 for the average restaurant in the province, which is actually more than the average annual pre-tax profit of $29,000 per establishment.

Then there are also the homebuilders and the real estate industry. There's the Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia, the association of B.C. school officials. You know, they've got a subsequent partial rebate, but they're on the list here as well. You also have the B.C. Care Providers Association. Subsequently, they got a partial rebate because, you know, they raised Hades.

The Federation of Community Social Services of B.C., they're saying that the rebate that the government wants to give is not enough. That's what they're telling us. It says the federation's executive director, Jennifer Charlesworth, actually said that her group is lobbying the province to increase the rebate level for those agencies from 57 percent to 75 percent, so the task is fiscally neutral to them.

Child and Family Counselling Association, they're saying that a 7 percent increase in goods and services taxes will hurt their sector on a number of fronts. This is in a letter to the Leader of the Opposition, and it says: "It will increase our operational costs. It will increase residential care costs. It will increase our administrative costs. It will require financial outlay on new accounting processes, and the impact will be felt at a time when our sector is already struggling with the effects of decreased financial support from private and public funders."

The Rental Owners and Managers Association of B.C., they're against it as well. B.C. Housing and Provincial Rental Housing Corporation are against it. UBCM passed a resolution, the delegates at the 2010 convention, which stated: "Therefore, be it resolved that the B.C. municipalities request that the provincial government abandon its plan to implement a harmonized sales tax, HST."

Environmentalists are against this, and First Nations. I'd like to talk about the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, who actually oppose the unilateral implementation of the HST. Both the federal and the provincial governments failed to consult with First Nations.

In B.C., again, the UBCIC passed a resolution against the HST at their 40th anniversary annual general meeting on September 16 to 18 in Harrison Hot Springs. They demanded a consultation and the inclusion of specific non-derogation language regarding the preservation of the tax exemption of First Nations' personal and real property. They demand consultation. This is what the referral is all about. They want to be consulted. These are the kinds of people that we would consult.

They're demanding consultation on the impact of the HST and also on the effect of the First Nations GST and the First Nations sales tax, citing the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. They are also opposed to the benefit this will give to exploitative industries, such as mining and forestry, and are opposed to the
[ Page 4589 ]
elimination of environmentally friendly PST exemptions as well.

They're telling us that the federal government denied them any kind of consultation and also denied the need for non-derogation language, to which the UBCIC responded on December 2. I'd like to read it into the record.

"HST affects First Nations' ability to earn a moderate livelihood, and it adversely affects our aboriginal economic rights. Existing First Nations taxing authority under the FNGST and FNST is an affirmation of our self-governing right to tax. Vague assurances and tax bulletins are insufficient to accommodate.

"The Crown-proposed action will adversely affect our affirmed aboriginal rights and has not exercised any evidence of due diligence in its accelerated implementation of HST. To date all interactions between the Ministries of Finance have been to the exclusion of any representation. Your actions to date are not honourable and represent a failure to treat First Nations as equals in a government-to-government relationship."

They are also saying:

"We demand a distinct process. Public tax bulletins will be a failure to consult and accommodate. We strongly advise you to give respectful consideration to our rights."

This is from the UBCIC.

[1710]

I could go on. It just goes on, but you know, I'm going to shift the focus here because it is important…. All of these organizations that I just read about here into the record, they all want to be consulted. They are looking forward to talking to the committee, the select standing committee of the Legislature.

I've already talked about the massive $1.9 billion tax shift. I also want to tell you that Liberals like to brag about their tax breaks for the rich and also for big corporations. That's what they always brag about. When they talk about having the lowest taxes, look at the marginal taxes. It's about the people who are making over $125,000 a year. When they talk about these huge tax breaks that are supposed to result in all this trickle-down, that has never happened. It's the massive tax giveaways to large corporations.

But you know what? They don't want to face the people. They don't want to face the 87 percent of the population that is actually against the HST. The Minister of Finance said that there's a lot of misinformation on Vander Zalm's website and that the NDP are misinforming. But we are saying: "Let's refer this to a committee." The Libs' answer is: "Forget it. We don't want a committee. We're going to spend multimillion dollars on a pamphlet that we're going to mail to every household, and that's how we're going to actually get the word out."

Then the Minister of Finance also says: "Well, go to the government website and look for a…." But there's no list there as to what is being taxed under the HST and what is exempt. They won't provide a list. There's no list on there. We asked them for an appendix. We asked the minister to put an appendix there that you can sort of google. The folks want to see the taxman's appendix. They're saying: "Show us your appendix, Mr. Taxman."

But you know what? The minister is not showing the appendix, because he hasn't got an appendix. So I could just sort of see the headlines tomorrow. The minister is standing on a street corner saying: "Yes, I have no appendix today. Maybe tomorrow." I don't know if he listens. If he doesn't, he might get one.

He's got no appendix, and he can actually avoid the embarrassment and produce an appendix, because people want to see his appendix. I'm feeling a little sorry for the minister. He doesn't have an appendix, and he doesn't want to go around the province without an appendix.

Surely, the Premier has hundreds of spin doctors working for him at the PAB — that's the public affairs bureau — dispensing Liberal propaganda already or dispensing pablum to feed British Columbians since 2001. They've been doing it. Surely, they could easily construct an appendix. They have lots of people working there. They could put in the appendix what's in or what's out for the HST. But it's not there on the website, so I really feel for the Minister of Finance. He's afraid to go out there without an appendix and talk to people.

I want to tell you a little story, a story from India. We have a saying. You put somebody on a donkey or you ride them and parade them around the town. The act of doing that is called a jaloos, when you put somebody on a mule. The idea about the jaloos, what that means, is that you're actually shaming somebody. It's a ritual in India to embarrass somebody or to show them off or display them in a public way, in a negative kind of fashion. They put soot from ashes on that person's face when they want to shame them.

You know what? You know who their favourite target is? Who their favourite target is when that person comes to town is — you got it — the tax collector. The tax collector was the main person to be jaloosed.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

So every country in the world that has historically had a tax collector…. He's also known as the government agent, the taxman. It's the same person. Alexander the Great, the Roman emperors, the Mughal emperors in India all had tax collectors. Countries all over the world today have tax collectors.

In British India they were known as the ICS officers, or the Indian civil service officers. They created about 300 ICS positions, administrative positions. They did everything, and one of their duties was to collect taxes, among other things, in terms of administering a particular region. They administered justice, kept the peace, and even attended weddings and births and funerals of prominent people within their jurisdictions. But of course, their favourite act was collecting taxes.

The Liberals actually don't want to support this referral to committee. They don't want to be jaloosed in every
[ Page 4590 ]
city and every town and every hamlet and every little village or Indian reserve in this province, because they know they would be jaloosed. The Liberal Party doesn't want to be jaloosed.

[1715]

Although when I was at the Surrey parade, somebody said: "We're looking forward to the next election." He said to me in Punjabi, [Punjabi was spoken], which means that they actually want to kick the juice out of the Liberals. They're waiting for the election.

I want to tell you another story. You've all seen the movie called Two Mules for Sister Sara. Well, Clint Eastwood was in that movie. It's a Clint Eastwood movie. There was one mule that was for Sister Sara; the other one was for her massive ego.

You know what? Similarly, the Minister of Finance needs…. The saying around here is two mules for Brother Colin, because he needs one for himself and the other one for his massive appendix, when he finally gets the appendix to put on the website to share with people.

The Liberals need to get out there and talk to people. They don't want to go out there and do that. You know why? Because they're afraid of the people's wrath. They're afraid, they're running scared, and they're looking for a place to hide. They don't want to support the motion that we have. The reason is because the people of British Columbia were double-crossed and betrayed by the B.C. Liberals during the last election. They were Pearl Harboured.

I have my final story that I want to share with you. It's actually from North America. You heard a saying here called: "He was tarred and feathered." Now, I know why the B.C. Liberals are afraid to refer Bill 9 to the Leg. committee. They're afraid of referring the HST to the Legislative standing committee that will be struck if they pass this motion, because they would be tarred and feathered wherever they went. They don't want to do that. They just don't want to go out there and talk to people.

I've got something to tell you. I'm going to put out a warning. I'm going to put the word out in my constituency, and I'm going to tell all the folks who are listening to this broadcast. When I get out there and travel around British Columbia, I'm going to tell them: "You better go out right now and buy your tar and feathers, because if you do it after July 1 — you got it — the Minister of Finance, he's going to tax you 12 percent to buy the tar and feathers. That's what he's going to do. He's going to charge you at a rate of 12 percent."

Interjections.

H. Lali: So if you end up going to Canadian Tire, ask my honourable friend across the way who is talking about tar and feathers. If somebody goes to Canadian Tire to buy a can of tar, the minister is going to say: "No, no. You ain't going out that door. You're going to pay 12 percent on a can of tar." Similarly, if you end up going to Wal-Mart or if you're going to go to the Bay to buy some feathers — I know it's getting underneath the Liberals' skin — it's the same thing. The Minister of Finance is going to be standing at the door, and he's going to say: "Not so fast with that pillow of feathers. It's going to cost you 12 percent."

I can just see a black market starting up in the tar-and-feather business, folks just waiting to avoid paying the 12 percent harmonized tax on buying tar and feathers. There's going to be all this trading going on. I can just see some folks standing there out on the street: "Hey, buddy, I'll trade you one can of tar for one pillowcase full of feathers." The response will be: "No, no. Two cans of tar for one pillowcase full of feathers." "Okay, that's a deal."

That's the kind of deals that are going to take place. I can just sort of see in Liberal country all these jokes. They're already out there saying: "Have tar, will travel." That's what's happening with the Liberals. Instead of a "bring your own booze" party, folks are going to be actually having a "bring your own tar and feathers" party, and our chief guest is the Liberal cabinet minister, the Minister of Finance. That's what's going to happen.

That's why they are afraid to support this motion to put a committee out there to travel around the province to talk to people, because they're afraid they're going to be tarred and feathered. It's just unreal.

There's not even anybody at the public affairs bureau over there. There's nobody there. They're all afraid to say something to the Premier, to go out there, because the Premier and the Finance Minister and the Liberals are afraid. They're afraid to go out there to feel the wrath of the people. They just don't want to go out there.

Finally, before I sit down, I'd like to read, if I can find my letter. This is actually a letter from Bill Otway, a constituent of mine, B.C. Wildlife Federation. He says:

"Mr. Premier,

"I just wanted to express my thanks to you for your introduction of the HST for British Columbians. Until yesterday I actually thought I would have some small stipend left in my budget to spend on minor things such as food and heat and light and lodging, but thankfully, you have now taken that difficult situation of where I should now spend that money.

[1720]

"Now, of course, you have solved all our money problems with the grand old HST. I never would have thought of it — no money; no problems. I am looking into having the federal government just sending my pension cheque directly to your account and, thereby, saving us all the middlemen and accounting issues.

"I really appreciate all you have done and are doing to keep us from having to wonder what we will do with all our money in the future. I will be, however, working with Bill Vander Zalm as hard as I can just to show my full appreciation of your efforts.

"Signed, Bill Otway."

Letters like this are coming from all over British Columbia. I know that they're coming to us, but they're also coming to the Liberals, because they send a letter
[ Page 4591 ]
to the Premier and the ministers with a cc to us on our side.

They're getting all those letters, and I just can't fathom that not a single Liberal — not a single Liberal — has shown the courage to stand up in this House and actually support this referral motion or speak against the HST, to say: "We're going to support our constituents."

They've seen the polling numbers. We've seen it. The folks up in the gallery have seen it, and 87 percent of the people in British Columbia are against the HST. So am I, and that's why I'm supporting the referral motion.

Hon. M. Stilwell: I will speak against the proposed amendment and discuss the reasons why the opposition should support Bill 9 and the positive effects it will have on British Columbians. I do understand that there is a lot of fear and misinformation out there about the HST and what impact it will have on our lives and businesses.

You know, Madam Speaker, politics and partisanship are often theatre. I like to think that I have a pretty balanced view, and I confess to a tinge of awe at the last member's rant. I do have a good sense of humour about this. However, the goings-on and toing and froing in this chamber, like the previous speaker's, can obscure our perceptions of things — something that that side of the House is quite experienced at, I might add.

It can obscure our perception of important things in important ways. When I told one of my children that I was going to go into politics, he asked me why, when I had worked hard to become a professional in the respected profession of medicine, I would give it all up to become a politician, one of the least respected professions. Actually, what he said was: "Why would a normal person do that?"

Frankly, that's exactly why I decided to go into politics, because I do believe that politics can and should be respected. So should politicians, particularly when they are doing the right thing, not just the politically easy thing.

All of us on this side of the House take pride in integrity and reputation, and this government's decision to implement the HST was done with those in mind. That's important. While there are lots of sly references from the opposite side of the House, they are all part of theatre, and we shouldn't be confused.

The truth is that no government implements tax changes thinking that they are a vote-getter. You make changes because it's the right thing to do and because it creates benefits for more people. Anyone who has taken the time to look at the facts and follows the rationale of the value of the HST to its conclusion recognizes that overall it is the wisest course.

I want to speak to my constituents. I want them to hear directly from me and unequivocally that there was absolutely no discussion of the HST during last year's election campaign. At no time during all of the candidates meetings on the doorsteps or on the phone was the HST raised. But the landscape in British Columbia has changed drastically since then.

Let me give you an example of how situations can change and how, in a position of leadership, one has to be able to react quickly and positively, from my own experience — using the example of the appendix, perhaps.

As a physician, if I have a patient who I determine does not require surgery and I inform the patient and their family of that, but some time later I examine the patient again and the patient has deteriorated and surgery is now required, I must go back to the family and give them the news. If it's an elective procedure, that discussion may be longer than emergent, but obviously, I have a responsibility to the family, and they have an expectation that I will fulfil my responsibility and take the responsible action.

[1725]

Initially, one might not have to expect that. But over time the patient's condition changed. As a physician, I would need to adapt to the changing condition of the patient. And as a politician, we need to look at the changing condition of the province and adapt.

I consider re-examination of the HST as our responsibility. I should state, as well, that I have been a strong supporter of the HST since the very beginning, and I believe that it is the right time in B.C. for the harmonized sales tax.

It's no secret to anyone that we are experiencing an economic crisis. In response to that crisis, many countries have implemented measures of unprecedented scale, and like the rest of the world, our government is taking the steps necessary to improve the economy and create jobs.

This government is committed to continuing to build a vibrant future for all our citizens, a future with a strong economy, accessible health care and education and social systems, and healthy and welcoming communities. This government knows the HST will benefit B.C.'s economy by supporting jobs, encouraging new investment and helping our businesses grow both within Canada and internationally.

The HST will make businesses more competitive and attractive to investors, and now, more than ever, is the time to do all we can do to strengthen our economy for the future. The adoption of the HST is the single biggest step our government can take right now to improve B.C.'s economy. The HST will attract investment to this province.

This new value-added tax — and I say value-added even though the rate remains the same — does not put the same constraints on our economy as the old style of provincial sales tax. In fact, more than 130 countries around the world have made a shift to the value-added system.

We know that countries that have not embraced a value-added tax, countries that still have the old-style provincial tax, also have higher domestic consumer
[ Page 4592 ]
prices and higher export prices for commodities, goods and services that they are trying to sell on the world stage. That's only one reason why we should vote against the amendment and for Bill 9.

But the NDP vigorously defends this status quo and offers no alternatives.

Taxes should be neutral and equitable between forms of commerce. Business decisions should be motivated by economic rather than tax considerations. Taxpayers in similar situations carrying out similar transactions should be subject to similar levels of taxation. A restaurateur, for example, should not expect to be treated differently from a logger. It should be a level playing field, and the HST creates that. We believe that the HST will help B.C. businesses compete in the global marketplace.

But the opposition will tell you that the HST is bad for everyone. Every day there is a new group cited in their fearmongering campaign against the HST. When I hear the misinformation coming from the other side of the House, I feel I must respond, because it's wrong, and they are wrong.

There are a lot of seniors in my constituency. Although creating jobs and building our economy is important, it's not uppermost in their minds. Their priority is that they will have the financial security they need to live a life of dignity. I want to assure all the seniors in British Columbia that we agree with them.

In fact, to ensure that seniors and low-income families are not unfairly burdened, we're proposing a refundable HST tax credit of $230 per person. This HST credit could benefit over one million British Columbians.

I also want to remind the House of the example my colleague the Minister of Finance gave a few days ago. It's a good example and one worth repeating. He stated that a senior couple with $30,000 in annual income might pay about a thousand a year in HST as compared to the current tax regime of $756. But when you consider they would receive the HST tax credit, you realize, in fact, that the tax they pay will be more than offset.

Our seniors are being encouraged to worry about the HST unnecessarily, and frankly, it makes me angry that the other side of the House is creating undue stress and worry for them.

The Minister of Finance has also reminded us that over 80 percent of all goods and services will not be impacted at all. In fact, they will end up costing less following this shift to a value-added tax.

There is a criticism that this is a regressive tax, that lower-income British Columbians will be the ones most affected. We have taken steps to mitigate that through the HST tax credit. When combined with the recently introduced climate action credit, low-income British Columbians will now be eligible for up to $340 a year in provincial credits. That's on top of the existing GST credit and on top of more than 120 tax cuts introduced since 2001.

That means that B.C. has the lowest provincial personal income taxes in Canada for those earning up to $118,000. That's another way this government is implementing the HST in an appropriate fashion.

[1730]

Many European countries that have adopted a value-added tax have not seen the maximum benefits because they have not been accompanied with that reduced income tax rate. That reduces the benefit of a consumption tax and probably investment that will flow because of it.

Well, year after year this government has continued to lower income taxes. For most taxpayers B.C.'s personal income taxes have been reduced by 37 percent or more since 2001, and an additional 325,000 low-income British Columbians now pay no provincial income tax. As well, government lowered the small business rate from 4.5 percent to 2.5 percent in 2008, the second-lowest rate in Canada. By April 1, 2012, the tax will be cut again to zero, the lowest in Canada.

The HST is a consumption tax, and that allows a choice. The HST does not penalize savings or investment. The NDP would like British Columbians to forget those facts.

Government's vision from the very beginning has been to make B.C. a place where businesses can grow and thrive. Estimates are that harmonization of the sales tax will result in new investment of $11.5 billion, with a net increase of over 113,000 jobs in B.C. over the next decade. Those changes will make B.C. businesses more competitive, encourage new investment and improve productivity.

Let's try to keep emotion out of this. We have the experts backing us up. Jon Kesselman, the Canada Research Chair in Public Finance with the graduate public policy program at Simon Fraser University, has said that "British Columbians should shed their fears and misconceptions over the HST so that they can reap the benefits of a modern, efficient and growth-oriented tax system." We know the adoption of the HST is the single biggest thing our government can do to improve our economy.

Estimates are that HST will remove over $2 billion in costs for B.C. businesses, including an estimated $1.9 billion of sales tax removed from business inputs and an estimated $150 million annually in compliance costs. These were previously hidden taxes. Apparently, the opposition prefers hidden taxes.

As our Finance Minister explained when he introduced the legislation: "By reforming our tax system and introducing the HST, businesses will be more competitive and our province will see an increase in investment, productivity and economic growth."

Organizations and businesses also know that the HST is a good thing for B.C. Let me share with you some of the HST supporters. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce, which has been pushing for a harmonized sales tax for
[ Page 4593 ]
over ten years now. Another one, the motion picture industry — it's a big job creator in B.C., and jobs that might otherwise have gone outside the province now can stay here.

The B.C. Road Builders Association has said that "harmonization eliminates most of the provincial taxes on business inputs, generating cash flow that will stimulate business and become a permanent stimulus to the economy. Harmonizing the taxes will cut paperwork and compliance costs to the industry, making B.C. companies more competitive. This change will attract investment and create jobs throughout British Columbia."

These are just some of the areas that will see business productivity improve and grow due to the implementation of the HST. To support all that growth, we know education and skills development will be in even greater demand, meaning that our post-secondary system will continue to grow and thrive as well. To meet that demand, we must continue to provide exceptional post-secondary education and training opportunities that enhance the capacity and productivity of our labour market, and we are doing that.

That's why the province is proposing new provincial rebates for public post-secondary institutions to ensure that, on average, these institutions will pay no more tax when HST is implemented on July 1, 2010, than they did under the previous regime. When the HST is implemented, B.C. intends to provide rebates of 75 percent of the provincial portion of the HST for eligible universities and public colleges. As well, the federal government has a rebate program in place for schools, universities and colleges, which means the federal portion of the GST will also continue to be rebated. As well, of course, books will not be subjected to the HST.

I also know the businesses in my constituency will benefit from the HST. It will save them time and money, money they can put back into their businesses to keep them growing and providing jobs. Retail is one of the top three business sectors in my constituency, and again and again, leaders in retail and manufacturing have told us that the HST is a good thing for business.

[1735]

The Retail Council of Canada says: "We believe that HST will improve the underlying strengths of B.C.'s economy, improve productivity and, most importantly, boost wages." The Business Council of B.C. says: "A harmonized sales tax regime will stimulate investment, bolster B.C.'s competitive position and raise productivity — thus leading, over time, to higher real wages and incomes." Higher income — that sounds like a good thing for families all over B.C. and the families who call my constituency home.

Ultimately, everyone can benefit from the HST and the opportunities it will bring. The HST supports our government's plans for B.C.'s future prosperity. Decreasing personal taxes and taxes on businesses will work to bring our province's budget back on track and help British Columbia reach its potential.

Working together, we're rebuilding our economy and revitalizing our industries and businesses. That sounds like prudent and responsible fiscal management to me, and I will vote against the amendment and in favour of Bill 9.

A. Dix: The minister who just spoke made a number of comments in her discussion, apparently in opposition to the motion that is before us that actually, to my way of thinking, strongly favour that motion.

The minister said and stated — she asserted — that in her view, the HST was not an issue during the election campaign. In her view, she didn't hear that at all-candidates meetings. Well, since the minister said that she got into politics because she wanted to be straightforward, let's be clear why that's the case and why this motion is so important as a result.

The minister said: "Oh, it didn't come up in all-candidates meetings. It didn't come up on the doorstep." Well, why is that? It's because the B.C. Liberal Party specifically said that their position of the previous decade of opposition to the HST was going to be maintained. They weren't going to do it. The minister says it didn't come up. It didn't come up because they said they weren't going to introduce the HST. That's why it didn't come up.

Now we have ministers rising in this debate arguing that: "Oh, we didn't fool people in the election campaign." People fooled themselves because they didn't understand. They didn't understand, as apparently the minister did, that when the B.C. Liberal Party said they weren't going to do the HST, they should have still raised it because, in fact, the B.C. Liberal Party planned to do the HST. It was the people who were fooled in the process, and the government wasn't doing the fooling.

The minister said — she said we hear this all the time — that she supported the HST from the beginning. Well, I guess one doesn't want to be too philosophical in these questions and try and determine when the beginning is, but when was the beginning? Was the beginning when they introduced the GST — when the Premier was opposed? Was the beginning when the first provinces, in the 1990s, harmonized their sales tax with the GST? Was that the beginning — when the Premier was opposed?

Was the beginning…? Did it come later, like in the first term of this government when they went to Ottawa opposing the GST, for example, on contracted services as a position of the government? Was that the beginning? Apparently not.

Was the beginning in the fall of 2008 when the Premier went on TV because of what he called the economic crisis, and that crisis was being felt, surely, all across our communities? Was that the beginning? The minister said she supported it from the beginning. Was that the beginning?
[ Page 4594 ]

The Premier went on TV. He had his ten points. He was a bit biblical himself. It was later expanded to 12. He was freezing ferry fares for two months or something. That was the level of the crisis. Was that the beginning, when the Premier didn't…? The most important thing, the minister said, that we could do for the economy — was that the beginning? Didn't talk about it. Didn't talk about it then. It had been before them for a long time. The issue had been before them. Didn't talk about it then.

Was the beginning in January, when the government of Ontario — because we've heard a lot from the province of Ontario — announced its decision to join the HST?

[1740]

Was that the beginning? Apparently not. That wasn't the beginning. The minister supported it from the beginning, but that wasn't the beginning.

Well, was the beginning the election campaign, when the B.C. Liberal Party was specifically asked if they were going to proceed with the HST and they said no? They said no, as they had done in previous elections, as they had done for the previous decade, for as long, in fact, as the current leader of the Liberal Party — and now we have to use that term "current" — had been leader of the party. Was that the beginning? Apparently that wasn't the beginning.

That wasn't the beginning. The beginning apparently was three days after the election campaign, when the government decided to open negotiations with Ottawa and get information on the HST and start working toward harmonization of the HST. Apparently, the beginning wasn't all that debate and all that discussion about the most important economic thing, according to the government, that they could do for the economy. It wasn't then. The minister said she supported it from the beginning, but the beginning seems to have happened some days, within hours, of the election.

We all know why they didn't raise it in the election campaign. We all know it. It's very straightforward. If I may, because I think it dramatically supports our view that this issue should be referred to the select standing committee, the reason the Minister of Advanced Education and the Premier didn't discuss this in the election campaign…. We know the reason why the voters didn't discuss it with them. They didn't discuss it because they believed the government when the government said, "We won't do this," because they believed that had been their position.

All those things they say about the PST — that had been their position for more than a decade up until that point. But what was the reason why the B.C. Liberal government didn't say? Well, it may come. There was a recent public opinion poll in which, after hearing the Premier's arguments from July — when he first revealed this scheme to the public — to the present day, we see that the number of people in British Columbia that strongly agree with the implementation of the HST is 2 percent.

Interestingly, in March it had been 3 percent. It's now down to 2 percent, which may explain why the Minister of Finance is going to send out — at costs of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of taxpayers' dollars — propaganda on the HST. He's concerned that the next step, the next logical step in public support for his plan, is 1 percent and then zero percent.

When the Minister of Advanced Education says in her speech that she supported it from the beginning and that it was the public's fault because they didn't raise it with her during the election campaign, even though the public was told by the B.C. Liberal government….

I'm telling you, had the public been told this, had the B.C. Liberal government said to the food and restaurant community, "We're considering bringing in the HST," you don't think that would have been an issue in the election campaign? Well, we know that if the government had answered that question and said what its intentions were, there'd be a different government today. We all know that.

But let's move on to the present. Let's move away from the government's misleading people in the election campaign. I think it's fair to say that the genius of the motion by the member for Port Coquitlam is that it contains within it the means to save the government from itself.

Let me just read that motion so that we understand. "Be it resolved that Bill 9 not be read a second time now" — it already sounds pretty good, doesn't it? — "but that the subject matter be forwarded to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and further that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it in its deliberation."

Now, when we think of what the Minister of Advanced Education just said in this House…. When we think of that, and when we reflect on the fact that the minister is claiming that the people were to blame for being misled in the election campaign and that it wasn't the B.C. Liberal Party to blame — that the people were to blame because they wrongly believed when the B.C. Liberal Party said they weren't going to bring in the HST that they weren't going bring in the HST…. I don't think people are going to be fooled again. They're blaming the people.

[1745]

So what this motion…. The elements really are threefold, I would say. The first — and it's the most important element, of course — is: "that Bill 9 not be read a second time now." That's clearly the most important element. I think that if you look…. As I go around my constituency…. I was knocking on doors just this past Sunday in my constituency, talking to people about the HST. What they tell me overwhelmingly….

I searched. I went block to block. I went on Church Street. I went on Joyce Street. I went on all the streets
[ Page 4595 ]
of my…. I went on Euclid Avenue, believe it or not. I went on Euclid. I went and searched for an endangered species. I went in search for one person, a business person, a small business person, an accountant, a lawyer. I went in search for a health care worker. I went in search for a single individual, one individual who agreed with the government's position — one individual who said: "I don't want you to stop the HST."

I sought that person, and I did not find that person. Not a single person told me. So when public opinion surveys say…. I'm very suspicious of public opinion surveys, in general, as my good friend from Skeena knows. But when the public survey says that only 2 percent of people strongly support the government's position, when it says that only 2 percent strongly agree with the Minister of Finance — I can confirm that that number might, in fact, be a little high.

I talked to well over a hundred people — I think closer to 200 people — and I could find zero, which indicates that that 2 percent may be actually subject to the margin of error. When we're talking about a Minister of Finance who introduced a budget at $495 million and ended up at more than $3 billion, margin of error is something the government fully understands.

Therefore, if you look at that first part of the motion, that it not be read a second time now, I think what you are reflecting is the consensus, but I think it's more important than that. I think people on both sides of the House agree that this fundamentally changes our tax system. It's a fundamental shift in the tax burden.

I think that to have a process that doesn't include public participation, after the way in which this particular piece of legislation was introduced — in other words, that the government hid their position on the HST until after the election and then days after the election started negotiating the HST — that adds to the need in a parliamentary democracy, a democracy like ours, for public hearings — for the public and the groups that represent the public to have an opportunity to make their voices heard.

So that's the second part of this motion by the member for Port Coquitlam. It's the second part, and I think it's in that part that the real genius is found, because it offers to the public the opportunity to have their voice heard, an opportunity denied by the members of the B.C. Liberal Party during the election campaign, who were not straightforward about their position. It gives an opportunity for the public to come to this House and perhaps for the House and the committee to move and meet the public in certain circumstances.

For example, I can imagine what a public hearing on the HST would look like in the community of Merritt, represented by my friend from Fraser-Nicola. I think that would be a tough hearing for the government. But it would give the public — which was denied this opportunity on not a small bill but a bill that fundamentally changes our system of taxation on the sales tax side — an opportunity to have their voice heard. I think that is fundamental to our role here and absolutely made necessary by what happened in the election campaign, when people were misled by the current government.

Now, there's a third element — can you believe how good this motion is? — the life jacket it throws to the government. The third part of this motion allows us, of course, to have witnesses come to the committee. You know, I think that's an important thing. I think that when I go up and down Kingsway, as I did the other week, talking to business owners about the HST….

Again, that's why I'm concerned about this public opinion poll that shows that 2 percent of British Columbians strongly agree with the Minister of Finance. I think it's high. Because I went up and down and…. Look, business people often support the NDP. Many of them supported me in the last election, but some of them didn't. That's the nature of democracy.

[1750]

I couldn't find a single person on my street, Kingsway, where I do my shopping, not one person, not a single person who said: "I support the HST."

I think those individuals who struggle every day with their businesses and know the damage that the HST is going to do — for example, to the restaurant Simply Curries on Kingsway. I recommend people go — excellent food. Perhaps my friend from Fraser-Nicola, when he visits Vancouver, will go there.

He understands — the owner, Vishy Ganeshan of Simply Curries — the profound impact on his business of this increase in cost to his customers. It is going to profoundly affect the number of people who can go to his business, and his business employs a lot of people. It actually supports — Vishy, the restaurant owner, has in that case — people with developmental disabilities who have come and worked in this business over the years and been part of opportunities…. He's reached out. He and his wife, Karthy, are members of the Collingwood Neighbourhood House board, and they do this — all of the economics that make that business possible, and they work hard.

Understand that Vishy gets up in the morning at 4 a.m. He works a job at UBC till 10 a.m. He leaves that job to go and open his business for lunch, and then he works through to 8 p.m. in the evening. That is what his job is. And what he's saying to this government….

I think he understands the impact of this HST just as well as the Minister of Finance and just as well as Mr. Mintz. Mr. Vishy Ganeshan was never given an opportunity to speak on this bill. He was told. He's actually a constituent of the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, and he was told in the campaign that they weren't going to do this to them, and now they're doing something that will directly and negatively affect his business.

That's why Vishy Ganeshan and all of those restaurant owners along Kingsway — who work so hard every day,
[ Page 4596 ]
working hours that you wouldn't believe, and the people who work as servers in those restaurants, waiters and waitresses who work in the back of those restaurants, who all will be affected by this bill — deserve better than what they've got from this government.

They deserve to have their voices heard, and they also, just as much as Mr. Mintz or the Minister of Advanced Education or anyone in this House, had a right for their voices to be heard. They had a right to be told the truth in the election campaign. Absent that on the part of the government, absent the fact, if you believe the line of the Minister of Advanced Education that there was some sort of act of God three days after the election that forced the government to change its mind and to ignore circumstances…. Even if you believe that, the government had the responsibility to go to people and give them the right to have their voice heard, and they have denied it.

That's why this motion by the member for Port Coquitlam provides opportunities for both sides. It provides opportunities for the people of British Columbia who overwhelmingly oppose the HST to have their voices heard. It gives an opportunity for members on the government side to listen to the people of British Columbia and to meet their obligation in a democracy to allow voices to be heard before major decisions like this are made. That's why this motion deserves our support.

Now, it's not a surprise, and it won't be a surprise to members of this House, because I am still awaiting — I am looking forward to it, and I've been preparing for it — my second reading speech on this Bill 9 piece of legislation. It's not a surprise to people that in addition to supporting the motion of referral, to refer this bill, I oppose the legislation itself. I think it's going to bring damage to the economy. I think that's clear. I think they know that on the government side. I think that's why they didn't raise it in the election campaign.

It was, in particular, and I need to emphasize this again, given what was just said by the government member and was repeatedly said by government members in the course of this debate…. That's why people have, I think, the right to be heard. Because the way in which this was introduced, a fundamental change in the way that tax policy is applied in British Columbia, the people had a right to have a role in that process. They did not deserve to be misled in that manner.

If you believe you have the strong arguments, if the government really believed they had the strong arguments, they would have told people during the election campaign. If they really believed this was the best thing you could do for the economy, they would have told people in this election campaign. They would have told people. Now, this is, as you know, a very difficult process for people, and that's why you see so much mobilization in the population.

[1755]

We came, in the last session, and delivered tens of thousands of petitions. My friend from Esquimalt delivered them, and other people delivered them. I think this part is a positive thing and shows why this committee process, in my view, is worth doing, because people are engaged. People have a strong opinion. People would like to be involved in this process. It's the government that has denied their role in the process, but people are aching for an opportunity to be involved.

That's why people like Ron Eikenberry in my constituency went out in December and January and collected 1,500 signatures against the HST. He wants to be involved. He believes he has a role to be involved, and the way in which this was done, I think, supports that.

The second thing I'd like to say is that we need to have it, to hear…. The government has consistently — and they certainly did that in the estimates debate last fall — refused to provide independent cost-benefit analysis of this initiative. Now, we could have…. Look, it's not just people opposed to the HST who we think should come to these public hearings. We would like to invite, for example, Jack Mintz, to come before the committee, hon. Speaker. We'd like Mr. Mintz to come before the committee because it seems to me…. In fact, we'd like it so much that we'd like to do it twice.

The first time that we invite him, he can speak to the report he did for the C.D. Howe Institute, which, amongst other things, talks about the fact that "in the first year of harmonization, Ontario's GDP" — because it was about Ontario's GDP and the HST — "is 0.3 percent below the base case" and that employment declines will occur.

Listen to what Mr. Mintz, who is the principal witness for the government on this bill, says in this paper. He was one of the co-authors — just so we're not misquoting him — of this paper produced in September 2008.

Here's what he says. There will be a "short-term loss in GDP and employment." That's what the case for it is — a short-term loss in GDP and employment. They refer to a CPI — that's the consumer price index — shock "caused by shifting the indirect tax burden to consumption under harmonization."

Here's the conclusion, and this I think raises the issue, because the Minister of Advanced Education said in her speech that tax changes should be neutral. So let's understand what they mean by neutrality, what they mean by voices in the community that count and voices in the community that don't count.

Here's what Mr. Mintz and his colleague authors said in the C.D. Howe Institute report. They said: "After several years of somewhat higher unemployment, however, workers come to accept the real wage losses inherent in raising indirect taxes on consumption, and base-case employment levels can be restored with no additional inflationary pressures."

In other words, the guy advocating for their position says it's going to cost jobs. The guy advocating for
[ Page 4597 ]
their position says it's going to drive down the wages of the very people right now who are suffering most in the economy. He says that. And he says the only thing that will stop that…. That's why we need to have him at the committee. He'd be one of the first witnesses on our witness list, because we'd want to discuss this with him. We'd want him to discuss it.

He could discuss this report in his first appearance, and then he could discuss the report he did for the government that said other things in his second appearance so we could have balance. He himself could provide balance on this question.

But here is…. This is how mean-spirited this analysis is. Let me just repeat it: "…however, workers come to accept the real wage losses inherent in raising indirect taxes on consumption." So he says things will get better when poor people understand their lot in life. That's the defence of the HST brought forward by Mr. Mintz, and I think this document illustrates, if nothing else does, the profound need to have these committee hearings. I think that….

Interjection.

A. Dix: Absolutely. Well, he might come for free. He might come for free. The member for Skeena suggests that we might have to pay him to come out. He might come for free. It might be an add-in on his contract with the government.

In any case, Mr. Mintz, who argued those things on the HST two years ago — and different things, it would appear, on the HST now…. It cost employment; it hurts low-income people. That was his argument, hon. Speaker, and we would love to discuss that issue with Dr. Mintz and others at the committee. That's why it would be good for the government to have it.

[1800]

Now, what's the third reason? Well, the Minister of Finance himself seems to want the hearings, and I think that the Minister of Finance would be another excellent witness for the hearing. Apparently he supports the HST. He brought it forward.

He didn't support it as a member of the Legislature from his election in May of 1996 through 1997, 1998 — so many years — until the election in May of 2009. All that period he opposed it, so he could perhaps come to the Legislative Assembly committee, the Finance Committee, and explain the epiphany that occurred to him days after the election. He could perhaps explain that in some detail: how a person could oppose something as a question of principle for so many years and then take another position. We'd love to have him here.

More important than that, I'm concerned about the Minister of Finance because he's been making this argument in his budget now — hard. He's been working hard. He's so mad. He's so mad at Bill Vander Zalm and at the NDP and the people of British Columbia that he's going to waste public money on propaganda in order to make them pay the price. He's so mad at them that that's what he's going to do — the Minister of Finance is. Right?

Instead of doing that, why not capitalize on the clear passion that the people of British Columbia feel for this issue, the thousands of people that are going door-to-door to talk to other people in British Columbia? Why not capitalize on that and invite them here to have their views felt in this debate? That's what's required.

I'm worried about the Minister of Finance's support. Like I say, he's been working hard from March to April, and his support has been reduced from 3 percent to 2 percent. It couldn't be any worse. His tactics of making the change and telling people to like it or lump it couldn't be any worse than that.

I think the Minister of Finance has a demonstrated need to have these hearings, to hear from British Columbians, to engage in the debate with British Columbians, to have British Columbians come before this Legislature and have their voices heard in this Legislature before this bill is passed. Nobody needs that more than the Minister of Finance — well, nobody except the restaurant workers and restaurant owners on Kingsway and the 85 percent of British Columbians who oppose the HST.

Now, there's a further reason why we clearly need the opportunity in this province to have this matter referred to the Finance Committee, and again, I think this is another example of the genius of the member for Port Coquitlam in proposing this motion, the real genius that the member showed — how helpful, how he reached out to people opposed to the HST. But he also reached out to the government.

You would think that after the election campaign, when the government, I remind you, said that they were not going to bring in the HST and denied the public its right to have a debate in the normal forum that we would have such a debate, which is an election campaign…. They denied them that opportunity.

Since then the incoherence has not stopped. You'll see contained in this bill…. My colleague from Surrey-Whalley referred to the bill as "this tax isn't going to fund health care, but we didn't think of that explanation for eight months." In fact, that was an alternate title for the bill, proposed by the member for Surrey-Whalley.

I would say that the central case, almost, of the Minister of Finance's budget speech was that the HST was going to go to health care. Now, we have heard many speeches on the government side, and I haven't heard all of them by any means. But they abandoned that idea so quickly that it would make your head shake. It's sitting here in the bill: "Plans and Reports Respecting Health Funding." It's right here in the bill.

I think the people of British Columbia would like to have that discussion, would like to have that debate. The minister made the decision. He claimed that the HST
[ Page 4598 ]
was funding health care, even though the HST is going to bring in less revenue than the PST, so in effect it's going to represent, presumably, a cut to health care, if you believe that. But the minister said that was the centrepiece of his budget. No wonder he's gone from 3 percent to 2 percent.

[1805]

But now this bill is brought into this Legislature. Section 68 is there. There's a whole series of people, I think, who would like to hear, because the government itself has been incoherent. This major piece of tax legislation….

People were misled in the election campaign, and since the election campaign, they have continued to be misled — continued to be misled about the timing of the process, continued to be misled about the effect of the HST on them, continued to be misled about the purpose of this tax change.

I think this argues strongly for the motion put forward by the member for Port Coquitlam. The minister has to say what it is. For eight months it was the best thing we could do for the economy that we wouldn't tell people about in the election campaign. That was kind of the strategy. Then for like 36 hours — there was the budget and then the day after the budget — the minister said: "No, no, no. When I said that thing about the economy, that's not what I meant. I didn't mean it."

For 36 hours it was about health care, and then that disappeared. The members on the opposite side are all making speeches, and none of them are saying this money is going to health care, because they know it's laughable. But that incoherence in argument on the central presentation of the government in every legislative session…. That's their budget. It's the budget and throne speech, but the budget has come to be the most important moment of demonstration. That's what it is. That's why members of this Legislature should support the motion.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I speak against the amendment to Bill 9. Like my colleague, the Minister of Advanced Education, I would like to just say for the record that during the election campaign, the issue of HST wasn't brought up. It wasn't debated. It wasn't defended. It frankly wasn't an issue.

But the world has changed. When we found out that Ontario confirmed their intention to transform their tax system to an HST, it was imperative upon this government to do what was best for British Columbia, to do what was best for the economy. That's what we were elected to do, and that's what we will do.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, if you wish to join the debate, you will do so from the seat you have been assigned.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who just left, doesn't understand that the world has changed. I don't think he understands that business people create the jobs in B.C., and that if their world changes, if their customer choices change, if their supply chain changes, they change the way they do their business. That is what we had to do.

We have the support of the business community. That list is extensive, and I will just mention some of them: the Business Council of B.C., the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C., the Retail Council of B.C., the B.C. Technology Industry Association, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters — and that's stopping at the c's.

We have been lobbied, and we have been consulted by businesses. I, as a member of the Small Business Roundtable for about four or five years, travelled the province. We listened to businesses who said to us that the PST is a complex and overly complicated tax regime and that the lack of compliance that often occurs was not a result of criminal intent but the result of a Byzantine tax regime, that regardless of, I think, your education, it is very, very difficult to follow.

[1810]

So I speak against the amendment to Bill 9, because it's simply an NDP tactic to stall the implementation of a reformative tax that will create jobs in British Columbia.

What I wanted to do was explain to some of the members opposite some of the complexities of our current system. I don't know if any of the members opposite have ever run a small business, but on a monthly basis small business owners have to complete a worksheet to remit their PST. I'll go through some of the steps.

Step 1, you have to enter the total of all your in-province and out-of-province sales and leases made during the reporting period. That includes all the taxable and non-taxable sales or leases; conditional sales, including sales on instalments; sales or leases made on credit; sales of propane, regardless of which act they're taxed under; and sales subject to the provincial battery levy or the innovative clean energy fund levy, the ICE fund.

Then what you have to do in box B is enter the total amount of the PST collected during that reporting period. You have to include all the PST on your taxable sales and leases, all the taxable sales made on credit, and if you write off an outstanding credit sale as a bad debt, you can take an adjustment. You have to include all the tax collected on your sales of propane, including tax collected on propane for motor vehicles, stationary engines or commercial purposes. Then you have to include all the provincial battery levies collectable on new lead acid batteries and all the provincial ICE fund levies.

Then you get to actually enter your commission, because the provincial government does recognize how onerous this reporting and compliance is. As of the end
[ Page 4599 ]
of 2008, I think it was 6.6 percent of the provincial tax that you collected on behalf of the government that you can claim as a credit or as a commission, up to a maximum of $198.

In British Columbia alone $150 million annually is the amount of money that businesses across British Columbia end up spending just to comply. That's their compliance costs of PST, and that $150 million is passed on to the consumer.

In box D of the form you enter the total PST collectible on all your sales, which is box B minus your commission in box C, and then in box E you enter the total purchase or lease price of any taxable goods or services that you purchased or leased for business use without paying PST.

You are required right now to pay PST on everything you use in conducting your business unless you're specifically exempted under the act. This includes new and used taxable goods and services — for example, stationery, furniture, office equipment, advertising material such as flyers and brochures, items you purchased to give away, cleaning supplies, computer hardware and software, goods taken out of your resale inventory and goods you purchase from out of the province. You are required to pay PST on all of this, and none of it you get back. You pass this on to your customers.

Then in tax due on purchases, box F, you enter the PST due on taxable goods that you purchased or leased or for personal use that you may have not paid PST on. Then in box G you enter the total of net PST due on sales from box D plus the PST due on your purchases that you may not have paid your PST on from box F.

Then the next step is to look at any adjustments that you made. You may have provided a customer with a credit or a refund, and if they've paid you PST, you've got to make sure that you remit that back to government. Oh no, actually, you get that back from government. Then in box J you enter the total amounts of the adjustments, and then finally in box K you enter the total PST payable before adjustments from box G minus the total amount of adjustments being taken from box J.

[1815]

This is what businesses do on a monthly basis. It costs them time, and it costs them money. This amendment to stall Bill 9 is preventing a transformation of our tax system to benefit businesses in becoming more competitive and consumers to see lower costs of goods and services.

Now, if you were to go to the government website and look on the provincial sales tax page, you will see almost 100 bulletins for individual businesses. If you were to look through some of these…. I've picked out one — if you're a commercial fisher — to give you an example of the complexity of the PST.

I'm going to start with a's. If you were to buy an alarm clock if you were a fisher, you pay tax. If you were to buy antifreeze for your business, you pay tax. But if you're to buy aeration equipment or anchor chains and links and shackles or anchors or axes, they're tax-exempt.

If we start on the b's, if you're a commercial fisher, you pay tax on bait — if you're a sport fisherman or have a sport fishing industry. You pay tax on building supplies. You pay tax on brushes. You pay tax on the bilge cleaner, but you wouldn't pay tax on bailers or bait or barges or barometers or batteries. That's just the b's.

This document goes on for seven pages on items that are non-taxable and four pages on items that are taxable. But with the harmonized sales tax, that doesn't matter, because now on the equipment or the supplies that a business purchases, they'll receive input tax credit, and the complexity and the archaic regressive PST no longer exists.

This amendment doesn't respect the fishers and small business people who have spent $150 million last year in compliance costs. The members opposite want to defer the transformation of our complex tax system by referring this to committee.

Dr. Jack Mintz, an influential tax expert, has written a report on British Columbia's harmonized sales tax. It's entitled A Giant Leap in the Province's Competitiveness. Dr. Mintz's book entitled Most Favored Nation: Building a Framework for Smart Economic Policy was the winner of the Purvis Prize for best book in economic policy and runner-up for the Donner Prize for best book in public policy.

If the members won't recognize Dr. Mintz or any of the top economists in Canada who also support the harmonization, perhaps they'll listen to the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, who has spoken brilliantly on this subject.

It would be refreshing for British Columbians to hear something that the members opposite are in favour of, something that they support, something that they've shown leadership for, instead of following the mad ravings and misinformation of individuals whose motives are suspect. But true leadership and vision are characteristics that are missing from the members opposite, and it's becoming increasingly obvious that the members opposite don't understand what good tax policy is. It's also becoming obvious that the members opposite think that B.C. exists in a vacuum.

The members opposite would like us to think that we live in a country that doesn't include New Brunswick or Labrador or Newfoundland or Nova Scotia — but perhaps more importantly right now, Ontario.

I can't support the amendment to Bill 9. Unlike the members opposite, I don't want B.C. to fall behind the rest of the country in economic recovery, because that is what will happen if the federal government can't implement the harmonized sales tax in sync with Ontario.

It's imperative that we reform our tax system. It's imperative that we streamline our tax system, and it's
[ Page 4600 ]
imperative that we create an environment that stimulates jobs. That's what harmonized sales tax will do.

[1820]

I'm proud that this government has responded to changes, because the world has changed. Being able to respond to changes is an asset. In fact, the ability to respond to change has allowed us to evolve. History is full of examples where civilizations and species were unable to adapt and failed or became extinct.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

For the members opposite to suggest that this government wouldn't reconsider our position in light of overwhelming evidence that B.C. would lose jobs and become uncompetitive is quite unbelievable.

The member opposite, for Vancouver-Kingsway, says he couldn't find anyone that supported the HST. Not one, he says. Well, I guess he didn't speak to anybody in the film industry or anybody in the mining industry or anybody in the forest industry.

I've met with constituents and business people who have had concerns with the HST, and it became quite obvious that they've misunderstood several key concepts. The opposition suggests that we haven't spent enough time consulting with British Columbians. Every year that this government has held office, and I dare say every year while the opposition has held office since the 1990s, governments have heard from British Columbians who encouraged us to take the bold move to eliminate our archaic and regressive tax. And every year, this government has considered this possibility.

But every year, the possibility of transforming our unfair tax system was difficult due to the inflexibility of the federal government to accommodate a harmonized sales tax that could be customized for British Columbians. And that was an inability to allow B.C. to adopt a harmonized sales tax of 12 percent and not 13 percent as the rest of the country has.

But upon hearing, as I mentioned, last spring that Ontario confirmed their intention of transforming their sales tax system on July 1 to become more competitive and the offer of the federal government to accommodate our request to set our own harmonized sales tax rate, we did what British Columbians elected us to do, and that was to effectively manage our economy.

Noting the time, I reserve my position and move adjournment of debate.

Hon. N. Yamamoto moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:23 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

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

The committee met at 2:36 p.m.

On Vote 45: ministry operations, $752,814,000.

The Chair: Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to the Douglas Fir Room. We're doing the ministry estimates for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

If I could remind everyone in the gallery that there's no audio portion of your electronic devices used. The same rules apply here in the small House as they do in the big House, and there's no corresponding in any manner directly with the members that are sitting at the table.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, thank you for those ground rules. I appreciate knowing them.

The Chair: Minister, would you like to make an opening statement?

Hon. S. Bond: Very briefly, hon. Chair, because I know that we never seem to have enough time for questions, so I don't want to take up a lot of time with remarks. But I do want to do something that's very important to me and absolutely essential in this process. That is to recognize the extraordinary work done by public servants every day in British Columbia in this ministry.

Over the course of the next little while, however long that takes, the executive team certainly will be represented here, but I want to publicly commend the men and women who work in this ministry every day — whether it be directly on projects, making sure that British Columbians can travel safely in this province, whether it's in one of the regional offices or right across
[ Page 4601 ]
B.C. They are very good at what they do, and I'm very proud of the work that this ministry does.

I do want, though, to introduce members of our ministry executive who, of course, are critical to the estimates process and to the work we do together. I'm going to introduce them, and they will be joining us in various groupings throughout the next number of hours.

To my right is my deputy minister, Peter Milburn. I have also our chief operating officer, Dave Byng, with us; our assistant deputy minister of highways, Mike Proudfoot; assistant deputy minister of the transportation planning and policy department, Sandra Carroll; assistant deputy minister of the partnerships department, Frank Blasetti; and our ADM of finance and management services, Nancy Bain. I just want to say what a pleasure it is to work with these individuals, and what an exceptional job that all of these people do every day on behalf of British Columbians.

We have a huge job on our hands at the moment. We are looking after the largest investment in transportation infrastructure in the history of British Columbia, so it keeps us very busy. I'm sure that over the course of the next little while we'll be talking a lot about those specific projects and about some of the new initiatives that are underway.

With that, we'll begin the process, and I invite the members opposite to ask their questions.

H. Bains: I too, to begin with, want to thank the staff of the ministry. I've had the opportunity to deal with them through the minister's office on a number of occasions, and I did receive very good response and cooperation from the various parts of the ministry. I do appreciate that.

At the end of the day I think what we're doing, whether the questions are coming from me or at the minister's initiative, is about British Columbia. It is about our motorists, it is about people who use our highways, and it is about the population who are worried about the greenhouse gases and the environmental issues that we face in our generation right now.

[1440]

As the minister has said before in previous service plans, in order to achieve those environmental issues and those goals, our provincial transport plan will be the key. We will try to achieve those through that. All in all, I think it's a huge challenge for all of us.

I will from time to time challenge the minister, challenge the ministry and challenge this government because the expectations of the people haven't been met in many different areas. That is no reflection — I said that last time, and I want to repeat that — on the staff and all the people who are working in the ministry all across this province. They do a fine job.

I think that when it comes to the leadership, if there's any failure it comes at the minister's office. I'm sure that the minister will take that as her responsibility and deal with that. So it's no reflection on anybody who is employed or working with the minister or the ministries all across the province.

I do have a number of different areas, Minister. If I may, I'll let you know right up front the direction we want to go or the sequence, if that will help you and your staff.

I think today we will start with the ministry operations overall budget. We'll talk about our transportation financing authority, grants, commercial vehicle safety enforcement — that one area. Then we'll move on to the provincial transit plan and the TransLink review that was conducted by the comptroller general — we want to talk about that — and the Rapid Transit 2000 work being done and the new TransLink legislation.

Then we want to talk about some of the other projects the ministry has taken on. We want to talk about B.C. Transit and handyDART, and then we will move on to the Port Mann and Highway 1 expansion. We will have some questions about some specific projects such as William Bennett Bridge or others. We do want to talk, after, about B.C. Rail, ferries and ports.

I want to introduce the member for North Coast, who will be dealing with ferries and the rural roads and maintenance of the rural roads. We do want to talk about U-pass, perhaps later on, and we will have some questions about the Olympics and other issues.

I think today we will go with some of the issues that I mentioned, but for the minister and the staff's purpose, I think we will concentrate on B.C. Ferries tomorrow and the rural roads. The local MLAs may want to come in tomorrow and ask some questions about their areas and the roads and the concerns that their municipalities may have brought to their attention. If that works for the minister and the staff, I think that's the way we probably should go.

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the member opposite doing that for us. That is helpful because we want to have the most appropriate staff here.

The one area that I would like to just ask the member opposite is some timing around B.C. Transit in particular. I'd like to make sure we have the appropriate staff here, so if it's today or tomorrow — just so we have enough time to have people literally make their way here. That staff is not here at the moment, so if the member would be prepared to give us some notice, we can get people here.

H. Bains: Of course. I think probably we'll look at it on Thursday morning, if that works. We'll deal with all the other issues today.

With that, let me start with some of the questions. These are pretty general in nature, and I think much of the information is available through the documents
[ Page 4602 ]
here. But I think to be on record, I would ask the minister to confirm some of these numbers.

The first question would be: can the minister confirm the ministry's operating budget for this year — gross and net of recoveries, please?

[1445]

Hon. S. Bond: The gross budget number is $2,279,621,000, and the net amount is $752.814 million.

H. Bains: What are the external recoveries?

Hon. S. Bond: The total external recoveries are $1,526,807,000.

H. Bains: That would leave, in my view, for me to ask the next question…. The minister in her service plan suggested that they are taking on about 700 different projects. That brings me to the capital side of the budgeting, then. What is the total capital disbursement to B.C. Financing Transportation Authority?

Hon. S. Bond: The delay is because we're trying to sort out which ones of the items that are listed actually…. They don't qualify as capital.

The total BCTFA recovery number is $1,457,589,000. It excludes some smaller amounts in there for public transit, in the amount of $254 million; some Bike B.C. — a small number there, just over $3 million in the Bike B.C. envelope; and inland ferry operating costs of just over $10 million.

In essence, the vast majority of the $1.457 billion is capital, with those minor adjustments that I've noted.

H. Bains: Thank you for that answer. The minister mentioned in the service plan that B.C. to date has committed $4.3 billion in funding toward those 700 projects. Can the minister maybe explain the difference between this $4.3 billion mentioned and the number that she has given us just in the previous question?

[1450]

Hon. S. Bond: The number reflects the fact that…. That is the total cost of projects, obviously expensed over a number of years. So in fact, of that $4.3 billion, we are expending over $2 billion of that this year. The balance of that would be in the completion of projects over time and, of course, in partnership with the federal government as well.

H. Bains: So what is the portion of the provincial side of that $4.3 billion?

Hon. S. Bond: Of the $2.2 billion that will be expended in this budget year, $1.7 billion of that is provincial funding.

H. Bains: So that I understand and other people who are listening to this debate understand, when we talk about $4.3 billion being invested on 700 different projects, although they are over a period of time…. But then you also mentioned that this year $1.4 billion and a bit more is coming from the BCTFA, and out of that, $254 million is for public transit.

Can the minister, first of all, give me a rundown — the provincial portion of that number that you have just given me, the federal numbers, and where else the rest of the money comes from to make it $4.3 billion?

[1455]

Hon. S. Bond: After much discussion, I think what we've agreed to do is refer the member opposite to the blue book, page 39, which actually lays out the total of $4 billion over a three-year period. In the statement that I included, some projects will be complete within a three-year window. Some will occur every year. When you look at road rehabilitation, that's a good example of that.

In the blue book there is listed the $4 billion total at the end of three years and moving through each one of those years. There's also in our service plan a document that outlines exactly what our contributions and the federal government's are. So a complex answer, but the information is outlined on page 39 of the blue book and also articulated line by line in the service plan.

H. Bains: Just to confirm that, then. The $4.3 billion — is that the capital expenditure this year, or is it the number that the minister gave me earlier? What is the total expenditure this year?

Hon. S. Bond: Total expenditure this year would be $2.2 billion. Of that, the provincial portion is the number that I gave the member opposite, which would be approximately $1.7 billion. We haven't done the specific math, but approximately $1.7 billion of $2.2 billion this year.

H. Bains: I'm still at the clarification stage, so bear with me. I'm looking at the 2010-11 service plan. In there on page 25, BCTF Authority, "Statement of earnings" and "Expenditures," as I read it, it talks about…. For 2009-10 the total expenditure was $836.635 million, and then in 2010-11, it's $831.744 million.

So can the minister explain the discrepancy between these numbers and the number she gave me earlier — $1,457,589,000?

[1500]

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the reason the numbers don't line up is because they shouldn't. The number in the service plan on page 25, related to the statement of earnings, is actually an income statement. The other number
[ Page 4603 ]
that I gave the member opposite was the capital amount. So they are two different numbers and two different ways…. Basically, this is an income statement versus a capital statement.

H. Bains: Can the minister draw my attention to or direct me to where $1,457,589,000 is listed?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, it's on page 39 of the blue book, and the heading would be: "Total investment in transportation infrastructure" for 2010-2011, $1.496 billion.

H. Bains: So the $1.457 billion numbers that the minister mentioned in the blue book and $831 million in the service plan…. In this service plan it talked about expenditure, and it talked about amortization, interest, interior rural side roads, grant programs, operations and administration. So all of that totals to $831.744 million.

Does that number of $1.457 billion include the $831 million? Or is the $831 million mentioned in the service plan in addition to that?

[1505]

Hon. S. Bond: It is not as simple as the member opposite may have gleaned, and even the question is not that simple. So no, they are not a subset of one another. One is actually operating, and one is capital.

When you look at the income statement, which is the number that is in the service plan on page 25, that actually contains things like debt servicing and depreciation, so that's an income statement. So they are not a subset of one another; one is capital, and one is operating.

H. Bains: In that $1,457,589,000 the minister also mentioned that $254 million is for public transit. Can the minister give me a breakdown of where that money is expended?

Hon. S. Bond: The $254 million is related to capital grants that would include expansion and replacement, most specifically replacement of buses, but there are a number of things that are related to capital expansion and replacement for B.C. Transit and TransLink.

H. Bains: Can the minister give me a further breakdown on each of those areas that she mentioned — where that money is expended?

Hon. S. Bond: I can certainly give the member opposite some idea. We are looking at vehicles, for example. We are looking at RapidBus in Victoria and Kelowna, the Vernon transit service centre, the Kamloops transit service centre and Kelowna transit service centre, other exchanges and park-and-rides. We're looking at the Campbell River transit exchange.

[1510]

Those are just some of the items, but obviously, vehicles and facilities are also noted there. And if we're going to look at projects in terms of TransLink that have contributions from the province, we're looking at things like, again, RapidBus, a third lane, Highway 7, Highway 99 RapidBus and Trans-Canada RapidBus.

We're looking at some investment in the Old Capilano Bridge, the West Coast Express, the Surrey maintenance facility, for example, some initial work on fare gates and smart cards — so a fairly extensive list. All of those are capital projects that are found in that envelope that the member opposite asked about.

H. Bains: Is that list available anywhere so that we could look at what project is getting what money?

Hon. S. Bond: We will work to put that list together with as much detail as we can and provide it to the members opposite. There is, obviously, some work that is being done in terms of negotiations and things, but we'll give the members as much detail as we can off those lists.

H. Bains: Thank you very much, minister. I just want to remind the minister that last time we were going through this exercise, I asked the minister and the minister said: "Yes, we will provide you the information." I wrote a letter asking for a number of different areas and information on them, and then I reminded the minister about a month ago, if I'm not mistaken. We still haven't got that information, so please, I accept the minister's answer, but I do need that detailed, comprehensive list that will detail the names of those projects and actually how much budget they're receiving for that particular project.

Just one more question on that. Under the BCTFA, the service plan part, page 25, it does talk about…. Maybe the minister can clarify for me. I accept that this is operating and not capital, but in here it talks about: "Improvements to interior and rural side roads are included in the capital expenditures. Repairs are expensed, and total interior and rural side road program expenditure is $61 million for 2009-2010 and $50 million from 2010-2011 to 2012-2013."

That comes under "Interior and Rural Side Roads," and there is a note 5. If this is not capital, what do you actually mean by mentioning that these are capital expenditures?

Hon. S. Bond: The notation that is on page 25 of our service plan refers to the repair part of the envelope, and the balance of that is obviously capitalized and would be included in the other number that I provided.

H. Bains: Now, staying with the service plan and the same page, at the bottom, the bottom line is net operat-
[ Page 4604 ]
ing loss, $220.146 million for year '09-10, and for year 2010-11 it is forecast to be $193.651 million.

[1515]

When BCTFA is in deficit, where do they get this money to make up? Is this added to the overall provincial debt, or is this added to some other area of debt?

Hon. S. Bond: The debt number there is included and consolidated with government's overall debt number.

H. Bains: So the servicing of that debt then becomes the responsibility of the province?

Hon. S. Bond: The province provides funding to the TFA to cover the servicing of those costs.

H. Bains: I'm not sure if I fully understood that. We're talking about this $220 million and $193 million. Then it goes on to $275 million in the following year. The minister said earlier that that becomes the overall debt of the province. But if it is the debt for the province…?

Where does the BCTFA come in to service that debt if it's added to the overall debt of the province? Do they prorate it every time BCTFA provides them with them some debt to be added on? Their requirement also to service that debt comes as a responsibility of BCTFA?

Hon. S. Bond: On the statement on page 25, the member opposite would see that we have a certain amount of revenue and that our expenditures exceed our revenue, so we have a loss. That loss is consolidated as part of government's debt load, and ultimately, the province pays to service that debt.

H. Bains: That is much more clear, and I do appreciate that.

I would ask, then: what are the increasing interest payments from the BCTFA? When you look at…. On this same page, the interest payments are $238.261 million, '09-10. Then if you skip one year, in 2011-12 it goes to $348.917 million — an over $100 million jump in interest.

[1520]

Can the minister explain why such a huge jump? This is like, I would say, an over 33 percent jump from one year to three years — within a three-year period. Where is this jump coming from? Why are we paying that extra interest?

Hon. S. Bond: It's related to the fact that we have the largest investment program in the history of British Columbia. As the projects are finished and we have more projects, in fact the debt-servicing costs increase. That's how large our project is, and those increased costs are reflected there.

H. Bains: Now I would like to move to the operating side of the budget. I think we've got enough questions on the capital. I may come back to that again.

The minister said the total operating expenditure this year was $2.279 billion. Can the minister confirm if that budget is higher, lower or the same as last year?

Hon. S. Bond: There is an increase. In fact, it goes from $734.201 million to $752 million — so approximately an $18 million increase.

H. Bains: How about the net recoveries — whether they are up or the same or lower than last time?

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. S. Bond: I need to ask the indulgence of the member opposite.

[1525]

Could the member please restate his question? Staff is struggling to sort out which recovery. If the member could restate the question so we could make sure we're answering the right one, that would be very helpful to us.

H. Bains: I'm looking at the total external recoveries. If you look within the vote here: $1,526,807,000. My question was whether it's the same, lower or higher than last year.

Hon. S. Bond: We brought in a new team member, and we have the answer, so there you go. We've got the right column now. It's actually down slightly. In fact, the recovery was $1.481 billion, as the member suggested, and we will be down to $1.457 billion.

H. Bains: Can the minister confirm any decrease in key areas in the operation side of the spending?

Hon. S. Bond: As is stated in the blue book, we will be making a reduction of $5 million. In fact, the vast majority of that will be through operational efficiencies. Everyone is expected to make those kinds of reductions. Ours is a $5-million reduction, and we will be looking across all of our operations, including the minister's office and other areas, for efficiencies to achieve that total.

H. Bains: If I go by different areas of the operation, I notice that commercial vehicle safety enforcement is down by $2 million from 2009 estimates.

[1530]

This is the program, my understanding is, that includes monitoring of commercial transport, vehicle inspection and standards, National Safety Code, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance and the transport of dangerous goods. I think it's quite an important area of the operation. If you're
[ Page 4605 ]
cutting $2 million this year from last year, can the minister explain where those cuts are, and what was the necessity to do that?

Hon. S. Bond: I want to be very clear about this, because — the member opposite is correct — it is an absolutely essential organization. We want to be clear that there are no reductions to audits, monitoring or any of those service provisions provided by CVSE. It's critical to safety on our highways.

If the member opposite looks in the blue book at page 180 under "Highway operations," the member would see that the commercial vehicle safety and enforcement division is actually seeing an increase. It's a small increase, but it is actually being increased.

I think the $2 million that the member opposite is referencing is related to shared services, and of course, that's been dealt with across government and reassigned to the Ministry of Citizens' Services. That is a reallocation, but in fact CVSE is increasing slightly this year.

H. Bains: I believe that the $2 million cut was between '08-09 and '09-10. That would have been my question. Where were those cuts if they were in that one year?

Hon. S. Bond: Just to remind the member: we are canvassing this year's budget, but I'm happy to reflect on what did happen. I want to be very clear about this, because it would be an unfortunate characterization if we suggested that there was anything reduced on the ground. In fact, the opposite happened.

There was a reduction, and it was based on streamlining. In particular, it was about permitting, applications and those kinds of things that were centralized. We were able to do that, and in fact I think we actually added additional officers doing the work that needs to be done on the ground. There certainly was not a reduction in audits or safety operations in CVSE.

We did look at streamlining. That was done through one of our offices, and it was to do with permitting in particular and looking at a more streamlined approach to that.

[1535]

H. Bains: The minister knows full well, I think, that sometimes the reality gets lost in the words. When we talk about streamlining…. We have seen some high-profile cases just recently in the media. Maybe that's the streamlining the ministry is talking about — allowing inspections to be conducted at certain locations. As a result, there were some charges laid, and as the minister full well knows, the inspections weren't carried out. Basically, they received the tickets without even inspecting those vehicles.

I hope that's not the streamlining the minister is talking about, because if that's what streamlining is, then I think we are not doing the job that we need to do, as the minister says that we should be doing.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I want to, on the record and unequivocally, say that it has absolutely nothing to do with streamlining. What it has to do with is individuals in British Columbia who decide that they're going to operate outside of the law in British Columbia. If there is shoddy work taking place, our CVSE team is as upset about that as much as anyone else. In fact, the moment we were aware of there being a circumstance, we partnered with the RCMP. Neither the individuals nor the facility are operating today, and they will not be.

We expect those organizations in designated inspection facilities and the people who work in them to comply with the law. So this is not about streamlining. It's about shoddy and inappropriate behaviour. That's not acceptable to us, and I think that was demonstrated by our rapid response to that.

All of the vehicles that went through those facilities — we worked very systematically and aggressively to make sure that they were reinspected, and we're finishing up that process. But I can assure the member opposite that we're not going to streamline at the expense of safety. It's our number one priority.

H. Bains: I think it's nice to hear that the minister is taking that strong stand, and I actually have heard the minister in the media on this issue taking a similar stand before, when this issue was brought out in the public.

But I think the issue here is that in the year we're talking about, prior to the year we're talking about now, there was reduction. I just wanted to make sure that any time you make decisions like this, when you actually reduce the funding or cut the programs that will ensure the enforcement, ensure that there's an inspection, ensure that the people who are doing the work out there know that their work will be inspected and that there will be inspections unannounced…. Any time you reduce the inspections capacity, I think, that type of thing could happen.

I hoped that the minister would clarify that it wasn't a result of those cuts that took place and that we have fixed that problem, that those people who are in that business will take their job seriously and will understand that they are not going to get away with it, because there will be somebody watching them.

My question is this. The individual that was involved, my understanding is, simply walked away from the operation. Nothing happened to that individual. So where is the deterrence?

[1540]

Hon. S. Bond: To reiterate, I can be absolutely clear that the impact of streamlining actually did something pretty profound. What it meant was that our officers, in-
[ Page 4606 ]
stead of doing paperwork at their desks and making sure they're filling out applications and permits, are actually out on the street. So in fact, our streamlining efforts saw our officers move from behind their desks to be able to increase and enhance inspection opportunities.

In terms of the circumstance that we faced most recently, again, our rapid response with the police departments that were involved was complimented. There is currently an RCMP investigation underway. I can assure the member opposite that no one walked away from that. That investigation is underway, and I'm not about to speculate on the outcome, but they're certainly not operating in British Columbia. We're not going to tolerate that kind of behaviour.

The CVSE team has had an exceptional relationship with the RCMP and with other police forces across the province. They take their job very seriously. We would not contemplate streamlining at the expense of safety.

For the member opposite's information as well, we certainly are aware of the fact that our CVSE team once again, in partnering with police forces across the province, will be assisting the Delta police department with a commercial vehicle road inspection, actually, from ten to 12, in the very near future. Media can attend, and perhaps the member opposite may want to also do that and see the exceptional work that's done by our CVSE team in partnership with the police force.

They take their job seriously. They do an excellent job. I think the way that we responded to the recent circumstances demonstrates that.

H. Bains: I do want to emphasize the point I made earlier, that I don't think any comments here are reflected on the work that the people do on the ground. But when you limit their resources, then their hands are tied. Those resources are stretched to the limit, and they won't be able to do the job that they need to do. So I hope that's an end. The minister says that isn't the case, so I take her word for it.

Now, can the minister tell this House what happened to that individual? Are any charges laid, or what's happening with that individual? I understand that his licence was cancelled, but were there any charges laid?

Hon. S. Bond: There was certainly a rapid response, in that both the individuals and the designated inspection facilities are not operating. There is a police investigation underway.

H. Bains: Can the minister advise the House: is there a tracking process of any fraud similar to what we talked about here? Is there any system that will track this kind of activity so that we could find out whether that kind of activity or any other kind of fraud is increasing or decreasing?

[1545]

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, our CVSE team monitors rigorously, and there are ongoing ways to check. In fact, we compare regularly what happens at roadside checks against what happens in designated inspection facilities. So we do monitor and look for anomalies there.

Our team does 1,500 audits per year of designated inspection facilities, and obviously they are rigorous. We look to make sure that those facilities are operating appropriately. We also look at the number of inspections that we do. Again, we compare what happens on the roadside checks to what's happening in designated inspection facilities.

I think the member opposite is aware that from my perspective, it's important that we always look for new ways to enhance opportunities to both track and to look at how we can enhance the audit system in B.C. In fact, we're working on a set of tools to enhance that program as we speak.

H. Bains: Just so that the minister and the staff understand what I'm talking about — whether the budget cuts have any role to play in what goes on, on our roads…. On March 11 in Coquitlam CVSE had a road check. In four hours they inspected 12 vehicles. Nine were removed from the road for various reasons. So in four hours, nine are removed — nine out of 12 vehicles.

That just shows that there is a serious problem. We're talking about vehicles that are large in nature. They are on our roads — unsafe, according to this particular road check. I will give you some of the breakdown of exactly what took place. Three were with insecure load; one driving contrary to the class; one no breakaway; one transporting dangerous goods; one improper brakes; one failing to display the N sign; one inadequate brake hose; one unauthorized lights; one operating a vehicle with too many seats; one bylaw ticket for over licensed weight.

In four hours, 12 vehicles, and nine are removed from the road. So I'd like to ask the minister: how does that compare to what the minister's statement is, that the ministry is taking these issues seriously to make sure our vehicles are safe on the road and that people around those vehicles are safe? How do you explain that kind of behaviour and that kind of situation on our roads?

[1550]

Hon. S. Bond: I want to go back again to remind the member opposite what we did in terms of the budget for this particular part of the ministry. You know, the issue here is: do we want to have officers sitting behind their desks, or working on computers, or do we want to have them actually out on the highways?

Let's be clear. There was no reduction to CVSE. What there was a reduction to was, actually, paperwork. We centralized a process in the Dawson Creek office, in fact, which allowed us to do on-line applications and a var-
[ Page 4607 ]
iety of other things. The men and women in the CVSE team are professionals, and their first priority is actually safety in British Columbia.

I don't have the specifics about March 11, but I do know this. Most days in British Columbia the CVSE team is out doing exactly what the member opposite highlighted. They're actually out targeting those vehicles that they believe need to be pulled over for an inspection.

During the course of the period of time that the member opposite references, I'm pretty certain that probably dozens and dozens of vehicles passed by that inspection area, and the experts that we have would have highlighted these particular ones by looking at them and suggesting: "It's time for you to have an inspection." While that is a very high number in terms of the out-of-service rates, and it's unacceptable, that's exactly why this team is doing what they do every single day.

Across the province the out-of-service rate, on average, is about 18 percent. But I think it's also important to put this in context. The vast majority of truckers in British Columbia and designated inspection facilities do their jobs very well. They're as concerned about safety as anyone else. Those people who choose not to keep their vehicles to the standard that is expected of them…. We will target them during an inspection. They will be pulled over and expected to bring their vehicle up to standard.

H. Bains: I do agree that the drivers and the owner-operators out there are trying their best to keep their vehicles in a safe manner. But you know, there are conditions imposed on them as well. Some may be the doing of the ministry. Some may indirectly involve the ministry. I'll talk about that later when we get into that file — how they are sometimes forced to compromise safety when they're not even making ends meet with the type of wages they are paid or the remuneration they are getting for the work that they're doing.

But this is what the police officer who was there said: "This tells police that many of the larger commercial vehicles on our roads are not in compliance with the provincial legislation." This is a police officer saying this and making this statement.

[1555]

If the minister says that the average is 18 percent, but in this particular case it's like 75 percent, how do you change that perception of our law enforcement officers who are dealing with these issues on a daily basis?

Hon. S. Bond: We do it by working in partnership with them and, when necessary, we work with them to respond appropriately and very quickly. I think the most recent circumstances demonstrated that we have, generally speaking, an outstanding relationship with law enforcement across British Columbia.

Again, I highlighted the fact that we're working in partnership with the Delta police force just in the next couple of days to do inspections. In fact, for a two-hour period we're going to invite the media out to make sure that they understand how those inspections and vehicle checks work.

I've said to the member opposite that probably during that check on March 11 there were literally dozens of other vehicles that made their way past that checkpoint, because our professionals determine and target those vehicles that are most in need of having that check done. In fact, our teams work very hard every single day to ensure that vehicles are kept to the standards that are expected of them.

H. Bains: I want to go back to the earlier issue we were dealing with: the fraud in the inspections of the vehicles. I did ask the minister, but I don't think I got the answer. Is there any data kept on whether fraud of that nature is increasing or decreasing or is staying the same? Is there any process or any data kept?

Hon. S. Bond: We do keep records, in fact. We have 2,200 designated inspection facilities in British Columbia. Of those, 1,500 are audited annually. We actually track and keep records on all 2,200 designated inspection facilities. The best data we keep is that if they are found to not comply, they have their licence suspended. We ensure that they are not able to actually start in another operation, because we keep records of ownership as well, so you simply can't shut down one and start another one.

There is a systematic audit process in place which sees 1,500 audited annually. We keep records of those, but the most important statistic is this. If they don't comply, their licence is suspended, and they won't be operating in British Columbia.

H. Bains: Out of those 1,500 a year, how many licences actually are pulled each year? If you could, go back the last three years.

[1600]

Hon. S. Bond: Last year 11 licences were pulled. Our staff does not have with us the numbers previous to that — but 11 last year.

H. Bains: Does the staff have the information whether the 11 is more or the same or less than the previous years?

Hon. S. Bond: Our staff would have that information. They don't have it with them, and we will certainly get that data and bring it back to the table.

H. Bains: I appreciate that, Minister.
[ Page 4608 ]

I move on to a different area of questioning. Minister, maybe you could explain. I was looking at the '09 service plan, Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, compared to this year's. In this one, you do have listed FTEs in the ministry. For example, in '08-09 there were 1,490. Then in '09-10 it's 1,469. Then, I think, in '10-11 it's talking 1,469. Then in '11-12 the plan was again 1,469.

Why have we stopped listing the FTEs in our service plans?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the member opposite would know, certainly consistent with our September budget update, that public service full-time employees are actually being presented on an aggregated basis. The reason for that is that it's our government's intention to manage FTEs corporately. We want to actually look at how we minimize involuntary layoffs and make sure we're preserving front-line services. That is consistent with the budget update that we presented in September.

H. Bains: Minister, my question was…. In the service plan it clearly listed the number of FTEs. I was looking, for comparison purposes, in this service plan, and it was missing. That was the reason I was asking. What is the reason for keeping it off the service plan, when it was listed in the '09 budget?

Hon. S. Bond: The answer to that question, which was the same question, is the same answer. In fact, we said in the September budget update that we are going to actually account for our FTEs corporately because we need to manage our workforce that way so that we look at how we can preserve front-line services and also try to minimize involuntary layoffs. It was clearly a government direction, and we laid that out in September.

H. Bains: The numbers that I looked at here from '09…. This is actually '09-10 and then the 2011-12 service plan: 1,490 for '08-09, and in '09-10 it was 1,469, and in '10-11 again 1,469. My question is: are they the same, less or any higher than these numbers? What are the actual numbers now?

Hon. S. Bond: The numbers were the projections we had at the time. Our management numbers, our personnel ministry numbers, will be included with the aggregated corporate plan, which is exactly what we said we would do in September.

[1605]

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could answer: corporately, then, what are the FTEs in that particular ministry overall?

Hon. S. Bond: Well in fact, as we laid out, the government will manage our FTEs corporately, so that question would be better dealt with by the minister responsible for dealing with the B.C. public service. That's exactly how we said we would do it in September, and that's where that would be addressed.

H. Bains: My question, again, remains. These are the employees that are actually paid by the ministry under the current operating budget that we're talking about. Their salaries are listed in the tab here — the total of $115 million. This is the money that is coming out of this operating budget. So does the minister know what the total employees of this ministry are?

Hon. S. Bond: As I said to the member opposite previously, the FTE numbers are managed corporately. What I can tell the member opposite is that, in fact, our employee count, as in other ministries, varies from time to time. It depends on attrition. It can be impacted by things like retirement — and in our business, obviously, seasonally. There are variations to that. Our job is to manage to a dollar total. That's exactly what we do, and the FTE management, as outlined in the budget update in September, is managed corporately.

H. Bains: Perhaps I could ask for clarification. What do you mean by corporately? Is this a province…? Are they governmentwide? There's one ministry to look after all employees of all the departments in the ministries of the government?

Hon. S. Bond: I think the member opposite actually knows the answer to his own question. In fact, there is only one public service in British Columbia. What we've decided, in looking at how we care best for employees, is that we want to minimize the number of involuntary layoffs. I'm sure the member opposite would agree in wanting to do that.

[1610]

The best way to do that is to take a corporate approach to that. If there's a home for an employee in government, we want to make sure that that is not limited by the ministry they serve in or the area that they are working in. In fact, the people in the best position of being able to help manage through that are the B.C. Public Service Agency.

In September with our budget update we said clearly that we would take a corporate approach, a cross-government approach, to actually trying to manage FTEs in a way that recognizes that we want to minimize the impacts on people who work in the public service. That's exactly what we've done. That's why there's been a change in the reporting procedure.

H. Bains: Now, I accept the explanation for the change in the reporting procedure, but I still don't understand the answer to my question. I don't think that I'm getting that answer.
[ Page 4609 ]

There is a line item here. It talked about total salaries and benefits charged to this ministry. Have you paid this amount of salary — $115.235 million — without knowing who you are paying for, without knowing who your employees are, without knowing how many employees you have in the ministry?

I think the question…. I don't think that I argue with the minister's position at all, that you're trying to minimize the displacement of employees, trying to minimize the layoff of employees in these tough times. I don't argue with that. I don't think anybody would have…. But I think the question remains. The ministry basically has paid $115.235 million for salaries and benefits, and that must reflect a certain number of employees. So the question is: how many employees are employed in this ministry?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, as I said to the member opposite, we manage to that budget total, and in fact the number of employees in our ministry varies. It will be one number today, and it will be a different number tomorrow. We have a lot of seasonal work, obviously, in the work that we do, so in fact, we manage our ministry to that total dollar amount in terms of the employees that work for us.

But the numbers change. They depend on attrition. They look at seasonal adjustments. They also look at things like retirement. Our responsibility is to manage to that budget total. My staff does exactly that, and we look at seasonal employees when necessary. So in fact, the number of employees in this ministry changes. It varies depending upon the season and the circumstance.

H. Bains: I accept that. I think that should be no different than the previous years, although the reporting procedure has changed. But the number of employees needed to carry out the task of this ministry laid out under the service plan requires a certain number of employees.

I think that it's not unreasonable to ask that question, and it's not unreasonable to get an answer from the minister, the minister's staff, who have or are supposed to have those numbers available to them because they do have resources to figure out how many employees in different departments, different areas, are employed and what their salary is.

Because we are talking about tough economic times, you want to, you know, watch your dollars — where the dollars are going — and if you are to manage your ministry as efficiently as you want, you want to make sure how many employees are actually needed, how many employees you have and what you would do if there's a shortage of employees or excess of employees. Then I understand how you do it corporately and try to minimize the impact on those employees in order for you to displace some of those employees.

But the fundamental question still remains. You've got to know in the ministry that you are in charge of how many employees you need and you have at different times. It could be: "Yes, I could get the answer. From January to December it was a minimum of 1,400 and a one-time highest of 1,500." So we could get the range, at least, of how many employees are employed in this ministry this particular year.

[1615]

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I've answered the question several times, and I'll answer it one more time. We manage FTEs corporately. That was made public in our Budget 2010 update.

In fact, we manage our ministry to a budget total, and the challenge we have is that we have seasonal employees. You can imagine that we don't need an avalanche technician, hopefully, in July. We look at winter employment. We look at construction and the seasonal employment that takes place. So the number of employees in our ministry varies, and the management of FTEs is done corporately, as was made public with our September budget update.

H. Bains: I appreciate the answer, but the ministry had no problem listing the number of employees — whether seasonal or full-time, higher number or lower number — previously. There were numbers listed and numbers forecasted, estimated at what the numbers would be next year. Why is there so much difficulty this year to find out how many employees are actually working in the ministry?

Anyway, I don't think that I'm going to get the answer, but I'll ask the minister. Perhaps she could help me, maybe direct me to the name of the document where we could get this information. Where do I go to? How do I get the breakdown of these numbers that will show the seasonal changes, broken down by the branch?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, certainly the B.C. Public Service Agency is responsible for tracking and looking at government's corporate management of FTEs. So it would best be directed or canvassed through the appropriate minister.

H. Bains: Perhaps I could ask the minister. Under the STOB here, total salaries for this ministry are listed at $115.235 million. Can the minister tell me: how does that compare to last year?

Hon. S. Bond: When we look at the number for 2009-2010, it was $114.951 million. Estimates for 2010-11 would be $115.235 million.

H. Bains: So the numbers are higher. How do we correspond that with the number of employees? I guess the
[ Page 4610 ]
minister's answer is going to be: "Go back to the appropriate ministry to find out what the ministries are."

I have some questions, but I have a colleague from Burnaby. She would like to ask some questions, and I would allow the floor to the member from Burnaby.

K. Corrigan: I would like to ask the minister some questions about Olympic-related spending in this ministry, and I would like to start with a question for the minister. First of all, did this ministry incur any Olympic costs?

[1620]

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, the vast majority of work that we did during the Olympics is actually the work we do day to day, and so in fact, there is no specific cost that was incurred as a result of the Olympics. It was generally work that we would do in the normal course of the work that we do.

K. Corrigan: Well, I guess I'll ask some very specific questions then, and I appreciate the minister's answer. Did the minister or any of her staff receive Olympic tickets paid for by taxpayers?

Hon. S. Bond: I was very pleased to be able to participate in two events and was very proud to be representing British Columbia. I attended the opening ceremonies as a host to several international dignitaries, and I attended an ice dance event with numerous international stakeholders.

K. Corrigan: In addition to those tickets, which I assume will be part of the report that is going to be coming out in a couple of weeks that is being compiled by the ministry that is responsible for the Olympics, were there any other expenses incurred by the minister or staff related to the Olympics, other than tickets, meals, hotels, travel, other costs or any other hosting events?

[1625]

Hon. S. Bond: I attended the two events that I noted. In fact, other costs would be captured in the report that will be done by the minister, and I understand that it will be released in the near future.

K. Corrigan: Since we've been assured that it is going to be very complete and is going to include all of those costs and will be available in two weeks, then I'm not going to press the minister any further on that question now.

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

But I will just supplement it with a question about whether or not the minister or any of the staff in the ministry received any tickets or meals, hotels, travel or other costs that would have been provided by B.C. Transit or TransLink or any other Crown corporation or any entity that is government-related.

Hon. S. Bond: No, we did not.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask about a couple of programs that the government was involved with related to VANOC and the Olympics generally. My first question is about the employee loan program. I'm wondering, first of all, if the minister is aware of the employee loan program or whether the minister needs any more explanation on what that is.

Hon. S. Bond: I do understand the program. My staff has just refreshed me on any other specific details, so we're certainly aware of the program.

[1630]

K. Corrigan: I'm not surprised to hear that your able staff is fully aware of the program.

My next question is: were there employees of this ministry who were part of the employee loan program? If so, how many, and what were the costs associated with any employees that were part of it?

Hon. S. Bond: My staff have advised me that we had 17 employees that took part in the employee loan program. The portion of support was $32,975.

K. Corrigan: Does that very precise amount include benefits as well? Is that an estimate that includes salaries and benefits?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, it does.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask, then, about the volunteer leave matching program. I won't even ask if the minister's staff is aware of that, because I'm sure they are. This was the program where government employees could contribute an equal number of hours of paid leave to the number of hours the employee contributes of their own leave to volunteer for the 2010 Olympic Games.

I'm wondering how many employees there were in this ministry who received additional time off to volunteer for the games and what the total expenses were related to those employees.

Hon. S. Bond: Apparently, we don't have the same language in our descriptions that the member opposite did, because despite our knowing what the programs were, I think we have turned the numbers and the names of the programs…. We have different ones.

The program that the member opposite is talking about is the volunteer program where volunteers are
[ Page 4611 ]
paid 50 percent of their salary to a maximum. Is that correct?

[1635]

Interjection.

Hon. S. Bond: Thank you. Okay, so that is the total that I gave the member previously. That is the 17 employees who were volunteers, and our portion of that was $32,975. That's actually the volunteer piece.

K. Corrigan: The earlier program that I was talking about — maybe I'll describe it just a bit more. In July of 2009 VANOC announced it would be launching an employee loan program to fill approximately 1,500 short-term positions for the games from the private and public sector. This was not, you know, half volunteer and half….

This was VANOC entreating both government and private sector organizations to release and second people, essentially. I'm wondering if there was anybody that was loaned under that program. If so, how many, and what was the value of the time that was donated? This would be to VANOC specifically.

Hon. S. Bond: Okay, that would explain why I have the words secondment and volunteers. That makes it much clearer. That was my error in terms of the titles. We did have employees that were involved in the secondment program. The total was ten, and the benefit and salaries combined was $311,094.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask also, because there's both secondment and there's volunteers…. But also there are resources within the ministry, and I know that's a more nebulous number. I'm wondering if this ministry has budgeted, planned and tracked how much resources within the ministry were dedicated to the Olympics.

Hon. S. Bond: Again, as we discuss this, staff advises me that, in fact, the vast majority of work that we did during the Olympics would be work that we do in the normal course of the business of our ministry. If you're looking at issues like the Asia-Pacific gateway, we work on the Asia-Pacific gateway throughout the course of the regular work. In fact, we have employees who deal with that every day.

So it is work that is done in the day-to-day course of what we do, and in fact, that is how we managed through that period of time.

K. Corrigan: Well, I understand that a large part of work is difficult to track, but I would have thought if government were, as they said they were, wanting to look at the costs and benefits of the games that one of the things that would have been important to do is to have some idea of what the costs of staging the games were.

It surprises me that this hasn't been a cross-ministerial effort to keep track, because I know that ministries are very adept and well organized and capable of tracking those kinds of things like hours and how much is put into various programs. I've seen planning slips and routing slips come for FOIs and all sorts of different things.

It's certainly within the capability of government to do that, so I'm assuming from the answer that that wasn't done. But I know, for example, that my colleague and I met several months ago with somebody from the Ministry of Transportation and were told that there were particular staff that were seconded to the Olympics.

[1640]

Were there staff that spent their entire time working on the Olympics, and does the minister have any idea how many of those there were and what the value of that was?

Hon. S. Bond: You know, this is a ministry that actually deals with events all year long. We deal with them every year, every month. We deal with them all across the province, whether it's the Ironman in Penticton or wherever it happens to be. We did not have staff that was dedicated to the Olympics.

We had, certainly, traffic management experts that were involved in the process of the Olympics. Of course they were. They're the best at what they do, and we had major traffic management issues. But they also managed traffic issues in Prince George and the Kootenays at the same time.

So in fact, my answer was basically that the work that we did during the Olympics is the work that we do every single day. There was not additional staff added. There was not staff that was specifically designated. They did all of their other work at the same time as they worked on issues like traffic management plans, and I should say I'm proud of the work that my team did in partnership with many other partners to ensure that traffic across the province flowed as you would expect it to.

There were no specific, targeted Olympic-related costs. It's the work we do every day, and we do it all across the province.

K. Corrigan: It's funny, because what I've heard over and over again from the various ministers and the ministry of state, certainly, is that this was an unprecedented event. It took unprecedented planning. It took unprecedented coordination. And now what I'm hearing from this minister is that there was really nothing unusual, and it's no more than something that we would do in Victoria or Prince George or some other place.

But perhaps what I will ask the minister…. I accept that there was no additional staff added, and I would assume…. I guess maybe I'll just ask: were there any incremental costs that were associated with the Olympics in this ministry?

[1645]
[ Page 4612 ]

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I want to say to the member opposite: we're not implying that it didn't take extraordinary planning. It took extraordinary planning, and it took expertise that this ministry uses every day in British Columbia.

Let's look at the list of events. If there's a Grey Cup, our ministry is involved. If there's the Penticton marathon, we're involved. If there is the Merritt Mountain Music Festival, we're involved. If there's the Olympics, we're involved. So it is not incremental Olympic costs. It's, in fact, the work that we do every day in British Columbia, and in an exceptional way.

So I am not for one moment implying, and I think that is misconstrued by the member opposite, that it didn't take enormous planning. Of course it did, but so does the Penticton marathon. It's actually a triathlon. I've been there. I know what it looks like, and I know what our staff does. This was no different in that sense, other than the magnitude. It took all of our staff — their participation in planning for that event in terms of the day-to-day occurrences of how we manage in British Columbia.

We were part of the team that worked to plan that, as we are part of the team that organizes a parade in British Columbia and makes sure that we are part of the traffic management plan. So that's the work that was done, and it was done exceptionally well.

K. Corrigan: I will certainly agree that it was very well done. I think your staff did a wonderful job throughout the Olympics and beforehand.

I'll accept what the minister says, then — that there were no staff dedicated to the Olympics, that there were no incremental costs associated with the Olympics for this ministry. I'm assuming, from what the minister says as well, that there was no loss of services in other areas associated with this ministry.

[1650]

If the minister agrees that that is what was being said, then I'll go on to the next question, which is: I'm wondering if in these things that I have asked about already — which is tickets and other Olympic expenses as well as the employee loan program costs, the volunteer costs, and if there are incremental related expenses.... Does that include TransLink, B.C. Transit or other entities that would be related to this ministry?

Hon. S. Bond: I would ask that the member actually — and I did advise the member opposite, the critic, previously that B.C. Transit would actually be…. Staff are not here. It's important that we have a conversation so they can advise me, as these answers have been advised by staff. If the member doesn't mind, we can table that question on Thursday morning, I believe, when the critic said we may be at that topic.

I did in the course of discussion with staff, because I want to make sure that we have a clear sense of the model as the member reiterates her question…. I want to also make sure that we're very clear about the model that was used by this ministry.

I think the perfect example in terms of how we managed through the Olympics would be one the member's probably more familiar with, and that's the police and fire games. That was an extraordinary event in this province. Our ministry handled the Olympics no differently than they handled the police and fire games.

In fact, it was about the work we do every day. We were expected to do it there, and we managed all of those within our existing budgets. The model was the same for those and for other events of less magnitude, but certainly the same principle is used there.

With the member's permission, hopefully, we could pursue the B.C. Transit side when B.C. Transit is here so that we can be well advised by them. I can certainly advise that TransLink is a separate entity and would not apply in terms of the answer that the member requested.

K. Corrigan: When government has been talking about the report on tickets and hosting that's going to be coming out in a couple of weeks, that would not include any information about the number of tickets that TransLink purchased, whether or not TransLink was involved in the employee loan program or whether or not TransLink had a volunteer leave-matching program, and what the value of all those resources were.

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly my understanding is that the report will cover government tickets and hosting events. TransLink is a separate entity. So my understanding, and certainly I'm advised, is that it will be a government report.

[1655]

K. Corrigan: I have only one more question for the minister. I'm wondering if the costs that were referenced — the $311,000, the $33,000 and the tickets — were part of the $765 million budget for the Olympics.

[1700]

Hon. S. Bond: These are ministry costs. That's how the cost was outlined, and certainly, that's the breakdown that I gave the minister. Those would be salary and benefits contained as ministry cost.

K. Corrigan: I think that answer indicates that they're not part of the $765 million Olympic budget that the government had. I'm not sure if the minister is saying that as ministry costs, they're not part of that budget or that the minister doesn't know whether they're part of the budget or…. I'm trying to interpret the minister's answer.

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, we answered the question. We said that it was the ministry portion. That is how the
[ Page 4613 ]
cost has been outlined for both the secondment and the volunteers. That's the ministry portion.

K. Corrigan: Does this mean that the minister is not aware of how the government came up with the $765 million and how these expenses fit into that? If the minister is not sure, I'm fine with that answer, and I'll go ask elsewhere about it.

When the minister says that this is a part of the ministry budget, I'm just trying to find out whether it is the minister's and the staff's understanding that that's part of the $765 million — whether those kinds of costs in ministries were part of that planning and what the government said it was going to cost to stage the Olympics.

[1705]

Hon. S. Bond: Staff have given me the best advice that they can. This is the ministry amount, and that's exactly what we've provided to the member opposite. That's the advice that staff have provided related to that total. It's a ministry cost for those — both the volunteers and secondment.

K. Corrigan: Sorry, I just wanted to interrupt. I'm not asking another question. I just wanted to thank the minister and the minister's staff for the information that I've received today.

H. Bains: I, too, would like to thank the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake for asking some wonderful questions and thank the minister and the staff for cooperating. I have one more question on this budget, and then we'll move on to some different areas.

I looked…. The minister advised us earlier that part of the capital plan — $3 million — was for bicycle infrastructure. Can the minister advise this House: what was the budget for that last year and the year before?

Hon. S. Bond: It was $5 million last year, and it's going to be $3 million this year.

H. Bains: One of the goals under the service plan is a reduction of greenhouse gas for the transportation sector, and now we see a cut in the bicycle infrastructure from $5 million to $3 million this year. How is that actually going to help achieve that goal?

Hon. S. Bond: One of the things that this government has taken a significant interest and investment in is, actually, looking at alternative ways of travelling, and cycling is one of them.

[1710]

If you look at our records since 2001, this is a government that's invested over $118 million in cycling infrastructure, so it's hard to imagine how one could say that that's not a significant priority. In fact, we've added over 200 kilometres of new bicycle lanes and trails in over 50 communities across British Columbia. If you think about that, that's more than the distance between Vancouver and Hope. We have made significant investments.

We're going to continue to invest, and I think one of the things that we've recognized is that all of the highway improvements and infrastructure improvements we're doing, including major bridges, are now including cycling and pedestrian opportunities as well.

I think about the Simon Fraser Bridge in Prince George, where we actually twinned the Simon Fraser Bridge. For the first time now we have what are excellent opportunities for people to utilize that bridge, either with a bicycle or walking.

We have made significant investments. All of our projects will continue to contemplate how we allow people to make choices about how they travel in British Columbia. We have, as I've said, committed over $118 million in investments since 2001.

H. Bains: I don't doubt the minister's numbers, but the fact remains that we're not there yet. All of the roads and bridges that were being built last year and the year before had a part of their structure to include bicycling. The fact is, all things being equal, that this year's budget is down from $5 million to $3 million. Isn't that showing that you're going in the wrong direction in this particular area?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, not at all. If you look at what we're doing, there's over $50 million in cycling investment in the Gateway project alone.

I think what's unfortunate is highlighting one particular line item that relates to a grant program, while the ministry continues to make record investments. In fact, the $50 million cycling investment as part of the Gateway program, which of course includes Highway 1 improvements in Port Mann, is the largest cycling investment in the history of British Columbia.

We're going to continue to invest. Yes, there is a small reduction in this particular grant line, but I can tell you we are investing at record levels in cycling infrastructure in the province, and that will continue.

H. Bains: All those things are great, and I accept that there are a number of things happening and that all the infrastructure improvements, bridges and roads do include a bicycling component to them, but the fact still remains that this particular grant is being cut by $2 million. What were the reasons behind that, to not continue on with that program?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, again, the member is correct. There is a line reduction there, but that's in the context of the single largest investment in cycling infrastructure in
[ Page 4614 ]
the history of British Columbia — $50 million related to the Gateway project and $118 million in cycling infrastructure since 2001.

More importantly than that, as we work together with our partners, including the federal government, we are very hopeful, in fact. We actually hope to mitigate that reduction by partnering with the federal government. We're very optimistic that that will happen, and we hope to be able to deliver more opportunities through a partnership with the federal government, despite this small reduction in this line item. We've been very successful at leveraging and partnering. We hope to be able to do that with this line item.

We certainly are proud of the record that we have in terms of investment in cycling infrastructure, and absolutely, it will continue over the next number of years.

[1715]

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

H. Bains: Now I'd like to ask some questions in an area that…. I'm not so sure whether we will be there, but I'll ask those questions anyway. This is about the impact of HST, if this legislation goes through, on the ministry and its operations.

I am quite confident that the legislation isn't going to go through, as I'm told. I've got a good feeling. A number of MLAs are going to vote against that legislation. They will be voting with us, so it may not happen. But I will ask those questions anyway, just in case. They may change their mind later on, if they're under a tremendous amount of pressure from their leader's office. Some of them may slip out. But I don't think they will. In any case, I want to be on the safe side and ask these questions.

My question to the minister is: what will be the impact of the HST on the ministry and its operations?

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. S. Bond: We don't expect significant impacts in terms of the ministry operations as a result of the HST. We certainly expect significant benefit to the transportation sector and the construction sector, which we are most closely linked to. In fact, we have numerous letters and commendations from our stakeholders supporting the decision to actually make British Columbia competitive and to remove a regressive layered tax in this province.

I can assure the members opposite that the members on this side believe in the advice provided to us by the best economists and the independent economists that tell us that it's a great thing to do. I know that our members are continuing to be supportive of what will bring a net benefit to British Columbia.

H. Bains: We'll see. We will see how your members will feel in the coming weeks and months after their constituents are bringing their concerns to them.

In any case, the minister is saying that there will be impact, but she didn't say how much impact there will be. Has any analysis been done, any study been done? What would be the impact on the ministry and its operations if the HST is implemented?

The Chair: If I can remind the member that all the questions are to be directed towards Vote 45. That's what we're discussing today.

Hon. S. Bond: As I said earlier, we don't anticipate any major costs or impacts to ministry operations.

H. Bains: Who did that study? Has each of the Crown corporations under the ministry done their own studies? If it's not major, is it minor? How much? Are there any dollar amounts that will affect the numbers that are we are discussing here under this vote?

[1720]

Hon. S. Bond: I've answered the question. We don't expect any major impact. I'd like to remind the member opposite that we need to actually focus on the estimates of the ministry.

H. Bains: I think it's perfectly within our right to ask those questions, because we are talking about Vote 45. There's a budget listed in it. If there's an HST implemented, what effect will it have on those numbers and how will the rest of the ministry's operations be affected by it? Will it impact on the programs that the ministry is carrying on, or on employees?

Hon. S. Bond: That question was asked and answered. I don't anticipate any impact on our ministry budget.

H. Bains: I would like to ask some questions about the BCTFA. I've got year-end reporting — year-end March 31, 2009. I've got some questions about that.

It's under notation 16. If you look at the…. It talks about the revenue through a property sale and expenses. Then there's a net 2008 and 2009.

My first question is: if this document is up to year-end March 31, 2009, is the new Auditor's report available yet for year-end 2010?

Hon. S. Bond: No, it isn't.

H. Bains: Any idea when that will be available?

Hon. S. Bond: Staff advise that it would be early summer.
[ Page 4615 ]

H. Bains: The line item here under notation 16 says "Other revenue and expenses." It talks about property sale of $4.431 million, and then expenses are in brackets — I see that's a loss — of $5.168 million, with a net loss of $737,000. Can the minister explain how it is possible selling property that you are losing money?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm wondering if the member opposite could clarify the document for us, just so that we're working off the same page, please.

H. Bains: It's a document called Financial Statements of B.C. Transportation Financing Authority: Year ended March 31, 2009. This is the most recent Auditor's report that I could find. The minister said the other one isn't available yet.

We are talking about the revenue and expenses. It's a notation 16. There's no page on it.

[1725]

Hon. S. Bond: The reason there is a differentiation there is that we're actually buying more property than we're selling at the moment.

H. Bains: Perhaps you could explain to me a little further. It talks about revenue and expenses. "Property sale." One looking at this piece of document would think that you are selling a piece of property and that there is a cost incurred to the sale of that property. That's the way it reads here. It seems to me that it shows that we sold it for $4.4 million, but the cost is $5.1 million. It just does not make sense.

Hon. S. Bond: I can assure the member opposite that we're not losing money when we actually make property sales. The issue here is that the $4 million reflects properties that have been sold. There's a timing difference, then. The $5 million also includes preparing for future property sales. There is a timing issue there, but in fact there's a difference between the $4 million and the $5 million because the $5 million includes preparing for future property sales.

H. Bains: The minister, perhaps, could explain to me: how does it cost $5.1 million preparing for a future property sale?

[1730]

Hon. S. Bond: So $4 million is revenue for property we've sold. When we are preparing to sell land, we often have to plan or subdivide. We have to potentially put in services. We have to look at cleanup costs, potentially. So we do all of that work. That incurs the cost, which would be the $5 million.

When we sell that property, after we have it all ready to go, then we sell it for a profit. In fact, I can tell the member opposite that recently we sold a parcel for $17 million. The $5 million is the preparatory work so that we can sell those parcels at a profit.

H. Bains: In that sense, the $5 million is for different pieces of property that are being prepared to be sold for the reasons the minister…. Okay, so that makes sense.

Again, under the same…. Three lines below it says: "Miscellaneous." There's $1.5 million revenue with a cost of $5.7 million and a loss of $4.2 million. Can the minister explain that?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm happy to answer those questions, but it is outside of the scope of these estimates, because if the member is referring to 2008-2009, my staff would have to haul filing cabinets over here. We don't have that information in front of us, and we are debating the estimates for this year. That's 2008, and we don't have that information here.

H. Bains: I think it's quite pertinent to Vote 45 because the money that is generated by BCTFA is listed here in the vote, so I think it's quite relevant between the two to ask those questions. It's not 2008 numbers, I might advise the minister; it's 2009. It's last year. Now we are in the new year. It was a rule that, you know, it's perfectly all right to ask questions for last year's budget and this year's for comparison purposes.

The Chair: For comparison purposes.

H. Bains: Right, so that's exactly what I'm doing — first of all, to find out why there was a loss, if you have the answer, so we can compare that for this year's budget.

Hon. S. Bond: Because it's 2008-2009, we do not have the same document even in the building that the member opposite has. My staff would be happy, I'm sure, to bring it with them tomorrow, and we could pursue that. We don't have the numbers here to make that comparison. And it is 2008-2009.

H. Bains: The way it reads here is that 2008 numbers are listed and 2009 numbers are listed. It does not say 2008-09.

Okay. If you don't have the information, you don't have the information. Perhaps I could ask the minister to provide me the answer to that question tomorrow or Thursday.

Now, may I ask the minister…. Under notation 17 there's a line item that talks about grant programs — Canada Line Rapid Transit Inc. In 2008 it shows $118 million and in 2009, $13 million. Can the minister explain, first of all, what those grants were for? How do they compare to this year?
[ Page 4616 ]

Hon. S. Bond: My staff advise me that it's very likely progress payments and performance payments, in that order, but without the document, I don't want to actually finalize that answer. Until we actually have the document that the member opposite is referring to, it's difficult for us to answer that with certainty. But again, potentially, progress payments and performance payments, in that order.

[1735]

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could bring the answer to that question along with the others as well.

Also, under notation 21 it talks about interest on capital debt and public-private partnership obligations, interest capitalized. There's a line item in here of $250.647 in 2009, and there's $230 million in 2008. I'm sure you will give me the same answer as the other question, so if the minister could also bring some explanation to those questions, I would appreciate that.

Okay. I'd like to move on to the provincial transportation plan as listed in almost all of the service plans, including this year. Can the minister give us an update about the provincial transportation plan? What is the update on this? It was announced with quite a fanfare a couple of years ago, so would the minister would give us an update. Where are we at on implementation of that provincial transportation plan?

Hon. S. Bond: Could the member please clarify: transportation plan or transit plan?

H. Bains: Transit plan.

Hon. S. Bond: We are aggressively moving forward on our transit plan and very excited about it. We have actually committed, to this point, $1.2 billion in funding.

[1740]

The provincial share of that spending to date, by the end of 2009, was $303 million and of course matched and leveraged by partnerships with the federal government and also local investment.

H. Bains: Can the minister give us a breakdown on the numbers that she mentioned, where that money is directed to and what projects are underway?

Hon. S. Bond: Staff will certainly work to put together a comprehensive list. As you can imagine, it's quite lengthy with that amount of spending, but I will give a couple of the highlights for the member opposite. We looked at, and we mentioned this earlier, replacement and expansion at B.C. Transit. We have investment in the Kelowna rapid transit, greater Victoria transit study, expansion buses, SeaBus, Expo Line Broadway station, Expo line the ALRT rail upgrade, fare gates and smart cards, UBC rapid transit, regional district — and the list goes on.

We've already committed earlier in the estimates process to give a list and to break that down, but the key number is $1.2 billion committed. Of that, $303 million is provincial dollars, and it is largely matched by federal and local funding as well.

H. Bains: So $1.2 billion. Is that for this year alone? What was the expenditure last year?

Hon. S. Bond: That is since the announcement of the transit plan, which is what the member opposite asked for.

H. Bains: What would be the numbers for this year?

Hon. S. Bond: Because, as I mentioned, we partner on these projects, the amount for the province this year will be $173 million toward the provincial transit plan. The federal government portion will be over $115 million, and the member opposite can know that, generally speaking, that is matched by local investment as well — so $173 million, $115 million and a comparable amount from local funding.

H. Bains: When you say local, is that TransLink?

Hon. S. Bond: Some of it is TransLink, but also it is municipalities and local governments.

H. Bains: Can the minister give us an update on those projects where this money is actually utilized? Perhaps you could give us an update on the Evergreen line, the UBC line and the other extension to the SkyTrain Expo Line to Guildford.

[1745]

Hon. S. Bond: We're happy to provide an update to the member opposite, particularly on those three rapid transit projects. The Evergreen line we are proceeding with, and in fact, we are in the process of entering the environmental assessment process. We are hoping to start procurement as early as this summer.

We've had early consultation with the public, and much of that has been done. We have acquired a significant amount of the property that is required, and we are currently in discussions with the Mayors Council about the additional funding required. The province remains committed, obviously, to over $400 million, and the federal government has provided virtually an equal amount in terms of the Evergreen line.

UBC and Surrey we are also underway with. The technical study is progressing. We are currently considering the technology. We have made no final decisions about what technology will be used.

There are a number of opinions, and there are a lot of very interested people in that discussion. We've only had
[ Page 4617 ]
some very minor…. We've started to engage in consultation, but a much broader public consultation will take place later this year on both the UBC and the Surrey extensions.

We're making good progress. We are very, very pleased with the success of the Canada Line in terms of the utilization and how well that worked during the Olympics and every day for people in Metro Vancouver, so we look forward to the same success with the Evergreen line and with the UBC and Surrey lines.

H. Bains: So the technology for Evergreen, that means, is already decided, and the only technology consideration or different technology that might be considered is for the other two lines, the Expo Line and the UBC line?

Hon. S. Bond: That is correct.

H. Bains: Can the minister explain: what is the role of Rapid Transit Project 2000 in the expansion of what we call the provincial transit plan?

[1750]

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, it is a project-specific company, and I think the member opposite would know that. The company does still exist. It actually owns the asset of the Millennium Line and leases that asset to TransLink. It continues to exist for that purpose, but there is no connection between it and the transit plan.

H. Bains: I was just reading from the document, the financial statement. Notation 1 here talks about: "Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd. Co. is incorporated under the laws of British Columbia." Then it just goes on to say:

"Based on a protocol agreement with the province, as represented by the Minister of Finance and minister responsible for the Olympics and by the minister responsible for transit, the company was incorporated to carry out the study, design, construction and development of extensions to the existing Lower Mainland light rail transit system — the SkyTrain extension — of which the construction of the Millennium Line…and a prebuild component of the Evergreen line were approved by the province. In this capacity the company acts as an agent for the province and conducts its activities in a manner consistent with general financial and management policies approved by the Treasury Board and the province's Policy Framework for Crown Entrepreneurial Activities."

It seems to me, reading from here, that it has quite a big role as an agent that would work between the government and those projects to have those projects come to fruition. So if they have just a company on paper that just owns those assets, has the role been changed, then, since this document was put together?

Hon. S. Bond: We did contemplate whether or not to use Rapid Transit 2000 as the agent and, in fact, decided against that. It does exist for the purpose it was created for, and that was to hold the asset. As I said, it continues to own the asset, and it leases the asset of the Millennium Line to TransLink.

H. Bains: Not so quick. I think what the minister is saying is that the role of Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd. did change, and all it is now is an entity that just holds the assets. They own the assets of the Millennium Line, as the minister said, or any other assets that are owned by this company?

Hon. S. Bond: Just the Millennium Line.

[1755]

H. Bains: Can the minister explain: why just the Millennium Line? It does talk about all the other lines as well. What happened to the Expo Line? Who owns the Expo Line?

Hon. S. Bond: B.C. Transit.

H. Bains: Well, that's interesting. Very interesting. B.C. Transit owns Expo Line, and this entity owns Millennium Line. Who will own the Evergreen line?

Hon. S. Bond: As the member would know, each one of these are Crowns. Each one of them built the asset, and in fact, they continue to own the asset and lease it to TransLink. The member opposite seems surprised about B.C. Transit, but in fact, B.C. Transit was responsible for the Expo Line because TransLink didn't exist at the time. B.C. Transit retains the ownership, but it leases the line to TransLink.

H. Bains: My question was…. There are other lines being built. Evergreen is one of them, Expo Line and UBC. Who will own those lines?

[1800]

Hon. S. Bond: Under the current budget structure, it outlines that BCTFA would own the asset of the Evergreen line.

H. Bains: Rapid Transit Project owns Millennium Line, B.C. Transit owns Expo Line, and BCTFA will own Evergreen line. What about the UBC line and the…? Will the extension be part of the Expo Line, and will it continue to be under B.C. Transit, then? Also, the extension to Guildford?

Hon. S. Bond: We're still in the early stages of both the UBC and Surrey processes, so that decision hasn't been made. It will be made as we get closer to being able to fund and finalize that.

H. Bains: Maybe I'll ask the minister this question. I mean, this entity was put together — I'm still refer-
[ Page 4618 ]
ring to Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd. — and has a very specific role to play to act as an agent for the province to conduct its activities — which, as I'd listed before, are "to carry out the study, design, construction and development of extensions to the existing Lower Mainland light rail transit system."

What was the reason for not continuing to use this entity on the Evergreen line?

Hon. S. Bond: As I said to the member opposite, certainly, as staff worked their way through this and as we worked on these projects, RTP 2000 — that's easier written than said — was contemplated, and in fact a number of things were looked at. But most significantly, this is a Company Act company and has quite limited powers.

We made the decision that the BCTFA was much better suited to actually managing through in the case of the Evergreen line. We have not made the decision, as I said, with the other two potential lines, but it was considered, and it was decided that the BCTFA would be more suited to actually carry out that work.

[1805]

H. Bains: How does the minister find this an efficient way of doing business — having so many owners owning a piece of the line here and a piece of the line there and having one entity to operate it? How do you explain that as far as the efficiency is concerned?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I think the most important thing is that the BCTFA certainly has every capability in terms of the Evergreen line. I'm very confident that it will be done efficiently. I think the member opposite makes a realistic point. In fact, we are looking at whether or not there's a way to actually consolidate and look at how we manage those particular organizations. I think it is important for us always to take a look at those things.

At the end of the day BCTFA will be able to deliver very efficiently, and we will contemplate what we will do in the case of the other organizations.

H. Bains: I think it would only make sense to have…. Certainly, you've got to do a business case, cost-benefit analysis and all that before you move through. But looking from outside in, it just doesn't look efficient when you have so many owners for our same system that we are trying to operate here under one entity.

My question is again to the minister. We are staying with the provincial transit plan. There's a line item here on page 30 under the service plan that the ministry is spending about $216 million on buses and other transit priorities in the next three years. Can the minister explain where this money is being spent, and is there a breakdown available?

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, we've had a discussion about this list. We will get more details, as we committed that we would. The $216 million, we need to remember, is over a three-year period, but it includes things such as the Vernon transit service centre, the Kamloops transit service centre, the Uptown transit exchange, the Campbell River transit exchange, the West Coast Express, and the list goes on.

Again, this is part of the earlier questions that the critic asked. The total is $216 million over three years. This is one of the lists that we'll provide with more detail.

[1810]

The Chair: Member for Surrey-Newton, and noting the hour.

H. Bains: Noting the hour, I have a couple more questions.

It's about 600 clean energy buses that were part of your transit plan throughout the province. How close will this $216 million over three years take us to that goal?

Hon. S. Bond: I think this is a question that it would be helpful to have B.C. Transit with us for, because obviously they're the key partner and deliverer. We'd be happy to do that. They're just not here with us this afternoon. I think we could actually manage to answer that question when they are with us.

So noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:11 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