2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Morning Sitting

Volume 15, Number 4

[ Page 4695 ]

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2010

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

N. Simons: In the gallery today we have the chair of school district 46, Silas White. Would the House please make him welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this chamber I call second reading of Bill 9, intituled the Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act; and in Committee A, in the Douglas Fir Room, we will have the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure continue.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Consumption Tax Rebate
and Transition Act

(continued)

On the amendment (continued).

N. Simons: I'm pleased to be able to continue where I left off yesterday, perhaps to summarize and perhaps to travel into other areas which I have not yet addressed.

[1005]

The issue, of course, before us today is the amendment proposed by my colleague the member for Port Coquitlam and region, and that is to ask that the HST act, also known as the consumption rebate assistance transition act, be referred to committee rather than be read for a second time. The purpose of that, of course, would be to ensure that the values of our democratic system, which include consultation with public and stakeholders, have an opportunity to unfold.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Obviously, the situation that led us to this current state is that during the election, specific questions were asked about government's intentions to introduce the harmonized sales tax. Specific responses were provided, saying that it was not on the government's agenda, and three days after the election, government had changed its mind. I referred to that yesterday, I think generously, as wilful — potentially seen as an effort to avoid thinking about a topic on purpose, which would, of course, constitute wilful blindness, if we were to use that terminology.

However, I also said yesterday that I would accept, and I think the people of British Columbia would, in part, accept that the announcement and the introduction of the bill for the HST was generously interpreted as simply incompetence.

I know I warmed the hearts of government caucus members when I so generously referred to the introduction of the HST as, at best, simply incompetence, and I wandered away from the allegation that perhaps there was any wilful blindness involved in the decision to implement a tax that they previously said they would not.

I think about the impacts on communities such as mine, Powell River–Sunshine Coast, which relies significantly on tourism and the revenue from tourism. We have many festivals on the Sunshine Coast. We have the Kathaumixw Festival every two years, which is a wonderful celebration of choral music with choirs from around the world who go to Powell River; and the Festival of the Written Arts in Sechelt, which again, is an international festival attracting writers and readers from around the world.

There are smaller festivals as well. There are jazz festivals, folk festivals, music on the rocks, music in the minds, the Fibre Arts Festival, and the list goes on. The Blackberry Festival in Powell River is a wonderful street festival that I encourage people to attend.

I mention these because they are what attract people to our vibrant communities, and when I see government policy and public policy in the form of taxation potentially have a very negative impact on the attraction of visitors to my riding and to other ridings in this beautiful province, I wonder what kind of consideration was made to attempt to mitigate the negative impacts of a tax that was implemented or is planned to be implemented with very little public discussion.

There are also summer camps. I mentioned the summer camps yesterday. There is the YMCA camp, the Salvation Army camp, the Boy Scouts camp, the Girl Guides camp. Parents who are sending their children to these camps are going to have to pay more per week for their children to attend.

I really sincerely, obviously, hope that families will find a way for their children to enjoy the beautiful natural assets with which we've been blessed in this province. Any public policy that hinders their opportunity for such enjoyment I think needs more rigorous contemplation.

[1010]

I believe that with a referral of this bill, Bill 9, to a committee that has the authority and the jurisdiction to analyze the impacts of the tax would be an appropriate, conscious and responsible action for this government to take.

Without doing so, it seems to me that the impacts are not being contemplated. The rebates aren't sufficient. The costs will be too high for families to go camping, to send their children to camp, to attend our festivals.
[ Page 4696 ]

Deputy Speaker: To the motion, Member.

N. Simons: I was just mentioning the amendment and the committee.

Without the committee's ability to rigorously examine the impacts on all sectors…. Short of doing that, I think it's a failure. It's not a personal or moral failure; it's a governance failure. It's a rejection of what would be an appropriate form of creating good policy.

What happened? It's almost like the government skipped over a number of processes to get to this point. Many members on the government side mentioned the Finance Committee, and the Finance Committee is a bipartisan committee that contemplates a number of suggestions made by people who come and propose public policy issues. I think that the Finance Committee would be within its purview, and it's fair to say these issues need to be studied further.

Those do not constitute approval of the suggestion. They actually state specifically that those things need to be studied further prior to any implementation, and we saw that not happen. That's why I think this is a bill that the people of the province want referred.

Hon. R. Coleman: I am pleased to get up today to speak with regards to the amendment to Bill 9 that's before the House with regards to the removal of the provincial sales tax from people's bills in the province of British Columbia. I want to tell you a couple of little stories about the HST in discussions I've had with people, because these are pretty instructive.

The first one was after we did the HST last summer. A number of people were obviously phoning the office trying to get some issues identified for themselves. There were about 21 phone calls that came into my office with regards to this issue, and I returned them all.

The one thing I found the most interesting in the conversations I had was that about 15 of these were seniors who were actually thinking that the government of the day was going to put 7 percent HST onto the GST and keep the provincial sales tax. So they thought the tax in British Columbia was going to go to 19 percent.

When I explained to them that, no, that wasn't the case and that if they actually got a GST rebate today, they would continue to get it, and explained to them what I did, they were fine with what we're doing, especially when I started to explain to them the economics of the reality of this tax.

The most fun conversation I had, though, was when I was in the Okanagan Valley and visiting with a friend of mine who happens to own a farm in the Okanagan Valley. The first thing he said to me…. We've always had this sort of fun relationship where we usually start out our first visit, when we haven't seen each other for a number of months, with a couple of insults. You know, good-natured insults, but we take a couple of shots at each other. Of course, his first shot was that he hated this tax. "What are you doing? I hate this tax," etc.

[1015]

I let him go on for a few minutes, and then I said: "So when you file as a farmer, do you get all your GST back?" He goes: "Yeah, I do. I get my GST back." I said: "So when you pay provincial sales tax, do you get any of that back?" And he said: "No, you guys keep it all. It's terrible." I said: "So if we do the HST, you'll get all your provincial sales tax back." He ponders for a second, and then he looks at me and goes: "I love this tax. I love this tax."

Before us today is an interesting discussion, because what I've done…. Each time a business or a person has come to me and said that they have a concern about the tax, I actually sit down with them and walk them through their economic model, oftentimes saying: "Have you talked to your accountant?" Almost every single one of these people, when they actually have the opportunity to learn about it, understand (a) the economics of it and (b) how important it is to creating jobs.

I had one business person come to me and say, "You know what you've just done for me if you do this? You actually reduce my administration to the point that I can put three more salespeople on the road for my manufacturing company" — three more salespeople because of the administration that they put on the sales tax.

Madam Speaker, I want to read something to you just so that people can get the context of this. Let's imagine for a moment that British Columbia was to create a new provincial sales tax. This tax system would be unique and different from 130 other countries worldwide that utilize a value-added taxation format. This new tax would at times be transparent so you would know exactly how much you were paying, and other times it will be hidden.

As a result, there are times where there will be a transparent tax on the hidden tax or, in other words, a tax on a tax. You end up paying twice.

This tax would also arbitrarily discriminate between various sectors of the economy. For example, if your car breaks down or you need your watch fixed, you will pay tax on those services. However, if you need to hire an interior decorator, a building designer or take a visit to a spa, you'll pay no tax.

For a business owner, you may provide a similar service to a competitor and be treated entirely differently — one gets taxed; the other not. If you say your business provides a service that applies protective treatments to help maintain taxable goods, you are likely to be subject to this tax. Conversely, a service cleaning and the same goods in question may well be exempt from the tax.

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

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, I am, Madam Chair. I opened up saying I was talking about the amendment. This goes
[ Page 4697 ]
to the amendment and my debate with regards to why it shouldn't be in the amendment, Madam Chair. I can interject that every two minutes if you wish, but I opened up saying that this was with regard to the amendment.

Does this new tax sound complicated? It is. In fact, it would cost $30 million alone each and every year just to administer. On top of that, it would require businesses to put paper after paper after paperwork together just to try and run their business instead of actually having productivity.

Now, critics might point out that having such a tax would be inefficient and costly, and they would be correct. Now, we're having a conversation about the provincial sales tax, being an amendment before the floor to defer it, and this is an interesting discussion.

Let me go further. The valid question would be…. Business owners might point out that such a tax adds unnecessary costs and complications to their business. Large resource sector employers would be saying that they might avoid this tax altogether and set up business in a place like Alberta and Ontario, because all it is, is a tax on their business. The competitive advantage in other jurisdictions is different. Most everyone would agree that spending that kind of money just to administer something that was so inefficient would be government waste at its finest.

Now, these folks across the way want to defer this bill before the House, which is about the provincial sales tax. The problem is that we don't have to imagine this new tax coming to British Columbia. We don't have to imagine it, because it's already here. It's been here since 1948, an inefficient tax on our economy for over 50, 60 years. It is called the social service tax. It is also known as the PST. As a tax, it is inefficient, it is costly, it creates an unfair playing field, and within the business community, it makes B.C. less competitive for current and potential employers in the future.

[1020]

Now, the members opposite actually have a little interesting agenda here today. They want to defer a bill that gets rid of a 7 percent sales tax in British Columbia. They're putting it out there that they think this is all about just the HST, but I think there's a different agenda here. I think it's an interesting agenda because, first of all, they won't say with regards to the tax that the federal government has already passed, the HST, whether they would get rid of it if they ever formed a government — god forbid — in the province of British Columbia.

So they're over there just like they were on the carbon tax, saying: "Oh, we don't like it. No, we're opposed to it. Oh, but we don't think…. No, actually we got there, and we found out this was good for the economy, and maybe we better keep it. Yeah, that's what we'll do. We'll keep it. Let's even be more creative. Why don't we defer and oppose the removal of the other 7 percent tax. So we won't do anything about the HST. We'll actually get there and find out it was a good thing. We'll flip-flop on it just like the carbon tax, but don't tell anybody. At the same time, let's defer the PST."

They sit there, and they know that their real agenda is this: they'd keep the HST. They'd flip-flop on it just like the carbon tax, and they want to keep the PST as well, because that's what they're doing here right now. They're debating the fact that they want to keep the provincial sales tax in British Columbia at 7 percent. They want to defer the bill because they just want to wait longer to do it, because some day they want to be in a position to actually have the PST on top of the HST in British Columbia.

You know why, Madam Chair? Because these economic geniuses over there sit there and say: "For every single penny of the PST, it's another billion dollars in revenue. So we could find $7 billion in extra revenue by actually saying — and make everybody happy, because we'll make them think this is great because we're not going to keep the HST, we're not going to keep the HST, we're not going to keep the HST….

Oh, gosh, just like the carbon tax, we're going to flip-flop. We're going to keep it. But by George, we're trying to keep on the books the PST as well so we can suck another $7 billion out of the people of British Columbia, because we've got so many commitments in our mind to overspend the budget of this province that we're going to need to suck the money from somewhere, so let's just tax them twice."

That's what the thinking is, not just with the amendment but also their opposition to the bill itself. The message to my constituents from here on, for me, is simple. The NDP want to tax you twice. They want to keep the PST, and believe me, they'll keep the HST. They actually want to take $7 billion more out of your pocket at the till of every store in British Columbia going forward, because that's their philosophy. It's their problem. They're the ones who have decided to oppose the removal of a tax — the only party I've ever seen stand up and say: "I oppose the removal of a tax."

The removal of a tax is what we're talking about. We're not talking about the HST debate with these guys when they do this. They're actually secretly wanting to keep the debate going with regards to keeping that 7 percent tax. Now, interesting is….

I know that there's probably none or maybe one or two people on the other side of this House that ever signed the front of a paycheque. Interestingly enough, if they ever had, they would understand a little bit more about business. So let me give you an example, because I was in business.

At one time I had 250 employees across three provinces, and we used to put components together for equipment that we sold to our customers. We would have to buy pieces of these components to make the actual mechanism work. So we would pick up a dialler from a supplier;
[ Page 4698 ]
we'd pay 7 percent tax. We would pick up an E prong from someone else; we'd pay 7 percent tax. We'd pick up the box that we had to put it in to put the components together; we'd pay a 7 percent tax. All of it to make that piece of equipment that created those jobs.

[1025]

Then we had to sell it. When we sold it, we had to charge 7 percent tax. So the customer was being taxed and taxed and taxed, and government had this inefficient system that required us to keep track of it all. In actual fact, it made us less competitive in British Columbia than it did in Alberta and Saskatchewan, simply because of the way we did it in B.C. — taxing taxes on taxes. So if you wanted to do business, you had to actually hurt yourself and your customer.

At the time that I was in business…. I don't know if some of these guys would remember this. There was a time in B.C. when the mortgage rates weren't 3 and 4 percent, when they were 21 percent and 18 percent and when a line of credit to run a business was 22 percent — interest on your payroll every two weeks just to try to keep your business going.

While you were trying to do that, you had this ridiculous administration on top of everything you did as you retailed product to make your business tick. All of that was taking place in a time when things were pretty tough. I can tell you that looking back on those days, which we survived, if there had been a tax in place that was an input tax, two things would have happened: (1) more of my components would probably have been done in British Columbia, and (2) we would have actually been able to sell our product more competitively.

Now, I get that they have a motion before the floor to say they want to delay the passage of the removal of the 7 percent tax in British Columbia, because they see it as a revenue source for themselves.

I see this delay as one more message to business in B.C. that says: "We don't care about your business. We don't care about the jobs you create. We don't care about the people you employ. In actual fact, as long as I get to sign the back of the paycheque, I'm happy, because I'm not taking any risk. I'm not having to do any administration. I just get to sit back and complain about everything else that's happening around me."

That's the mantra of the New Democratic Party, and they can't help it. That's how they're genetically made as a political organization, and I understand it. I respect that opinion. What I don't respect is going into a debate and deciding that you want to take another $7 billion out of people's pockets in British Columbia because you won't take a position on one thing, and you want to keep the other. That's a fact. You're actually up there…. You're over there debating why you want to defer the removal of a 7 percent tax on top of a tax which would be the lowest combined harmonized tax in Canada at 12 percent.

You know what? I don't get it. I just don't get why they don't understand the message they keep sending internationally when they decide how they're going to do their business.

No wonder everybody is nervous about the NDP, when they want to put in a 19 percent tax on people at the tills in British Columbia. Imagine. No wonder they're nervous about the fact that they'll ignore the 7 percent tax that's in place today and that if removed and put in an HST, will actually save $800 million in the construction sector in B.C. and bring more affordability to buildings in B.C.

They want to ignore that. They actually want to keep the 7 percent so they can have 19 percent. So what they want to do is they want to say to the construction industry: "We'll give you an input tax over here so you can save your $800 million, but we're leaving it on over here so that we can take the $800 million. Because we don't believe in input taxes. We believe in taxes on taxes. We actually believe in hurting the consumer and hurting the family and hurting the business and the people that create jobs in B.C. — so much so that we want to defer the removal of a 7 percent tax."

That's what we're talking about here today. We're talking about the fact that the NDP do not want to. They're opposed to the legislation. In all of the debates in second reading, up to the time of the deferral motion and from the deferral motion on, listen to their words.

They're opposed to the bill, and the bill removes a 7 percent tax. So all they're opposed to today here is: "We don't want to get rid of the 7 percent sales tax. We want to keep it, because we want to suck another $7 billion out of your pocket, because we're not telling you what we'll do with the HST."

Not one of them has got up and said they would get rid of the HST. Not one of them. Not one of them has taken a position on that particular fact — not one. Not the leader, not the members of the opposition.

[1030]

So they're keeping it. That's obvious. But they're opposed to the removal of the 7 percent sales tax. It doesn't take much of a bridge to know that they just want to have a 19 percent tax in British Columbia — 19 percent. Keep the inefficient one I just described, and then take it from there.

You know, Madam Chair, as we look at the future of British Columbia, we had better be a competitive jurisdiction. We'd better be ready to welcome the business community of the world to create jobs and investment in this province of ours.

So if we parallel over from the deferral to not take off the 7 percent tax, let's flip over to what's coming back with the NDP in their taxation thinking. You've got to remember that they were vehemently opposed to a carbon tax in B.C. "Oh, the wrong tax. We wouldn't do it. We'll stop it. We'll get rid of it. We'll canvass. We'll have
[ Page 4699 ]
a campaign against it." Then we'll find out that it's actually good for the environment, and oh — boom! — it's: "Let's switch our policy and decide that we now like the carbon tax." Unbelievable.

What else is coming back? If you want to build a mine in British Columbia, you better hope there's not an NDP government here, because they'll bring back the corporate capital tax. They will come back and tax your investment.

These are the people that believe that if we go and attract a person who wants to spend a half a billion dollars to build a pulp mill in British Columbia that they should tax that investment of capital every single year. Then they couldn't figure out why nobody was coming.

Now they want a 19 percent tax, and they'll bring back the corporate capital. Do you know what else they'll do? This is their tax policy. Their tax policy was never to repeal any of this. Their tax policy was to have tax on machinery and equipment. So now we buy a piece of equipment or a piece of machinery, and they want to tax us on it every year.

I know a B.C.-based company that went out and hired a whole bunch of people after the corporate capital tax and the tax of machinery and equipment went off. Do you know why? They had almost $100 million in rolling stock and employed close to 2,000 people, and every year they had to pay a tax on their machinery and equipment. How despicable is that? How despicable is it that you would do that? How despicable is it that you would actually try to hoist a motion that gets rid of a tax of 7 percent on provincial sales tax?

The message is clear. Their taxation policy is 19 percent on goods and services in British Columbia. They're not taking a position on HST, so we know they'll keep that, and they'll still want to keep the sales tax because they're opposed to removing it. They want to delay it or remove it with this motion. So 19 percent tax on everything you do as a British Columbian because the NDP wants both taxes, and they want to suck $7 billion out of you — number one.

They just want to delay this process long enough so that they can, hopefully, get there and actually slip this under people's carpets at some point and say: "Oh, by the way, we need the money, so we're taking two taxes."

Secondly, as they do that, they will continue to move down their taxation policy to bring back the corporate capital tax, the tax on machinery and equipment. They will bring back a number of other taxes. What else they'll do is they'll actually start to tax our population.

You see, one of the competitive advantages in British Columbia is that we actually have today the lowest income tax rate of anywhere in Canada for anybody making under $118,000 a year. You've had that, with a competitive tax regime and not taxing your investment and your investment in equipment and machinery and a very capable workforce. It's a perfect environment for investment and creating jobs.

So you want to hoist this 7 percent and send the message from this party across the world. Certainly, I'm going to tell them that if that group ever became government, expect a 19 percent tax. Absolutely expect it, because they're not going to get rid of HST, and they're opposed to removing the PST. That's pretty clear. It's pretty clear what they're doing here. They don't like to hear it.

[1035]

The other thing they don't like to hear is the fact — because of our tax cuts and the HST, which gives rebates to people on low incomes and all of that, and it will continue to go on — of how much more money people have in their pockets today in British Columbia just to make the choices they want daily for what they want to do with their families.

Let's take an example. Let's take someone making $50,000 a year. In 2001 they would have paid $4,211 in income taxes. In 2010 they're paying $2,199. They're actually saving $2,012 a year on income taxes alone that they can put into the economy or spend as they wish, because they now have it in their pocket and not in some overtaxed jurisdiction's pocket that wants to defer a tax on sales tax, so that they can keep their 7 percent and keep the HST — because they won't take a position on it, in actual fact.

They actually flip-flopped on the carbon tax. They're just drooling at the idea of going back and picking this $2,000 out of the pockets of people in British Columbia with income tax changes, because that's all they are. They're tax-keepers and tax-raisers. That's what they are.

How could you deny it? You're opposing a bill — both at second reading and by trying to delay it with this motion — to get rid of a 7 percent tax. That's what it's about. You want to keep the sales tax. You want to defer the removal of the sales tax. You would be happier than a clam if you could defer it for six months, so that in June or July of this year, when the HST comes into place, you'll be able to say: "Hey, tax is 19 percent."

How irresponsible is that, Madam Chair? How irresponsible?

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: It's incredible, and I know the higher the chirping that comes from the member from Merritt, the closer I am to getting to the truth. The fact is that he doesn't like that I figured out that he wants to tax British Columbians 19 percent at the till of every facility across B.C., instead of getting rid of a 7 percent tax or to defer it so that it's 19 percent come summer when the HST comes into play. Amazing to me.

Of course, it's clear what they want to do for people who are making money in B.C. Because if they go there, if they think they're going to keep the 7 percent sales tax, they're also going after your personal income, your
[ Page 4700 ]
investment, your taxation on machinery, equipment and business. What'll happen is that they will kill the economy within 12 months of ever forming government, because all the investment in B.C. will go somewhere else, frankly.

Let's pick another example. A person making $40,000 a year in 2001 was paying $3,041 in income tax. Today, in 2010, that tax is at $1,450. They're saving $1,591 a year just on the taxation changes that have already been here.

Now I know, having sat on Treasury Board and Finance, that every penny of the sales tax is a billion dollars. So $7 billion is out of their pocket because they want to go back after these folks who have actually got more money in their pocket today by either deferring this or by not doing it at all, because they're opposed to the removal of a 7 percent tax. It's classic, absolutely classic, that this group of people would do this, because their only history has always been tax, tax, tax.

Their philosophy on small business — which, by the way, this tax helps, and it shouldn't be deferred — in the NDP is this. This is how we create small business in the NDP: we take a big business, and we tax it to death so that it becomes a small business.

That's their economic philosophy. They were opposed in 2001 to a 25 percent income tax cut. They said: "Oh, you should never do that. You're taking the money out of the economy. The government needs the money. You're going to run a bigger deficit. This won't work. Tax cuts don't work."

They worked. But they don't want to believe that. They don't even want to discuss it, because they know where they're at with it.

Madam Chair, you know, the interesting thing about how these folks approach things is that they always want to play the sit-on-the-fence game. They were probably the people watching TV last night that had already sprained their ankles from jumping off the fence for the Vancouver Canucks the day before because the Canucks lost a game and then jumped back up on the fence onto the other side last night when they finally won. Because this is how they do business.

[1040]

The carbon tax, interestingly enough…. Here's a group that said: "Oh, we hate this tax. We're going to get rid of it, and boy, oh boy." Then all of a sudden — boom! — they changed their mind. Well, I can tell you they're not changing their mind on this. They want to keep taxes. That's what they want to do.

They want to keep taxing the public of British Columbia at a level until it becomes unsustainable, and then they'll look at themselves in the mirror one day and say: "What happened?" They'll be sitting way out in the rural area somewhere with no friends, saying: "You guys destroyed our economy for a second time."

Let's take a look at this. Let's take a look at the income of a person making $100,000 a year. In 2001 they paid $12,785. Today they pay $7,158. That's $5,000 more that they have in their pocket to make the choices they want to make every day.

As we go out from here, I'm happy because I've got a whole bunch of calls and opportunities to talk to my constituents this weekend to remind them that 7 percent plus 5 percent plus 7 percent is 19 percent, and that's the policy of the NDP. They don't want an input tax that actually puts money in the pockets of businesses so that they can create jobs. They don't want an input tax that helps the forest sector or the mining sector or the manufacturing sector or any sector of the economy.

Their belief is: "Let's keep the 7 percent tax because we're opposed to removing any tax. We want to keep it. We'll actually not talk about the HST. Oh boy, we'll keep it, because we're not taking a position on it. We're going to get up and rail about it, but we're not taking a position on it, because we're keeping it. But we're not telling anybody that. We're just going to use weasel words and not tell the public."

They're going to figure it out. When people start to understand that they're spending days and weeks of time just to stop the removal of a 7 percent sales tax…. As I described, it's one of the most inefficient and destructive taxes that you could possibly have when you're trying to compete with 130 countries around the world who have a value-added tax. I know it from a businessman's point of view; I know it from a person's point of view.

I know that a senior doesn't want to pay 7 percent more, doesn't want to pay 19 percent tax. I know my constituents don't want to pay 19 percent tax. And I know they want all of them to pay 19 percent tax, because they're opposed to this tax. They're trying to destroy the economy in one fell swoop by saying: "We will keep the HST and, by George, we're going to keep the PST too. But wink, wink, nod, nod, we won't actually make that a public policy until we get the opportunity to really mess up the economy of British Columbia once again."

B. Routley: It's indeed a privilege to rise in this House. I find it interesting listening to the debate. The Minister of Housing and Social Development seems to be a little discouraged this morning. Maybe I can help him out. We're always here to help.

Just to clarify this matter, what we're all about is…. You know, he's right about one thing. We want to keep the PST, because we want the Liberals to come over here and join us to defeat the HST. That's what we want you to do, vote against the HST. Then we'll be on the same team. So your math is wrong. There's nothing about 19 percent.

I rise to fully support this motion to refer or forward this to the Select Standing Committee on Finance. I've been on that group, and it's really quite enjoyable. There are times when some of the members on the other side actually listen to what we have to say, and we can actually agree on
[ Page 4701 ]
some things. That's where that happens. It doesn't seem to happen in here, so maybe there would be an opportunity to do something that's missing.

One of the things that's missing is their plan. They have no idea. I'm sure they've never even thought about it. Connecting what they plan to do, have this big corporate giveaway and connecting that to investment…. There is no plan. My theme this morning is going to be about investment and the fact that this Liberal plan is wrong. It's missing, and they obviously haven't looked at the facts.

[1045]

The reality is, in listening to the Liberal speeches, that we hear the same old tired and failed trickle-down economics. It's the same kind of philosophy that has failed North American business. We've had a crash because people believed in all of these economists and all these modern-day witch doctors, that somehow if you just give enough money away to the big corporations, they're going to take care of us.

You know, hon. Speaker, it's not missed by the general public that this plan is to give $1.9 billion — from consumers. They're going to give it over to their corporate pals. These are the same corporate pals who invest heavily in this Liberal Party. That's the truth. Now it's payback time, and so here we go again. We've seen this movie before.

This government. Since 2001 it's been the same thing over and over and over again. It is the idea that you just give enough money away to the big corporations and it's all going to work out somehow. It just doesn't work out. This government's corporate taxes haven't worked, and I'm going to get to the details on that in a minute.

The other side of the House simply needs to listen to the truth of this miserable failure that has occurred from 2001 to the current day — the idea that giving money to corporations is going to work. You'll see from the details in a minute that it has been an absolute failure.

Why would you keep doing something over and over again when you look at the record and at the facts and when you hear from chartered accountants, when you hear reports from businessmen that it's failed? Why would you keep doing it the same old way? Well, the only conclusion I can come to is that there is somebody with their hands in these fellas' pockets at the end of the day. Just like the bank commercial, the hands in your pockets — we know who's got their hands in the pockets of our friends on the other side. I use that term loosely sometimes.

For a decade now we've been told over and over that these corporate taxes are going to stimulate the economy and stimulate investment and create jobs. This government has steadfastly maintained that if you simply reduce corporate taxes, companies are going to respond by performing in the interests of all British Columbians.

The multinational corporations are such kind and benevolent souls, say these Liberals, that the corporate CEOs have almost nothing else to do but sit around and wait for these Liberals to give them another tax break so that they can don their investment Superman suits and run about the province handing out wise and wonderful things that are going to create jobs and investment.

That's the line, over and over: investment is going to flow. That's what we were told in 2001. That's what we were told with the softwood lumber deal. We've been told over and over, and it has failed miserably. It's not working. I want to say, "Hello, it is not working," to the other side there.

Under this government the sweeping tax cuts since 2001…. I want to harken back to the very early days. In 2001, they made these bold statements that British Columbia is once again going to be the destination province where people and business want to move and invest. There's that word again. The reason we need to go to the committee and talk about these things is that investment isn't working.

When you look at this, when you look at the facts, when we have a chance to sit in committee in the calmer reflection of those rooms and talk about these things, they may understand. But right now, they don't seem to be getting it, just like the minister who had it all wrong, who thought we were thinking about a 19 percent tax.

If you can imagine how silly that is — that they would actually think that anybody on this side was thinking about that. That is just silly, but it was good humour and good entertainment. You know, for entertainment value, I'm sure the folks at home enjoy that. Yeah.

[1050]

The last line, this last year, was when they came in with their unwelcomed, off-the-radar plan to harmonize the B.C. sales tax with the federal goods and services tax. I would remind you that this HST simply shifts $1.9 billion, to start with, away from multinational corporations and other companies, big business, onto the backs of average families, seniors and even the poor.

Yet again they say that this is an essential step that's going to keep business competitive and bring investment — the same speech. It's like a mantra of some sort. It's like a fairy godfather approach for them. They see these corporations as some kind of fairy godfather. Somehow if we just smother all these corporations with enough cash, why, out will come jobs and investment.

Unfortunately, they refuse to look at the facts, and I really wonder what's in the Kool-Aid. They're absolutely giddy with the prospect, some of them. I've listened to the speeches over there, and they get excited about it. I'm amazed. They actually get excited about the whole thing, and they believe it's going to be Christmas in July when the HST comes in. My goodness, it's going to be absolutely Christmas in July. They seem so sure that it's going to be almost free.

You hear speaker after speaker from the other side. My goodness, when you take all these cascading taxes
[ Page 4702 ]
and hidden tax and all that out of the system, it is going to be almost free, except for the poor people of British Columbia that are going to get hammered with $1.9 billion this year and the next year and then more and more tax after that. And this is a government that claims they don't tax. They're going to be taxing just about everything.

You know, I'm a bit confused and concerned. The member from Peace River…. I picked up a newspaper from the north. I really had to pause when I read this one because the statement was made that one of the biggest problems they've got…. He says that he totally understands that a lot of people were caught off guard. Well, that's an absolutely truthful statement. He says that one of the biggest problems is getting the information out, and I certainly agree with that statement as well.

But this is why we need to refer to the committee and have these conversations, because there seems to be a real disconnect in the information. It's no wonder people get confused when they read things like this.

I just have to read this part here where the Peace River MLA says: "I ran my own numbers. I don't deprive myself of virtually anything. I go to restaurants. I have golf and curling memberships, and all that kind of stuff that HST will be paid for on that." He says he ran his own numbers, and it's somewhere between $600 and $800 per year that it's going to cost him extra.

Well, you know, we heard the other side criticize for numbers that didn't fit on the government's website. Well, if you go on the government's website, they don't have a list of all of the items. You can't find information on all the things that are going to be taxed and how much it's going to cost you for a cup of coffee or going to a movie or…. They don't have a tax calculator in HST. You can't go on a website and say: "Well, you know, if we plug in what I like to do, here's the actual cost." You're simply not going to find it there.

I want to get on with the issue of investment. You know, this harmful tax that they say is going to create jobs through investment…. And that's the claim. It's been nearly ten years. It seems fair now for us to re-evaluate that often-repeated claim — repeated since day one, essentially. We've seen significantly higher levels, during the 1990s, of investment. Those are the facts.

Unfortunately, most of us in the province don't understand, or certainly, the other side hasn't looked at what's happened with investment. There's very little evidence of jobs or investment. In fact, after all these tax cuts, what's actually occurred is that productivity has bled away from the province.

[1055]

Despite promises to the contrary, this government's tax cuts have not delivered any kind of increase in investment. Let's talk about some of the validators for that, right here in the December 2008 report that the Centre for the Study of Living Standards prepared for the Progress Board. It's interesting.

They say: "In British Columbia investment intensity in structures averaged 6.7 percent between 2001 and 2007, which is down from 10.4 percent between 1961 and 1989. Similarly, investment intensity in machinery and equipment averaged 6.2 percent, down from 7.6 percent. These figures are the strongest evidence that B.C. has a long-term investment problem."

Here you have the experts that are relied on by the Premier of the province of British Columbia saying that we have a long-term investment problem.

Then let's look at the 2009 chartered accountants report. They give kind of an update on things, and under the category of investment they say: "The B.C. investment climate continues to see lacklustre results."

You know, we had the Premier on TV talking about giving 40 percent tax cut reductions for corporate tax since he came to power, and this is the result? Clearly, it's not working. It's a failed policy. They need to turn around and go another way. There needs to be connectivity to investment. There needs to be a challenge go out.

Certainly, you don't just give a bunch of cash away to the big corporations without using any of the tools or levers of government to ensure that every dollar of what is the public's money, until they give it away, is levered and that there's a tie-in to investment. But oh no, there's no plan to do that. They have no idea about tying that in.

So maybe, in referring this to the Finance Committee, we can at least try to talk some sense into those that will listen. I know it's a long shot indeed, but I think we're willing to give it a try. That's why we have this motion here.

Global realities no longer support the ever-fickle trickle-down economic theory. We know hundreds of thousands of jobs have left B.C. and North America, and they are not coming back.

You know, there's an interesting report on what's happening with corporations leaving the province of British Columbia and leaving Canada. Kim Pollock, a researcher, said in November 2009: "Recently Canadian corporations have massively increased their foreign investments, but domestic investment is being neglected. From 1990 to 2007, Canadian capital invested" — so corporations — "abroad nearly doubled." So the amount that they were investing overseas nearly doubled in that period of time, from 1990 to 2007, while investment in Canada has declined.

"Canadian firms are investing especially heavily in China. Canadian direct investment there rose from next to nothing in 1990 to…2006.

"Another place Canadian capital is flowing to is the so-called tax haven countries with little or no corporate or personal income taxes, designed to shelter profits from Canadian tax laws." If we were in committee, I'd be able to explain that there are companies right here in British
[ Page 4703 ]
Columbia. Brookfield has their Island Timberlands operation. I was shocked and horrified when I read that they had structured themselves so that they had their assets held in Bermuda.

[1100]

A forest company right here on Vancouver Island with their assets in Bermuda, and you do have to wonder: is that what we want? Is that what this government says is good corporate citizenry, investing in jobs in British Columbia? And we can trust them?

I encourage the members on the other side to go look. Don't take my word for it. Go look at the evidence. The largest growth of Canadian direct investments was in Barbados, Ireland, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, the Bahamas, which are now among the 11 places where Canadians hold the most assets. Isn't that frightening? The myth, the idea that we should just give all the cash to the big corporations and that it's all going to work out for the best for British Columbians…. It's absolutely frightening.

I think about my children and grandchildren living in a province where we've got a government today abandoning the consumers, the people of British Columbia, in favour of big corporations, who are running off all over the world and investing. It is just scandalous.

The outflow of investment certainly hasn't slowed down in the bad times either. Canadian direct investment abroad rose 24 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008 alone, the biggest jump in Canadian direct investment abroad since 1981.

But one place Canadian companies aren't spending is in Canada. Those are the reports we're reading — chartered accountants, here in British Columbia — and that's after almost a decade of giving big corporate tax cuts with no strings attached, no requirement to investment. No thought went into actually connecting the dots to investment, and it is shameful.

So you have to ask: have Canadian corporations given up on Canada, or is it their race to the bottom? Is it the race to the bottom? Are they simply looking at where they can take advantage of compliant governments, oversee where they have low environmental standards, low labour cost, almost non-existent standards? Yet we're supposed to give up our standards and race to the bottom? Not on your life. Not on my watch. Our side of the House cares about British Columbia too much to give up on the province of British Columbia.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I'd just like to remind you we are discussing the motion on Bill 9, on the HST.

B. Routley: Thank you, hon. Speaker. On the motion to refer…. We're reflecting broadly, I know, on all of these notions, but I think it's worthwhile expanding on why…. I'm not arguing, hon. Speaker. I completely agree.

I'm here today to speak in favour of the motion to refer this and forward it to the select standing committee and give some of the reasons, the background. We're fortunate to have some members from the other side of the House who are on the Finance Committee, and I'm sure they're listening attentively and maybe making notes, I would hope. They've got their pens out. That's a good sign.

The global realities no longer support what's going on. I want to talk a minute about here in British Columbia. From 2001 to 2007 investment intensity in B.C. averaged 12.9 percent of GDP, 1.5 percent below the hardly stellar Canadian average. We trailed Canada through the past decade in investment intensity in both buildings and, more importantly, in machinery and equipment. Productivity and investment do matter, because they drive job creation.

In addition, in a recession it is critical not to undermine consumer spending, and we need to be going to the select standing committee and talking about these things. Now we're going to have consumers who are already getting squeezed, squeezed again. You can't keep going to the well, the poor consumers, over and over again. This government has decided to transfer this tax right from the corporations onto consumers.

[1105]

Is the idea…? I don't know. They talk about bottom-rung labour costs. Maybe if we had bottom-rung labour costs or gave the multinational corporations everything they wanted in environmental standards — reduce those too…. You don't have to go very far. You just go overseas, and you'll see what's happening.

When I'm referring this to the select standing committee, I would want to be connecting the dots for them on this plan, on how they are wrong to be giving up corporate tax dollars and allowing them to, with no rules whatsoever — no levers, no tools to connect that back to British Columbia…. When you look at all the evidence, it's startling. It's discouraging. Really, I find it quite alarming.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Surely a sober second thought of sitting down in the select standing committee and reviewing all these things with the idea that we could bring people from outside would be a worthwhile project. I think it's a very wise notion indeed, and I fully support the motion that we refer this to the select standing committee.

What would be wrong with that? Yet speaker after speaker from the other side gets up and absolutely rejects a notion of a sober second look and actually listening to some of the things that this side of the House has to say. Clearly, we have some ideas and some concerns that are of provincial scope, national, international. If I had the confidence that their plan really worked, I would be taking a sober second look, but I have no confidence.
[ Page 4704 ]

I have every comfort in standing in this House and saying that when you look at the record over and over again, giving this money away has failed, and the reports are there. They're on record. You just have to google anything on the Internet about investment in British Columbia, and the public can find out for themselves that it's been a miserable failure. That's what people need to know is going on in this province.

I want to make it clear, because I don't want anybody taking the wrong idea from some of the things I say. I am not against corporations. I want to be clear and balanced about this and say that I know there are some absolutely upstanding big businesses and corporations here in B.C. They are both necessary and needed in a modern economy.

The difference is that the other side just doesn't get it, just like what happened in the States when they failed to have the right regulations. They didn't have the kind of regulations like they had in Canada. It's an absolute disaster. The tax cuts are not working.

The evidence is clear. You just need to look at the ever-growing and runaway trade imbalance. They're not happy about the trade imbalance problem. They should be very concerned about the trade imbalance. But no, we're going to give big tax breaks to their corporate pals all wrapped up in the HST bow. They had no idea. It's again a failed policy bent on total capitulation to big banks, big multinational corporate interests. Here we go again.

We have a recent example, another recent example, that I would want to talk about if we went down in the committee. I would want, in a reflective moment, to say, "Let's have a look at what this government has been doing" — you know, connecting the corporations back to the economy.

That recent example is the total giveaway…. It's not just me saying this. Our B.C. Auditor General that pointed out that giving corporations, in the case of Western Forest Products, all that land giveaway…. That deal cost communities and family-supporting jobs.

[1110]

It was in total favour of the real estate interests of big corporations, and the B.C. Auditor General was very critical of the lack of concern of public interests in that lopsided giveaway deal. Again, it's about talking…. Are we talking about the public interest, or are we talking about corporate interest? That's what it's to do. That's about how we go back to the select standing committee, and I would want to argue that we need to act in the public interest, not in the interest of only the big corporations.

Now we learn too…. We had the Finance Minister stand in this House and say that originally it was going to be a straight transfer. We were going to pick the pockets of ordinary British Columbians, give it all the cash, run down with the wheelbarrow-loads to the big corporate bosses. They were going to produce jobs. It was the perfect plan.

But at the end of the day, now they admit that there's a $113 million hole in the provincial budget. We're going to actually lose money on this deal now too. Thank you for mentioning that. I've done a lot of bargaining over my life, and it's never been a good idea to go in and bargain to give things away, to end up with $113 million short for the people of British Columbia while you're giving truckloads of cash away to the big corporations. It is absolutely scandalous. It's another gold-plated giveaway to the corporate tax friends.

Let's talk about what this does to consumers. We're going to tax the common folks. Anger in British Columbia is rising everywhere. That's another reason why this motion makes so much sense. Go back to the select standing committee. The other side should be standing on their feet and saying, "We're there for taking this to the select standing committee," but unfortunately, it's not to be. Some 82 percent don't want this HST. They do not want the HST.

You know, we heard about jobs just a second ago. I want to remind the folks in this House that there's a list here of 71 mills that have closed in the province of British Columbia, and there's the investment. Anybody that cares to walk over, I can share it with you — companies like Interfor shutting down mills in British Columbia and running off to Washington and Oregon.

That's what happens when you give these big corporations in the forest industry big corporate tax cuts. They run off overseas. I was wondering how our logs are doing over in China. Maybe somebody from the other House could ask about that. It's a failed policy. It's not going to work. The people of British Columbia don't want the HST.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Chilliwack, speaking to the amendment.

J. Les: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, I will certainly be addressing the amendment in my remarks this morning. To be clear, I am going to oppose the amendment that the NDP opposition has presented which would be to defer the matter and refer it to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. It's somewhat flattering, I suspect, because as members of the House will know, the previous speaker and I serve on that committee. If the opposition is suggesting that they have confidence in us to take another look at it, that's great.

Except, Madam Speaker, the select standing committee sat last year. I chaired the committee at that time. The member for Cowichan Valley was on the committee as well, and we consulted broadly with British Columbians on all manner of different taxation and finance items, including the HST.

Many British Columbians came to us with ideas on a full range of issues, such as post-secondary education, K-to-12 education, health services, arts funding, sports
[ Page 4705 ]
programs, early intervention services, agriculture, mining, forestry and, yes, the HST, in addition to the property transfer tax and a whole range of other ideas that British Columbians had. I don't know whether the members opposite have forgotten that we've already had that consultation.

[1115]

The members opposite will also recall that the majority of the committee actually made eight recommendations to mitigate the impact of the HST, some of which have already been noted by the Finance Minister and are being put into effect.

I guess my answer in brief to the referral motion would be: been there; done that. But I suspect the real motive behind the opposition's motion is simply to delay. As the earlier speaker this morning from Fort Langley–Aldergrove suggested, maybe they really just want to add the HST on top of the PST. As we know here in British Columbia, it is actually the B.C. Liberal government that has a consistent record of tax relief, and it is the opposition that always bemoans tax relief and wants additional taxes. I'll return to that theme later on.

Just to remind members opposite. When we consulted last year through the Finance Committee and as we toured the province…. I just want to read into the record a few of the contributions that were made.

This one, for example, is from John Winter, who is with the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, representing small business across the province. He says this:

"The opposition to HST must answer the question: if we do not harmonize, how do we expect our resource industries, our technology sectors and our manufacturing industries to compete in the global marketplace — or in the Canadian marketplace, for that matter — let alone attract investment?"

He's clearly talking about keeping businesses competitive so that they can continue to not only maintain jobs but create new jobs.

We heard this from Pierre Gratton from the Mining Association of B.C. He said: "We estimate the HST is going to reduce operating costs for most mines anywhere between half a million dollars and $1½ million a year. It should reduce the cost of opening a new mine by some $10 million."

Now, the member who spoke before me will say, of course, that money goes directly into the corporate pockets, none of it ever to be seen again by everyday working British Columbians. Of course that simply is untrue. When those mines are enabled to open….

Interjection.

J. Les: There's actually a new mine opening near the riding of Fraser-Nicola. The member from Merritt is, I'm sure, very pleased to see that happening. But when tax relief goes to the corporate sector, they're going to do better. They're going to employ more people in good, high-paying jobs.

I should remind the member for Fraser-Nicola that the average wage in the mining sector is $108,000 a year. Those are pretty good salaries, and if we can create more of those in Fraser-Nicola and in other ridings around the province, I am sure British Columbians will be very pleased to see those kinds of jobs.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Fraser-Nicola, the member for Chilliwack has the floor.

J. Les: I don't mind if the member for Fraser-Nicola wants to chirp a little bit. He actually just gets my juices going.

The forest industry. The member for Cowichan Valley talks a lot about the forest industry. That's no surprise. That's where his background is. We all know that the forest sector has been through great difficulty over the last number of years, given the state of the home-building industry in North America.

It's just now starting to come back. You know, once in a while now you'll hear about a mill reopening. That trend, I expect, will continue. Lumber prices are going up, so the mills that have had to close over the last several years will start to reopen.

Here we had a comment from Rick Jeffery with the Coast Forest Products Association. He said: "The HST will prove to be perhaps the most critical tax policy… the government could introduce to assist the forest industry in recovery in the short term and to ensure that it remains competitive for the long term." Those are important words, I think.

If the forest industry can't be competitive, it can't employ people. It can't reopen those mills. That is a reality that the opposition seems to want to ignore.

[1120]

We heard from Craig Williams with the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association. He said: "The recently announced HST in British Columbia is a welcome announcement to the manufacturing sector. This is probably the most significant tax move the government could make to improve industry competitiveness and to attract capital investment to the province. Further, it simplifies compliance, and would allow B.C. business to focus on productivity and markets, not tax compliance."

Tim McEwan from Prince George is with a group there called Initiatives Prince George, very heavily involved in on-the-ground economic development. He said:

"The HST is a competitive game changer for the northern export-oriented resource and manufacturing economy. To our organization, taking any steps which improve the competitive underpinnings of our export-oriented resource economy is sound public policy, and it will make an on-the-ground difference in our resource-based economy."

We also heard from Serge Corbeil from the Insurance Bureau of Canada, and he said: "The recent government
[ Page 4706 ]
announcement of its plan to harmonize the B.C. sales tax with the federal GST will considerably improve B.C.'s standing in terms of tax competitiveness. The property-and-casualty insurance industry welcomes this decision as good for the economy." We had several other supportive comments like that.

There was a lot of consultation on the HST in last year's public hearings conducted by the Finance Committee, and yes, there is no question that we heard some concern as well — for example, from the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, from the Council of Tourism Associations. Although given the dramatic success that was the Olympics, I am sure that the tourism industry has really refocused itself on harnessing that energy and driving the future growth of the tourism industry.

We also had concerns expressed by the real estate industry through Robert Laing from the B.C. Real Estate Association. As I said earlier, one of our recommendations, actually, specifically went to some of the concerns that they had expressed.

As I said, we had a good round of hearings last year. We've had that consultation. Certainly, the discussion around the HST was very much in the public domain last fall in September, October and November, when the committee was conducting its hearings.

Interestingly, and I can't help but refer to this as well, one of the other matters that we heard about considerably was the property transfer tax. Sometimes it's referred to by folks as the Vander Zalm tax. It was introduced in 1987 with absolutely no public consultation. I remember it well. I think it was the 1987 budget. Suddenly we in British Columbia had a property transfer tax, which is paid whenever anybody buys a home, and not just new homes. The HST, you will recall, Madam Speaker, applies only to new homes.

The property purchase tax, on the other hand, applies to a property every time it changes hands. This tax, over the years, has probably generated some $15 billion or $20 billion worth of revenue for the provincial government, which I guess, on the one hand, is all to the good, but it is a tax on home ownership.

If I had my druthers, it is one tax that I would rather not see in the mix. However, people today calling for the elimination of that tax of course also realize that it is now a significant chunk of provincial government revenue, and in current circumstances, it is something that simply cannot be done away with.

But just to make a note here, although Mr. Vander Zalm today is heavily involved in his populist campaign to do away with the HST, he conveniently forgets that the property purchase tax, which he undemocratically brought in, in 1987, is a very damaging tax as well.

I would respond, first of all, to the motion that's on the floor by saying that that work has already been done. We've already had that consultation with British Columbians, and we had thousands of responses generally to the various questions that were asked of people as we went through last fall.

[1125]

As I sit here in the House and I listen to the debate from members opposite, and we've had a lot of debate now on the bill itself and now on this amendment, I'm sorry to say, I guess, that we've seen an awful lot more heat than light with respect to this bill. We've had gross overstatements by members opposite. We have had misrepresentation, generally in the public domain.

A few days ago the Finance Minister here in the House in question period expressed his concern about several websites, either directly related to the opposition or related to Mr. Vander Zalm's campaign, which had all kinds of misinformation included in them. To their credit, they then quickly removed all of that misinformation from their websites, but it certainly validated the Finance Minister's concern and assertion that there's an awful lot of misinformation that's being propagated out there.

If I didn't know better and I was listening to some of the members opposite spewing the misrepresentation that they have, I would become afraid and concerned as well. It's disappointing. I'd love to see a principled debate around some of these issues. Unfortunately, all we hear is misrepresentation, a lot of theatre, which is, frankly, quite unhelpful in allowing British Columbians to understand what this is all about.

I was never under any illusions, Madam Speaker, that this was going to be a difficult period of time, this tax shift. We know that the current provincial sales tax is, to a large degree, hidden. People are not aware that 40 percent of the provincial sales tax is actually hidden in the purchase price long before you ever get to the retail counter and that the other 60 percent, approximately, is actually paid at the retail counter.

So there's a great aspect here of tax upon tax upon tax. As the economists would refer to it, the current provincial sales tax is actually a cascading tax, which means that if you are buying an item that has several layers of provincial sales tax in it, you're paying much more than 7 percent provincial sales tax.

There are no cookie-cutter examples of any of these issues. Every issue is different. Every person in British Columbia experiences these issues somewhat differently. Going forward, once the HST is in place, it will affect each and everyone in British Columbia somewhat differently as well.

It is somewhat easier to demonstrate how the HST will apply in terms of what may go up slightly in price. It is much more difficult to describe how something will go down in price, whether slightly or, in some cases, perhaps somewhat more dramatically. It is more difficult to describe that.

Of course, people who have instinctively opposed this initiative really dine out on that and encourage the public
[ Page 4707 ]
to assume that there will be absolutely no savings at all and that it's all going to be cost. Yet when you talk to people who understand how an economy works, generally known as economists, I have yet to see one who disagrees that this is an intelligent tax, a tax that is good for the people of British Columbia.

Unanimously they have said this is good for the people of British Columbia, this is good for the economy, this is good for employees, and yes, this is also good for employers. When I say that they unanimously say this, it's right across the political spectrum — even the friends of the NDP, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. I'm sure….

Interjection.

J. Les: The member for Fraser-Nicola has a hearing problem. I'm talking about economists, people who understand how an economy works. The member for Fraser-Nicola and his friends have no idea how an economy works. The member for Fraser-Nicola and his opposition friends believe in a command and control economy. We on this side of the House believe in a free enterprise economy.

Anyway, I was about to point out that even the friends of the NDP, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, believe this is a good move for British Columbians.

[1130]

I'm sure that the member for Fraser-Nicola is familiar with Marc Lee, who is with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. He said this: "In principle, a harmonized sales tax is a good idea." Straight from the NDP's friends, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Well, how do you do? I wouldn't have dared thunk it.

Yesterday we heard from Jonathan Kesselman. He's a professor in economics at Simon Fraser University. I have no idea what his politics are, nor do I care. He is a distinguished economist, and he had a number of things to say in yesterday's report.

He says: "The HST is clearly superior to the province's existing retail sales tax in terms of administrative simplicity and the cost of compliance." He also says: "The government's proposed refundable tax credits ensure that low-income British Columbians will be shielded from any adverse impact on living costs associated with the introduction of the HST."

Members opposite would have you believe that low-income British Columbians in particular are going to suffer from this. They are not. They are well protected from any adverse potential impact of the implementation of the HST. Rents are not affected by this. Food purchases are not affected by this. Gasoline purchases are not affected by this. Home heating fuels are not affected by this.

Yet they continue to propagate this notion that somehow all of this is going to be affected, and people will be paying hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars more per year. That is simply not the case.

Again, I refer to this e-mail that's been going around, suggesting that an average senior couple earning $40,000 net per year will be paying an additional $2,100 in taxes after the implementation of the HST. Nothing could be further from the truth. For that assertion to be true, that couple would have to spend an additional $30,000 than they do now on items that are currently PST-exempt.

In other words, they'd have to go out and get an additional $30,000 worth of haircuts every year or something ridiculous like that. This particular e-mail that I've seen several times making its rounds is just absolutely ridiculous. It serves only to scare and to concern people and has absolutely no basis in fact.

I would find it encouraging if, for once, any one of the members opposite would stand up and acknowledge that that kind of misrepresentation is harmful. It's hurtful, it does nothing to advance the debate, and it really ought not to be propagated around the province. But no, they simply acknowledge it and say: "Oh yeah, well, you know, it's all part of the debate, and we're happy to have it out there sowing chaos and confusion around the province." Pretty unhelpful.

We're actually here, all of us — whether government or opposition — to serve the public. I know that we have our differences. It's fine for the NDP if they want to be opposed to the HST, but at least let's have a bit of principle enter into these debates.

I guess I have to come to the conclusion, ultimately, that the NDP really doesn't have any philosophical hangups about the HST. Why do I say that?

Well, look at their fellow party members in the province of Nova Scotia, where they are government. I point out that they are all members of the same party. They're all members of the federal NDP.

We have an NDP government in the province of Nova Scotia, and what has the NDP government in Nova Scotia done? They have not eliminated the HST. That's been in place now in Nova Scotia for 12 or 13 years. No, no, no, no. What have they done? They have actually raised the HST in Nova Scotia to 15 percent.

Interjections.

J. Les: It was the NDP that raised the HST to 15 percent.

Interjections.

J. Les: I said the NDP. Just to be clear, the NDP government in Nova Scotia has raised the HST to 15 percent. The HST, when it's implemented in the province of British Columbia, will be 12 percent — the lowest HST in the entire country right here in B.C.

[1135]
[ Page 4708 ]

That lowest HST in the entire country builds upon all of the tax relief that our government has put in place for the last ten years. We have had over 120 tax reductions in British Columbia over almost ten years now.

If you live in British Columbia, you pay fewer income taxes on the first $118,000 of your annual income than you do anywhere else in Canada. I guess I have to keep repeating that — I've mentioned that several times in my speeches — because obviously the members opposite will never help to propagate that kind of true and factual information, but it's the truth.

In British Columbia we have one of the most supportive tax regimes not only for small businesses but certainly for individuals as well. That $118,000 worth of income is not the big corporate sector that the member for Cowichan Valley was so concerned about. No, this is individuals.

Individual hard-working, tax-paying citizens of British Columbia pay fewer taxes here in British Columbia than they do in any other province in this country, Alberta included. I think it's important for British Columbians to remind themselves of that once in a while.

Do you think that a government that has been able to provide tax relief to that degree, to the point where we have the lowest tax regime in all of Canada, would bring in an HST simply to foul it all up? Not at all. We have taken the very best possible advice, and we continue to get advice that this is exactly the right thing to do at this point in our economic history. So I am completely in favour of this tax shift moving forward.

I again want to reassure you, Madam Speaker, that I'm speaking in opposition to the referral motion, because I think it's important that we get on with it and provide this benefit to the overall economy, which then will provide the economic benefits directly and indirectly to British Columbians.

When I say "directly," part of this entire construct of the HST will include an HST tax credit of $230 to low-income-earning British Columbians, which will more than offset any potential impact they might see from the harmonization of the retail sales tax with the goods and services tax.

There are a lot of costs that will be avoided on an ongoing basis when the HST is implemented. First of all, there is the existing provincial sales tax collection bureaucracy that will no longer be necessary. That will save British Columbia taxpayers $30 million per year each and every year. If you want to extrapolate that out over ten years, that's $300 million that British Columbia taxpayers will be saving over the next decade simply because we will no longer require that PST collection administration.

Also, the B.C. government will save another $50 million per year that it currently pays to businesses as partial compensation for collecting their retail sales tax. That's another saving for the taxpayers of British Columbia — $50 million per year. If you want to extrapolate that out over the next decade, that's another half a billion dollars that B.C. taxpayers will be saving as a result of the implementation of the HST.

Within businesses there's a tremendous infrastructure in place as well, of course, in terms of collecting the provincial sales tax. That will also no longer be necessary, and that will save these businesses — many of them, the vast majority of them, are small businesses — an estimated $150 million a year in compliance costs.

[1140]

When you add these things up, if you want to take that over the next decade, that's 1.5 billion. I previously talked about the sums that are paid to businesses to collect the tax, another half a billion over ten years. That's $2 billion and then the $300 million over ten years for the bureaucracy.

We're now talking $2.3 billion in avoided costs over the next ten years. That cannot help but reduce the tax burden, the fiscal burden, on the backs of the taxpayers of British Columbia. I think that's pretty important information — but of course, studiously ignored by the members opposite.

I've already talked about the fact that many aspects of the current provincial sales tax are actually very much hidden. About 40 percent of the provincial sales tax is actually embedded in items and not paid for at the retail counter. When people pay provincial sales tax at the retail counter, they're actually only contributing 60 percent of all of the provincial sales taxes that are collected in the province of British Columbia.

Professor Kesselman at SFU comes to a number of conclusions, and one of them is simply this: "The HST will be a major stimulus to business investment in forthcoming years and raise both employment and earnings growth. In fact, provincial sales tax harmonization was ranked by a panel of non-partisan experts as foremost among potential policy initiatives to improve the Canadian economy's long-run performance."

I think that is important advice, and it follows on the heels, as I said, of many other economists who have spoken and given us their thoughts, those on the left as well as on the right.

I see that my time is almost at an end. I want to again underline the fact that although I know this is a difficult discussion with British Columbians, which is no surprise, I am fully convinced that at the end of the day when this tax is implemented, it will operate to benefit all British Columbians.

It'll benefit their workplaces. It'll benefit their employers. But most importantly, it will benefit individual British Columbians by giving them more employment opportunities. It allows all of the tax relief that we have put in place over the last ten years in British Columbia to remain in place to ensure that not only will British Columbians have more jobs to choose from, but when
[ Page 4709 ]
they go to work they'll be able to keep more of their hard-earned money in their pockets than any other Canadians.

With that, Madam Speaker, I will conclude my remarks and hope that we can move through this motion quickly and back to the main motion and work towards the implementation of this legislation.

J. Brar: I certainly stand to support the motion presented by my colleagues just a few days ago to send Bill 9 to the committee.

There are a lot of compelling reasons to send this motion to the committee. Just to start with, during the last election this government made two key promises with the people of British Columbia. The first one was that the deficit will be $495 million and not a penny more.

The second promise this government made with the people of British Columbia was that they had no plans to implement the HST. Not only did they make that promise, they gave that in writing to the B.C. restaurant industry as well as to the B.C. housing industry. That was given in writing — that this government did not have any plans to introduce the HST.

But what we found later on is that after just three days, the government officials of British Columbia were talking to the federal government about implementing the HST. Just three days after the election. Also, we found that later on, about six weeks after the election, the government actually made the announcement to implement the HST.

[1145]

There are huge questions about this because there was no consultation — not at all — done with the people of British Columbia, as the member who spoke before me just said a few minutes ago. That's absolutely not true.

The people of British Columbia were actually kept in the dark during the election, and after the election they found something totally different. That's why it's very important that we refer this very important matter to the people of British Columbia, to the committee, because in committee a lot of those things which usually happen….

When we develop a new public policy, it is very important for all British Columbians that they have the opportunity to contribute and provide meaningful contributions and feedback to us. Of course, the committee will give us that opportunity where people can come and give their perspectives.

I have received and almost every member from both sides has received tons of e-mails, and wherever I go people question about the HST. So we have received tons of e-mails from all walks of life when we have talked about the HST because people are very, very concerned that with the introduction of the HST, it will drive up the cost of many things. The list is very long. When we talk about costs going up, we talk about haircuts; we talk about movie tickets; we talk about restaurant meals. The list is huge when we talk about costs going up.

Similarly, for example, new housing cost is going to go up significantly when we talk about introducing the HST. The list is long. There are a lot of businesses. I hear from the other side, from the members, that the business community supports this tax, but there are a number of different businesses who are absolutely in opposition to the introduction of the HST.

For example, the B.C. restaurant industry has been very vocal about this. Not only that, they have said that the HST will actually, at the end of the day, lose thousands of jobs for the restaurant industry.

Similarly, thousands of jobs, they have said time and again….

Interjection.

J. Brar: The member sitting there says no, but go and talk to the restaurant industry. That's what they're saying. The cost of a meal is going to go up with this, and this is a huge cost to the B.C. economy.

Similarly, you talk to the taxi industry. They are not happy with it, because the cost of a taxi drive is going to go up. You talk about many other businesses. They're all opposed to it. Therefore, it's very, very important for us that we give the people of British Columbia an opportunity so that they can provide meaningful information, because they were kept in the dark.

They were kept in the dark before the election when this government said that they had no plan to implement, to impose HST. They were kept in the dark so that people did not have the opportunity to provide any feedback, to ask any questions to politicians from both sides, because that was the position before the election.

But after the election, the government did actually implement the HST. So people feel betrayed. The people of British Columbia feel that they have been betrayed by this government, and that's why I fully support that we must refer this very important matter to the committee so that the people of British Columbia have a say and have a chance to provide very meaningful input in this process.

The committee, as you know, has various responsibilities. They can go out and actually talk to the people of British Columbia, talk to the business community, the restaurant industry, homebuilders, taxi owners, the trucking industry, many businesses and, similarly, talk to many other sectors in this society. That's why I fully support that we need to refer this matter to the legislative committee.

The other part I want to talk about is that we received and members from the other side have received tons of e-mails from various sports associations.

[1150]

They are saying that once you implement the HST, the cost to the membership is going to go up. Various — particularly minor hockey — associations have sent
[ Page 4710 ]
e-mails after e-mails after e-mails saying that because of the HST, they have information from the city government that the cost of the ice is going to go up, and they have to pay more.

Just from the top of my head, I know that the Abbotsford Minor Hockey Association has sent a letter to the minister with a copy to us, saying that the cost for them is going to go up significantly because of the HST. I have heard the same complaints and concerns from minor hockey in almost every part of the province.

You're talking about the minor hockey association of Surrey, minor hockey association of Vancouver and every part of the province. Their cost will go up, and they have to pass that cost to the people of British Columbia.

On one side we hear that we encourage young people to take part in sports. On the other side we are making it very difficult, very hard for them to participate in sports because it is going to cost them more because of HST.

Interjection.

J. Brar: No, that's not true. The member is saying.…

Interjection.

J. Brar: The member is saying that that may not be true. Go and talk to the Abbotsford Minor Hockey Association, which is just next door to the member for Chilliwack. It's just next door. Go and talk to even the Victoria Minor Hockey Association. They are saying the same thing.

You talk about B.C. School Sports. They have on their Internet that because of funding cuts and the HST, this is going to make it very costly for the young people of British Columbia to take part in sport. That's what they're saying. If you don't believe them, you go and talk to them.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

That's why it's very important that we refer this matter to the committee, because….

Interjections.

J. Brar: You don't agree with us. We are saying that this is what we hear from the people of British Columbia. If you are saying that's wrong, that gives us a good reason to refer this matter to the committee, because then that will give you the opportunity to go to Abbotsford, go to Victoria, go to Surrey, go to Vancouver, go to every part of the province to talk to the people of British Columbia about the reality of HST. That will give you the opportunity.

That's why the motion presented by my fellow member is very, very important, very meaningful. It will give us the opportunity to go out and talk to the people of British Columbia and find out the reality about this tax.

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

J. Brar moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, 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 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

estimates: ministry of
transportation and infrastructure

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 10:10 a.m.

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

The Chair: We are currently looking at the budget estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

H. Bains: For the benefit of everyone who is around here, I've got a few areas to ask some questions on. We want to talk about the Port Mann/Highway 1 expansion at the beginning. Then we want to move to B.C. Transit and B.C. Rail. If we have time, then we want to talk about the William Bennett Bridge as well, and some of those issues.

I have numerous questions on this huge project, but obviously, we won't be able to go through them because I'm told that we must finish it by noon today. If it's okay with the minister, I will write questions, those questions that we couldn't ask today or that she couldn't answer. Hopefully, then, we will get a reply faster than last time.
[ Page 4711 ]

I will start by asking the minister: can the minister confirm that the expected cost of the Port Mann bridge and Highway 1 expansion is still $2.4 billion?

Hon. S. Bond: The contract is for $2.46 billion.

H. Bains: My understanding, looking through the budgetary items, is that there is $800 million for operating financing, for a total of $3.4 billion. Can the minister confirm if that's the case?

Hon. S. Bond: The actual number is $3.3 billion, and in fact, it includes interest that is carried during construction. All projects are managed that way, and that interest is carried in the same manner. It's not a direct cost, but it is interest during construction.

H. Bains: Can the minister confirm if the project is on schedule? What is the completion date?

Hon. S. Bond: We're delighted to tell the member opposite that not only is the project on budget, but in fact we fully anticipate that the bridge will open near the end of 2012, which is virtually a full year ahead of schedule.

[1015]

H. Bains: On February 27, 2009 there was a press release by the province saying that they have engaged Macquarie Group to provide advisory services, including on financing and tolling operations. Can the minister tell the House: what is Macquarie Group's engagement in this project?

Hon. S. Bond: We have an arrangement where we would retain the company. There is a zero cost at this point because we're not using them at this moment in time. Their expertise is in tolling technology. Obviously, at some point when we get closer to using that tolling technology, there may well be a need to use this company, but currently we simply have an arrangement that is a retainer. We're not using them at the moment.

H. Bains: I accept the answer from the minister that the Macquarie Group is not being, at this present time…. But when the province starts to engage them in tolling or providing those services…. Can the minister say what the anticipated times are for the Macquarie Group to get on board and where TI will start to pay them or the province will pay them?

Hon. S. Bond: To reiterate to the member opposite, there currently is no payment. We're not utilizing them, and it may well be that we don't utilize them at all. However, they are experts in tolling technology, and should that be required, obviously, we would work through a process to ensure we got their advice. But at this point there are no fees, and in fact, they're not being utilized.

H. Bains: As far as tolling is concerned, the previous minister made the announcement that the government policy on tolling is that any time they would institute tolling on a bridge or road, there has to be a free alternative for motorists to use.

At that particular time when the announcement was made, Pattullo Bridge was used as a free alternative by the minister — he specifically named Pattullo Bridge. So I ask the minister. Now TransLink has made the announcement that the Pattullo Bridge, the new Pattullo Bridge, will be tolled, so that option is already gone as far as the free alternative.

Can the minister…? Realistically, I'm talking about the motorists trying to cross from one end to another around the Port Mann Bridge. Is it realistic for them to go to the Alex Fraser and come back? That cannot be used as a free alternative. Can the minister explain how that policy got changed, and what is she going to do as far as keeping up that promise?

[1020]

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, I want to make sure that we correct the member opposite's comments on the record. The tolling policy of this province has not changed, and in fact, that's why we're looking at a realignment of the network as well.

We're talking about options that include a brand-new South Fraser perimeter road. TransLink is also looking at a North Fraser perimeter road, so we do expect there to be a free alternative. In fact, the time that the travelling public will have to take will be shortened significantly because they'll be able to use the South Fraser perimeter road to connect to the Alex Fraser.

You know, let's be clear. There will be a free alternative to the tolled Port Mann. We also need to recognize that TransLink is in the very early stages of discussion around the Pattullo, and there's not an imminent replacement of the Pattullo Bridge. We will certainly be working with TransLink as they contemplate any changes or a new bridge at some point in the future. But there will continue to be an alternative route for those who would choose to take it.

H. Bains: I think, you know, that if people who live in that area right now are listening to the minister's answers, they will be flabbergasted. To use the South Fraser perimeter road as a free alternative is not an option. We are talking about crossing the bridge, crossing the river. The South Fraser perimeter road takes you to the Deltaport. Along the way the only bridge that is available for the motorist to cross is the Alex Fraser Bridge, or the tunnel.

Can you imagine? The minister says that that is a free alternative. Somebody lives on the south side of Port Mann Bridge and needs to just cross over to go to work or go to the office, and now they have to travel seven, eight miles one way and then cross the Alex Fraser Bridge and come back.
[ Page 4712 ]

That's not a real alternative when you consider the gas it will require to use, you know, to make that extra driving that they need to do. That is not a free alternative. Anyway, that's your answer. People have got that answer. That's fine. I'm going to move on because of the time frame. We need to pursue that a little more.

I have some issues about the Port Mann Bridge and the Highway 1 expansion itself. As the minister knows full well, at the time when the contract was awarded, construction rates were at their height, and therefore, the contractor bid, based on those prices. Now the construction prices, as the economy is sliding, have come down.

[1025]

The province and B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association have agreed upon truckers' rates and heavy equipment rates to be used for government projects. I'm advised by Teamsters 213 and their drivers, their members, that the blue book rates talk about, for a combination tandem and pup trailer $125.85 per hour, and for the standard SA tandem they are $90.50, or $93.45 if it's a 15-cubic-yard truck.

They are worried that they are paid no more than $65 an hour for the SA tandem and that the others are only getting $81. What happens is that the safety of those trucks will go. That's the issue that we talked about yesterday to a great extent.

The truckers are really worried. Their union is worried that when the contractor was awarded the contract at that high rate, they must have considered these blue book rates. The blue book rates talk about the rates that I just mentioned, and they are not paying those rates. They are just in a position to take a windfall profit out of the pockets of the truckers, and our roads are not safe anymore because those truckers cannot perform the work that they need to, as far as the work is concerned.

I've got some calculations done here by those truckers — how much it actually costs per hour to have that truck on the road. With the rates that they're paid by this contractor, they're making six cents an hour — six cents an hour.

I think they're basically working free. I think that that is not reasonable for them to work on a government contract, paid for by them and the rest of the taxpayers. I ask the minister: what will the minister do? I wrote the minister a letter on that issue some time ago. I'm still waiting for an answer.

You can't simply say that this is a private contractor; it's a fixed contract, so they can do whatever they want. I think we have some responsibility to these truckers and to the rest of the taxpayers. Those people, other taxpayers, are driving their cars, their trucks alongside those trucks when they are on that road, and those trucks may not be safe because they're unable to provide safety checks that they need.

My question to the minister is: what safeguard has she put in place to make sure the truckers are looked after?

[1030]

Hon. S. Bond: I'm not going to go back over territory we covered yesterday in terms of CVSE and vehicle inspections. Again, we have a commercial vehicle inspection team in this province that is exceptional, and they are as concerned about making sure that trucks are safe in this province as anyone else.

I would hope that perhaps the member might stand up today and applaud the legislation that was introduced yesterday, which brings even tighter enforcement mechanisms. That was a commitment I made, and it has now been tabled. We're seeing accolades, in fact, from the trucking industry and from others about tightening up those expectations.

I met with the Teamsters, actually, and they were very thoughtful in how they came and talked to me about this issue. I should tell the member opposite that they were also worried about not being paid. There were certain truckers that they were concerned were not being paid. We worked to resolve that issue with them and for them, and our staff did an excellent job in working through that issue.

First of all, related to the blue book, the blue book has never been designed for contractors to use as a rate guide on multi-year projects. That's not what the blue book is designed for. The blue book actually sets rates for work that is either emergency in nature or short term. It is not a tool that contractors would use in terms of rate setting.

The other important element to know is that truckers on the Port Mann project are actually being paid slightly higher than truckers across the rest of the Lower Mainland. They are being paid at market rate. The truckers on the Port Mann project are in fact being paid slightly higher than truckers that are being paid at the market rate for other projects across the Lower Mainland.

H. Bains: I think for the minister to use market rates isn't going to do the job. Market rates are when you force people who are looking for jobs…. They have no jobs, more trucks, fewer jobs. The tendency becomes to undercut each other. But that builder, that contractor, must have bid at that time at the higher rate, because the prices were much higher at that time. Now they are paying less than those rates that were prevailing at that time. That's the issue.

According to the Teamsters — and I was speaking to them about four days ago — this is what they are saying. There are still truck drivers out there who don't get paid for 90 days. This is one of the questions they have. They are saying that the owner-operators on gravel trucks on this project have to wait 90 days or more to be paid for their services. This is more than three months. That's the question. Has the minister taken any steps to correct this situation? That's one issue.

The other issue is what I talked about earlier — to say that they are being paid higher than the market rate. Who
[ Page 4713 ]
set the market rate? You underbid each other trying to stay out of work. This is what happened when that happened. At $65 an hour — they've got a breakdown here, and I'll pass that on to the minister — they're making $6 an hour. How do you perform preventive maintenance, and how do you perform other checks and balances and repairs that are required to have that truck safe?

It's fine to have inspectors out there enforcing the law, but it's a preventive side. It's the truckers who are forced into the situation. Yes, they will be taken off the road. That isn't going to do anybody any service. That's after the fact. I think we're trying to go to the front end to make sure that they are not in that situation, that they are paid accordingly so that they can perform those safety repairs and keep the trucks in good top-notch shape.

[1035]

That's the area I want to go to, not what happened after they're on the road. I think that's one thing the minister should take a look at. Perhaps the minister could respond in those two areas — whether there are some steps the minister is taking. Why do they have to wait 90 days on these projects to get paid? What is she doing to make sure that they are paid, if not according to the blue book, at least the rates that are accepted as the appropriate rates to be paid for that appropriate machinery — in this case truckers?

Why aren't they paid at least…? These rates came through consultation, through some research. How much actually is needed to have that truck on the road, the truck drivers getting paid appropriately, the safety repairs done and the truck kept in a safe condition? That's my question. It's not that I'm saying they must pay these rates, but there's a guideline, and there's a reason behind these guidelines.

The Chair: I'd remind the member not to use props.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, we are concerned about the 90 days. In fact, our staff engaged, both after the Teamsters came to meet with me…. I asked them to do some work on that file. So I continue to be concerned that that's recurring, and we will actually follow up and have a look at that and see what happened. We assumed that had been dealt with, and I expressed that concern to the Teamsters when I met with them.

But to the second point, in terms of the blue book, I need to reiterate again for the member opposite that the blue book is designed for government projects. It's designed for short-term, periodic or emergency projects — forest fires, flooding, those kinds of things. Day labour is another good example of that.

The member opposite asked the question about the market. Well, in fact, the market fluctuates. If you look at some of the projects we've constructed over the last number of years, fuel rates were significantly higher than they are today. So contractors take that into consideration when you look at what the expectations for truckers are.

The market is determined by a number of circumstances, and we're not about to manipulate the market. But the member opposite should know — and I'm sure he does — that truckers in British Columbia have seen an extraordinary degree of work because we have the largest transportation plan in the history of British Columbia.

From that perspective, the fantastic news is that we've seen projects like the Sea to Sky, the Kicking Horse and the W.R. Bennett Bridge. We continue to build the gateway program, and there's more to come. Obviously, we're pleased that we can work and provide work for truckers, and as I said, the blue book has a particular function. It is related to government projects.

[1040]

S. Hammell: I just have two quick questions. One of them does relate to a conversation that was had just a minute ago. Surrey has received a report on the details on the new Pattullo Bridge replacement, and according to their report, the bridge will be paid for by tolls. That means that there is a toll on the Golden Ears Bridge. There's a toll on the Port Mann bridge. There's a toll on the Pattullo bridge. According to the policy of the government, there needs to be a free alternative. The Alex Fraser is in Delta, a significant distance away from the north part of Surrey.

My question is: is the Alex Fraser being considered as the free alternative? And as an adjunct to that, is there any discussion or commitment to regional tolling, which appears to be one of the conditions that Surrey is placing on supporting the Pattullo Bridge?

Hon. S. Bond: We certainly did spend some time talking about this circumstance. Our policy hasn't changed, and we do consider the alternative route as using the Alex Fraser. I think that the minister previous to me suggested that as well.

One of the things we know. The reason we're actually building the Port Mann bridge — I'm glad to see that the members opposite have finally decided that it's an important project — is to reduce congestion. People are sitting in the lineup to get on the Port Mann Bridge for extended periods of time. In fact, the numbers that I look at, look at congestion probably about 17 hours a day.

With the combination of the Port Mann improvements, the Highway 1 improvements, the new South Fraser perimeter road and, possibly, the North Fraser perimeter road, we believe that the travelling public's trip will be the same amount of time that it is today.

The other thing we're doing is that, in fact, for the first time in more than 20 years we're going to have RapidBus and transit across the Port Mann Bridge, so people will have alternatives other than driving their car. We've
[ Page 4714 ]
done time tests in terms of the use of the Alex Fraser plus the South Fraser perimeter road, and we believe that the travelling time will be virtually the same as it is today when you consider congestion. The good news is that we want to also encourage people to get out of their cars, and RapidBus will allow them to do that.

[1045]

H. Bains: I would like to move on to a new issue here. I know, because of the time constraints, that we won't take too much time. It's on B.C. Transit. I have a couple of questions on letters that we received — actually, a copy letter we received from the concerned citizens in Kamloops on handyDART services and the hours of service available. These letters were written to two of the local MLAs there.

I think the question that they raised here is that their handyDART time and the hours of service available to them in Kamloops is very much limited or short compared to the Lower Mainland. The hours that they're talking about there is eight o'clock or nine o'clock in the morning until about six o'clock in the evening. There is nothing else available around that.

People with disabilities and people who are dependent on this are basically locked in their homes. They have no leisure time to spend with their friends and go and visit or have a movie.

My question to the minister is: what is the minister doing to make sure that we have those services available in extended hours to those people who are dependent on the handyDART — just like the Lower Mainland?

Hon. S. Bond: I think from a good-news perspective, certainly, our B.C. Transit team has told me that, in fact, handyDART service is potentially expanding. There will be an increase of service in Kamloops. Really, it's municipalities that set the hours. They work together with B.C. Transit, but they set the hours of service.

So there will be additional funding provided for expansion in Kamloops, and it's very possible that, in fact, the municipality could work with B.C. Transit to see those hours extended.

[1050]

I think the other point that's important to note — and I certainly want to be respectful to the fact that there are those who absolutely require handyDART service — is that the bus fleet that B.C. Transit has is 100 percent accessible across the province. So for those who are able, though they have a disability, to use a more typical bus, all of the fleet across the province are accessible, and where handyDART service is necessary, B.C. Transit tries to accommodate that.

There is an increase in the Kamloops area, and that would be one of the items that would be discussed in that expansion.

H. Bains: I want to say one line from that letter — the letter that went to the local MLA: "Let us be clear that we are not blaming the city of Kamloops or the local transit providers as locally there is political will and resources to increase services." So they are saying that locally they are willing to do it, but they are writing letters to the MLAs here.

I will not pursue it any further, but I hope that the minister has got the message and that she will work with the local authorities to have those hours extended equivalent at least to the Lower Mainland so they can enjoy the same service that they need.

Now I will ask the members from Victoria and Juan de Fuca, I guess.

J. Horgan: I am pleased to engage with the Minister of Transportation on issues of importance in my community. I had a whole host of issues. I've had the good fortune for other committee members to have a briefing with the minister and her staff on the road issues in my community, but I am concerned, as is my colleague for Esquimalt–Royal Roads, about the status of the E&N corridor.

Members will know that the Standing Committee on Finance unanimously supported a comprehensive study to assess the value and efficacy of this corridor for commuter traffic in and out of Victoria. Again, on behalf of the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads and myself, I'd like to ask the minister if she could update us and our constituents on the progress she's making in trying to improve commuter service from the north into the south.

Hon. S. Bond: I do recognize the importance of this subject to both members that are represented today. It is important. We have spent a lot of time, I think, consulting with the Island Corridor Foundation and others.

The status is that there were two phases of the report. The first phase was the gathering of data and the analysis of that data. We have virtually completed that phase, and we are looking at the second phase, which is looking at how we design a strategy for that corridor.

So we're in the sort of final phases of putting that package together. I think what would be most efficient for both members, I'm hopeful, is that once we have a final sense of the data and the potential strategy, we'd be prepared to sit down and do a briefing before it becomes anything bigger than…. You know, we don't want to deal with that discussion in the media. Let's sit down and have a conversation.

There is no doubt it's challenging. There is really a significant…. It would take an enormous amount of investment, but we've had a good look at the data, and we'd be happy to sit down with my staff and certainly have a briefing once we finalize the analysis and look at a phase 2 strategy. So I'm hopeful that would help the member for Juan de Fuca. We'd be happy to do that.
[ Page 4715 ]

M. Karagianis: Also on behalf of the member for Juan de Fuca and myself, I'd like to just ask a couple of questions to do with transit. I'll probably just ask all my questions here, and you can answer them at one time.

I'd like to know the plans are for increased bus service in the south Island here. The member for Juan de Fuca and I share the most densely packed corridor of commuter traffic. You only have to sit in it for a few minutes to realize that not only do we need the E&N commuter service up and running but we need more increased transit service.

[1055]

Certainly, the late-night bus service to downtown has been very valuable to my community and to the whole region, so we'd like to know whether or not funding will be in place to continue that very valuable service.

The third piece of, I guess, the transportation needs here is the infamous Blue Bridge. As you know, it's been a contentious issue here. One of the missing pieces of this, of course, would be a commitment of provincial funding to make sure that we can go ahead with the reparation or restoration of that. Perhaps the minister could also talk about the province's intentions with the Blue Bridge.

Hon. S. Bond: There will be increased service provided, and I think that's important. Right now the anticipation is about 50,000 additional hours of service. In fact, as I understand it, and certainly as I'm told by B.C. Transit, the province was prepared to exceed that amount fairly significantly, but there was a concern by the local transit commission, the regional transit commission, about affordability issues. There were a number of things.

I gather the discussion…. As the member would know — I know she's very active on this file — it is municipalities that set rates and routes. We made an offer, as I'm told, that was significantly higher than 50,000 hours. But there will be 50,000 hours, and that has been agreed to.

Just from my observation and in watching the clips and looking at programs, I would agree with the member. I think there has been some success with the late-night service. I'm told that the commission will consider that in May, and they will look at that as to whether or not it's one of the priorities of the regional transit commission. They will look at that and make that determination in May, so there has not been a decision not to do it. The discussion will come up, and it will be prioritized with other service issues.

The final item. I know the member won't be surprised. You know we made a decision around infrastructure funding. The Blue Bridge was not one of those projects. It was a very significant-cost project, and the view was to try to spread the money that we actually had across a number of projects, not only on Vancouver Island but across the province. We haven't changed that perspective.

I know there's been much debate, and I've certainly heard lots from both members and from constituents here about looking at that project. We have not changed our decision on the Blue Bridge.

But, I think, a better news story from the member's perspective on the transit. We are going to see improved transit and would also concur with her that I think there was some significant benefit to the late-night service. It is very expensive, and that will need to be considered. It is still being considered in May.

M. Mungall: The minister announced in the Province newspaper in March that the government will be going ahead with the U-pass program for students around the province, but there weren't a lot of details.

[1100]

I understand that you're still negotiating a lot of those details, but I'm hoping to get some direction of where things are going. One of them, of course, is that existing agreements are already in place for several schools around the province, notably in the Lower Mainland, but also, for instance, Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops. I'm just wondering how those existing agreements are going to be impacted, if at all.

Hon. S. Bond: I really appreciate the member's interest in this file because it is an important one. We have found that utilization, especially when a U-pass program is put in place…. I know that in my own constituency we're seeing our transit numbers go up dramatically. It certainly is our intent to honour commitments and contracts, and I think that's important.

There obviously will be differential rates. The rates outside of the Lower Mainland will continue to be significantly lower because of the degree of service that's available. We made a commitment to look at a universal rate, particularly in the Lower Mainland, where there's a great degree of variance there.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

I can tell the member opposite that I expect within the next couple of weeks to be able to actually outline the program publicly. It would be our intent to look at honouring contracts that exist, but I think that this will be a good-news story for students right across the province.

M. Mungall: Just to follow up on that. You actually answered a lot of the other questions I had, so thank you very much for that. But one of my other concerns, of course, is TransLink not having the funding, currently right now, especially if user rates go up. Where are those dollars going to be coming from?

Hon. S. Bond: I think the member opposite will be pleased when the program is announced publicly. I think
[ Page 4716 ]
that students' interests have been taken to heart. We are currently negotiating with TransLink in terms of the final details around this program, but we will certainly honour our commitment to have a universal program in place. Our goal all along has been to minimize increases, particularly in the Lower Mainland. We had to look at it very realistically. The rate that's in place currently is very, very reasonable.

My goal was to talk to students and work through to find a reasonable and acceptable new program for them. I'm feeling confident that we'll be able to deliver something that is both reasonable and fully paid for.

V. Huntington: Firstly, I'd very much like to thank the deputy for the response he and his staff have given me on my concerns with the sediment management issue on the Fraser. Hopefully, the negotiations will be supportive, the leaseholders will be supported by the ministry, and we can resolve this dangerous situation.

I'd like to bring up a few issues regarding B.C. Rail activity in Delta South and, in particular, the purchase of land for the rail yard that will service Deltaport — hopefully, only should Delta terminal 2 go forward.

[1105]

B.C. Rail has purchased at least two very large parcels in the ALR adjacent to Deltaport Way. The two acreages I'm presently aware of are heritage properties, one having being purchased from an award-winning B.C. heritage pioneer family by a consensual expropriation, I believe; the other simply bought outright from an individual who needed to retire and who could not obtain an ALR exclusion for his farm home plate. That would have enabled him to remain in and renovate the home. The failure of the application to exclude the farm home plate forced him to sell, and I believe that B.C. Rail stepped up to the plate very quickly.

The farm home plate is listed on Delta's rural heritage inventory, is on the municipal heritage register and is known as the Pybus Farm. It's a fully intact pioneer farm home plate and consists of the original barn, the original dairy and the original home. It is one of the most valuable heritage properties in Delta, and it sits right at the junction of Arthur Drive and Deltaport Way. It is highly visible as you move over the overpass.

As the minister may know, there was no cumulative impact assessment done on the SFPR. For example, the impact of the proposed 17-track railway yard in the middle of the community and on the agricultural soil was never assessed. I'd like to suggest to the minister that this might be an excellent opportunity to mitigate the impact of this future project. It would be a legacy that both the ministry and the community could be proud of.

Don Luxton, one of the great heritage specialists in the province, has examined the three buildings in detail, and his report is available. I'm wondering if the minister would consider asking her staff to review the heritage studies that have been completed on the Pybus Farm, having its possible restoration by gateway or the ministry in mind.

Hon. S. Bond: I think it's reasonable and expected that we should review all of the materials that would be relevant to a particular initiative before one makes those steps. I think that we would be very much willing to look at the report. I think that's the prudent thing to do.

I don't want to give false hope either, because obviously, we are looking at important land from a number of perspectives. I want to be very upfront about that. But I think that it is the prudent thing to do, to have a good look before final decisions are made. I think the timing is good, because obviously, we still have the time to do that.

I will make sure that our staff makes contact with the member. We can certainly look at the review that she's brought to our attention, and I appreciate it.

V. Huntington: I would very much appreciate that review. I understand that you can't make commitments, but when a heritage property as intact as this is…. It definitely needs restoration, and it wouldn't be cheap, but you're the only person that can make it happen. It's easily capable of adaptive reuse. I keep thinking: "Wouldn't it be a nice operations depot for B.C. Rail?"

My further question is related to this. There are a number of rumours circulating in the community right now that the barn is about to be demolished. I'm wondering if you could put a hold on that, if it is about to happen, until these reviews are complete.

[1110]

Hon. S. Bond: I will certainly put that rumour to rest. We have no immediate plans to deal with any of the buildings in that way. I can assure the member opposite that we will double-check that, but there's no intent, and my staff advise me that that is not going to happen.

V. Huntington: Just a few others, and these are fairly detailed questions, so perhaps you'd prefer to respond in writing or with a memo.

I'd like to know what the total acreage is that has been purchased by B.C. Rail within Delta. If possible, can the ministry please provide me the PID numbers and addresses of the parcels?

I'd like to know if any land has been leased — I'm not sure whether they're entitled to sell land yet — or even purchased from TFN by B.C. Rail. What is the anticipated size of the future rail yard? We have it that it's going to be 17 tracks, but is there any further information in that regard?

When and where will the rail yard be located — i.e., on which parcels? The parcels that have been purchased extend from TFN to Highway 17, and surely that's not all intended to be used.
[ Page 4717 ]

What is the anticipated cost of the rail yard, although I know that will be fairly difficult? Even in today's dollars, what cost is applicable?

Hon. S. Bond: We've always had, I think, very successful and productive meetings when we actually meet and discuss these issues. What I would like to do…. I'm happy to put it in writing but, I think more effectively, we'd be happy to offer a briefing.

Obviously, as we now manage BCR properties, one of my assistant deputy ministers is actually the CEO. That's Dave Byng. So Dave and Lisa would probably be the people that would be happy to sit down and have a conversation with you. Whatever information we're able to share, we'd be happy to do that with the member.

Keeping with our past response, I think we have found those meetings productive, and my team is happy to do that.

The Chair: Member, and through the Chair, please.

V. Huntington: Sorry, Mr. Chair. My biggest weakness at the moment here is failing to observe you.

Now I understand what "chief operating officer" meant on the card. I'm sorry I didn't pick up on that earlier.

One other quick question. This morning I became aware of rumours that the scope of the SFPR may be changing. I wondered if there is truth to a rumour of that nature, and what it might mean. And then I am finished.

Hon. S. Bond: Staff advise me that the RFP has not been changed. We're currently in the procurement process, and the scope remains the same. There has not been a change in the RFP.

H. Bains: Perhaps I could ask a couple more questions on this SFPR before we move back to B.C. Rail.

I'm looking at the service plan of 2008-2009 and comparing that to this year's service plan.

[1115]

It's listed in that service plan — the cost of $1.145 billion. But in this plan it talks about $1.2 billion. That's a difference of about $55 million higher, so it means that the cost of South Fraser perimeter road has gone up?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm going to ask the member to ask the next question while we sort that out, because the cost the South Fraser perimeter road has not changed. It's $1.145 billion. Every document we have says that.

It may well be that it's been rounded to $1.2 billion. We're going to work on that answer, but I don't want to take up time sitting here, so we will finalize that and get back to the member. I thought that he might want to go to his next question while we do that.

H. Bains: I hope that the staff will have the service plan 2010-11 to 2012-13. That's exactly where they've listed $1.2 billion. When I look at the 2008-09 it has $1.145 billion listed in there, so there's a $55 million…. That's not just pocket change, as far as I'm concerned. I don't see that as being the rounding numbers either.

Okay, so the minister will get that later. On B.C. Rail, I've got some questions. Can the minister tell the House: when the decision to bring B.C. Rail into the ministry was made, was there any cost-benefit analysis done, and who did that?

[1120]

Hon. S. Bond: Looking at the service plan on page 27, I'm assuming that the member opposite is referring to the phrase that says: "The overall cost of the project is approximately $1.2 billion." That's an unfortunate choice of words. It's an unfortunate reference, and it won't happen again. We'll use the exact number next time. That number was carried over, and in fact the language is used in another document as well.

The cost of the project is $1.145 billion. The word "approximately" rounded it up to $1.2 billion. We won't be doing that again in a report. The actual cost is $1.145 billion. It has not changed. I appreciate that being pointed out. We'll make sure that we put the right number in there, or the more accurate number.

In terms of the decision to bring B.C. Rail back into government, it was a throne speech commitment, in fact, that said that all Crowns would be reviewed. B.C. Rail, obviously, was one of those, and the report was done. There was not a formal report done. The work was done internally by our staff, and the primary consideration was the scope of work.

There certainly was a recognition that much work had been done but that B.C. Rail was in a position now that we would be able to manage that work with our staff and a complement of the staff that worked at B.C. Rail Properties. In fact it was an internal review, and it stemmed from a throne speech commitment that was made.

H. Bains: So going through this exercise, can the minister tell the House: what will be the cost savings?

Hon. S. Bond: We certainly do expect to realize savings. Obviously, we're looking at a far smaller administrative cost. We're looking at a number of other efficiencies. In transition there will be some costs that we will be able to reduce over the next number of years. Our target and our expectation is that we would be able to save $5 million annually. We won't do that in the short term. As we transition, there will be some costs, but the eventual savings would be $5 million a year.

H. Bains: Now, if there was an internal review done by the staff, is that information available? What was the data? What data was used to come to a decision that there is a cost savings and how much the cost savings will be in coming years? Is that review document available?
[ Page 4718 ]

Hon. S. Bond: There was not a written document. There's not a database that we can share. It was an evaluation done by our staff.

[1125]

Obviously, once the decision was made, we worked with B.C. Rail to make a determination about which staff we would be keeping, those that would be essential to the organization. We are keeping a number of staff, particularly related to the port sub. They are very good at what they do, and we certainly don't want to see that disrupted.

It was generally a look at what work was left to be done by B.C. Rail. Could it be managed internally? So there was not a report that was produced. It was simply in the course of the work done as a result of the throne speech commitment.

H. Bains: Very interesting. A major decision like this, involving multi-millions of dollars, to transfer one entity…. Basically, eliminating a Crown corporation to bring it under the ministry, and there's no documentation available on what data was used to make that decision?

I don't think that is a very efficient way of doing business, with all due respect, Minister. I don't think any other private company will use that method. I don't know if any CEO will last too long if they say: "Well, I just sat in my office one day, and I thought I was going to eliminate that one area of my operation without knowing what data to use and what paperwork there is, to go through the shareholders, to go to the board and say: 'Look, here's the business case for you to consider to eliminate that one major portion of my company so that we can bring it under the central corporate management.'"

I think that's the decision that was made, so that's the decision that was made. But it's not going to sit well with many people not having the data. The decision itself may be a good decision, and I think many people were asking you to come to that decision, but there has to be some business case and that study done. If that's not available — no cost-benefit analysis done, no service-benefit analysis done — but somebody decided that this was a good thing to do, and they did it, fair enough.

Let me ask the minister now some questions about some of those employees. Can the minister advise this House how many of the existing B.C. Rail higher executive will be kept and how many will be let go, and those people who are being let go, what severance pay will they get and how much?

Hon. S. Bond: I think we canvassed this earlier when there was a miscellaneous bill in the Legislature, but I'll repeat it. Two executives have obviously left the organization, and that would be the president and CEO, which is one title, and the executive vice-president of real estate. We have two remaining executive positions. One is the vice-president of finance, and one is the vice-president of operations.

[1130]

H. Bains: I think the second part of my question was: how much severance pay were they given, and how many of them were entitled to the severance pay?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, we still have two that are employed, so the two that left. The president and CEO received severance in the amount of $392,000 — that is the entire amount — and the executive vice-president of real estate, $203,000.

H. Bains: So only two severance pays were paid in the process of bringing B.C. Rail into the ministry? Or were there any more severances paid to anybody other than those two names mentioned?

Hon. S. Bond: I just wanted to confirm with staff that there are only two people that have received severance to date. That would be the two that I've listed. Obviously, as we transition back to a smaller organization within government, there will be additional employees who no longer work with B.C. Rail. We will transition the organization in a very stable way.

One of my concerns was making sure we had the information and expertise necessary. There's a significant real estate portfolio. There are a number of other major responsibilities. So we wanted to be sure we were properly staffed to do that. Over time there will be additional employees that will not be with B.C. Rail, but to date there are only two that have left and that have received severance.

H. Bains: Can the minister advise this House: what was the total number of staff working for B.C. Rail at the time when the decision was made to bring it into the ministry?

Hon. S. Bond: There were 30 employees. There are 28 today, and that number will continue to be smaller as we rationalize the positions over time.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister is able to answer the question, perhaps not. How many employees — additional employees, I would say — would the ministry have to add on in order to take on this task?

Hon. S. Bond: We don't anticipate adding any additional staff. We have an excellent team. It does mean that some of my executive team will, obviously, be involved in the oversight and the transition and managing B.C. Rail within government, but I also expect to see the B.C. Rail group be smaller in the future as well. We're not adding anyone new, and in fact, of the employees that
[ Page 4719 ]
exist today, that group will be smaller in the next couple of years.

[1135]

H. Bains: So when the minister says that that group will be smaller, it means you will bring that group of people into the ministry — all those overseen by the minister and the deputy. But what do you mean by "that group will be smaller" than what they have today? That group of people — or perhaps numbers will be lower — will continue to manage B.C. Rail then?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, as we integrate the work that B.C. Rail is doing and as we integrate that with our ministry team, there will continue to be a reduction of staff. As we continue to sell properties and as the portfolio gets smaller in the real estate area, we fully anticipate being able to utilize less staff. The two organizations, those members, will be integrated into the ministry, but I do anticipate additional reduction in the overall number of staff.

H. Bains: I want to move on to another area, but there will be more questions on B.C. Rail. Perhaps I could write to the minister along those lines. The minister nodded and said yes — okay.

I want to talk about William Bennett Bridge. There are continual reports in the media about the lineup that the commuters have to face. As recently as April 21, this is what the news was out there: "Traffic headaches are back for commuters in the Kelowna area. Vehicles have been backed up over the W.R. Bennett Bridge most mornings since mid-March. West Kelowna Mayor Doug Findlater says he's not surprised."

This is what the mayor has said: "I have said from the beginning, since the new bridge was opened, that I have felt in some ways what we were doing is simply expediting people to the next bottleneck faster. That appears to be what's happening."

My question to the minister is this. There were plates. I believe these are the joint plates. They were supposed to last ten years, and they were gone in one year. As a result, there are lineups again on that bridge. And now there's another repair going on right now, as I understand. Not right now but recently there was a repair, as per this news, and there were commuters stranded in a lineup again.

This was the bridge where taxpayers spent hundreds of millions of dollars, and it was supposed to deal with this bottleneck of traffic in this area. So my question to the minister is — and many people in that area have asked this question: did we buy a lemon?

[1140]

Hon. S. Bond: I think that the member opposite…. We maybe need to do just a bit of a reminder here that this is one of seven floating bridges in the entire world. It is an exceptional accomplishment. It's a $144 million project that was finished ahead of schedule and on budget.

What's important to note is that because this is a public-private partnership, the repair work that is being done…. There is work being done. We're working on that. There needs to be…. The grout is actually settling. We have some work to do, but the fact of the matter is that those repairs are not done at the expense of the taxpayer.

I think if the member opposite wants to talk about traffic headaches, the last bridge actually had to open up to allow boats to go through. So if there are situations where people are having to wait, it certainly does not compare to what existed previously.

One of the most important things for me about that project was that, in fact, we got rid of one of the biggest safety hazards in the province, and that was the intersection called Campbell Road, which actually was a major safety hazard.

So in fact, this is a major accomplishment. It's an excellent example of a public-private partnership that demonstrated outstanding results. There is some repair work being done, and we will continue to ensure that they are done to the standard expected.

H. Bains: Noting the hour, I have just a follow-up and then one question, and then we'll go through it.

The quote that I read was the mayor of Kelowna. For the minister to say that the repairs do not cost taxpayers, I think, isn't going to go well for those commuters who are stuck in the lineup for hours on end. You know, they are the people who actually paid to get rid of those lineups through their tax dollars, and now they're still stuck there.

So I think that it may not be cash coming out of their pockets to do the repair, but it does cost them money when they're stuck in that lineup — in time and so forth. I think that it is unfortunate that that's what is happening. I don't know what the minister is doing to make sure that the contractor is held responsible and make sure that the repairs are done so that they don't have to go through this on a periodic basis.

But my next question is this, Minister, on a different issue — the cattlemen's task force. The ministry at that time had committed $10 million for cattle fencing around railway tracks, obviously, to protect cattle. The numbers are significant, and action is needed now, as they are saying. I think the question is: will this commitment be kept? And when can those involved in the task force see that fencing go up?

[1145]

Hon. S. Bond: I do want to reiterate that the delays on the bridge are not related to the repair work. The repair work is done at night, so the delays are not related to the repair
[ Page 4720 ]
work. In fact, in terms of congestion, there is some peak-hour congestion, but the great news is that we now have HOV lanes and plan to implement RapidBus. Those are other important initiatives.

Finally, in terms of the cattle fencing, an important project, we have worked very closely with the cattlemen's task force. We are actually seeing…. Working with the federal government through the job opportunities program, there has been a $5.5 million grant put in place for this year.

The cattlemen are working with us to actually get fencing up, to the tune of $5.5 million this year. The additional work for the $10 million — it's been agreed with the cattlemen that that work will be done next year. So there are projects underway both this year and next year.

With that, I want to thank my staff for the work they've done over the course of the last number of days. It's a lot of work, and they've done an excellent job. I appreciate it.

H. Bains: I'd also like to join the minister and thank the staff for putting up with us for the last three days. They were very helpful, not only here in the three days, but as I said the other day in my opening remarks, they've been very cooperative when some issues applying to my constituents or to other folks were brought to their attention, and we were able to resolve certain things. So thank you very much.

I want to thank the minister, as well, for cooperating in going through these questions and answers. Hopefully, the people who send us here to work on their behalf got their money's value.

Vote 45: ministry operations, $752,814,000 — approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:48 a.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