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

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 5

[ Page 4721 ]

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2010

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Bell: It's not very often in my life that I have been brought to tears, but that happened last Friday. However, they were tears of joy, not tears of sadness, and the individual responsible for that, at least in large part, is joining us today in the gallery.

The event was to celebrate the sale and transaction of a pulp mill in Mackenzie that will add $300 million in gross domestic product to the province of British Columbia, $20 million in direct taxation, huge benefits to the local and regional economy. But most importantly, it will put 240 people back to work in Mackenzie — direct jobs — families that can stay in the community as a result of this individual's very hard work.

This was a task of unbelievable size. Many times throughout the process it nearly failed, but never for a single second did this individual waver or believe that it was not to come to fruition. I would ask that the House please not just make very welcome but also pass on a significant show of our thanks to Tanner Elton, who joins us here today.

N. Macdonald: My colleague from West Kootenay has asked me to welcome two school trustees that are here from school district 20, Kootenay-Columbia. They're Toni Driutti and Lorraine Manning. Will the House join me in making them welcome.

Hon. B. Bennett: Two introductions today. First of all, my constituency assistant, Jennifer Osmar, who is, after nine months, the best constituency assistant I've had in nine years, which is saying something. Her mother, Lucille, is here and Erdie Poitress from Kelowna. Please help me make them feel welcome. They're in the gallery somewhere.

Also, it's my pleasure to welcome several members of the UBCM executive who were here. They're here all week in Victoria doing various meetings. A lot of the members last night attended a reception that UBCM hosted.

First of all, there's Coun. Barb Steele from Surrey, who is the second vice-president of UBCM. There's the mayor of Quesnel, Mary Sjostrom, who is third VP. Coun. Tim Stevenson is there. He's the Vancouver rep to UBCM. Al Richmond, chair of the regional district in the Cariboo, is the electoral area rep for UBCM.

Director Grace McGregor is the representative from the Kootenay-Boundary area. Chair Karen Goodings from the Peace River Regional District is the rep to UBCM from that area. Finally, Mayor Sharon Gaetz of Chilliwack is the director at large with UBCM. A great group of people — both sides of the House enjoy working with them. Please help me make them feel welcome.

R. Austin: I'd like to introduce two guests in the precinct today. The first is no stranger to this place, and that is Lois Boone, who is a former member and minister here. She is currently the vice-chair of the Prince George school district.

The second guest is Valentine Crawford, also a school board trustee from Prince George. They are both here to attend the B.C. School Trustees Association meetings that are happening over the next couple of days. Will the House please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I would like to welcome many B.C. school trustees who are with us in the House today, here for their annual general meeting and joining us.

I would also like, particularly, to welcome two very good friends from Trail, where I used to be a family doctor — two hard-working trustees who are here with us. I was delighted to meet and speak with them earlier today. They've already been introduced, but I would like to introduce them again: Lorraine Manning and Toni Driutti. May the House please, again, make them all warmly welcome.

A. Dix: I'm pleased to welcome, on behalf of the member for Vancouver-Kensington, grade 11 students from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School today, along with parents and teachers. I'd like to ask everyone to make them welcome.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Today in the members' gallery we have a very special guest from Indonesia. I'm pleased to introduce Mr. Bambang Hieandrasto, the new consul general of the Republic of Indonesia at Vancouver. I had the pleasure of meeting with the consul general during the Paralympics when he first arrived in Vancouver.

[1340]

Today he is meeting with quite a number of ministers in Victoria for what I'm hoping will be very productive discussions to further our good relationships between our two jurisdictions. Please join me in giving the consul general a very warm welcome to British Columbia and to the House.

H. Lali: I have a couple of introductions as well. First of all, I would like to join my colleague from Skeena in welcoming a former caucus and cabinet colleague and the former Deputy Premier for the province of British Columbia in the 1990s. Of course, when she spoke, everybody listened. That's obviously Lois Boone, sitting up in the galleries. That's my first introduction.
[ Page 4722 ]

Secondly, one of the folks here with the UBCM executive is the mayor of one of my eight municipalities in Fraser-Nicola, and that's the mayor of Clinton, Mr. Roland Stanke. He's sitting right up there. Would the House please welcome him to Victoria.

R. Sultan: In the galleries today is a constituent, Mauro Chiesa, who has had a distinguished career as a senior investment officer with the World Bank in Washington, D.C.

Born and educated here in British Columbia, he served as a senior financial adviser to governments in the financing of port power, telecommunications and water system projects around the world, including Panama, Brazil, Senegal, Botswana, the Philippines and Morocco senior investment officer with the World Bank in Washington, D.C., and now he's come home. Would you please make him welcome.

J. Horgan: I hope this isn't a career-limiting introduction following on the Minister of Forests. I'd like to acknowledge my friend Tanner Elton, who I met when he was trying to revive rail transport on Vancouver Island. Now, after the great job he's done in Mackenzie, I'm hopeful he's going to be coming back to the Island to get that train running in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Health.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Aboriginal Relations — sorry. My mistake. Question period hasn't started.

Hon. G. Abbott: I was having a brief nightmare there for a moment. I thought I may have been restored as Minister of Health. That indeed would not be welcome, given the remarkable job that my friend is doing.

I leap to my feet for this purpose, Mr. Speaker. In the gallery today is a constituent from Shuswap, the chair and trustee of school district 83, North Okanagan-Shuswap, Bobbi Johnson. She's doing a great job, and I'd like the House to please make her welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise in this House to welcome a constituent of mine, a former member of the House, former minister of the House, though I don't think he was a minister of health. I'd like to welcome city councillor Tim Stevenson. Would you please make him very welcome.

G. Hogg: On a day when we have many auspicious guests visiting, I'd like to add to that list. We have from the White Rock Rotary Club three hard-working, dedicated, committed and brilliant people — they tell me: Don Jones, Peter Short and Russ Clinton. They are accompanied by special guests from Brazil: Marcelo Guancino Persicotti, Vivian Iark, Anita Castro Menezes Xavier, Leonardo Jianoti and Leandro Dalalibera Fonseca. Would we please make them all most welcome.

Hon. J. Yap: I have two introductions today. In the gallery today are Monika Marcovici and Sonny Wong of the Board of Change. The Board of Change is an inclusive organizational network that exists to develop and foster a new economic model that values the pursuit of sustainability equally with the pursuit of profit. I met both of them at the recent Globe 2010 trade show and conference in Vancouver, and I ask all members of the House to give them a warm welcome.

[1345]

P. Pimm: I'd like to introduce a lady that's already been introduced once, but this lady deserves to be introduced more than once — one of the great ladies of our region, the chairman of the Peace River regional district, chairman of the North Central Local Government Association and member of the UBCM committee. I'd like a warm welcome for Karen Goodings, please.

L. Reid: My niece has joined us today, Michelle Ramsell, and her lovely friend Shannon is with her. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

D. Hayer: I would also like to welcome Barbara Steele, our city councillor and second vice-president of UBCM, who is my constituent. She is known in Surrey as one of the hardest-working councillors there. She's with her friend today, Colin Campbell, who is coming here to see question period for the first time. Please make them very welcome.

D. Barnett: I, too, would like to welcome the chair of the Cariboo regional district, Director Al Richmond, from area G, one of the prettiest areas in the Cariboo Chilcotin. I welcome him today as a member of the UBCM executive and ask the House to join with me.

D. McRae: I would like the House to welcome Stephen Borley and Danika Village, two teachers from the Comox Valley who are participating in the B.C. Teachers Institute on Parliamentary Democracy.

Hon. M. de Jong: The strength of any profession is the talents of the students that come along. At the Attorney General's ministry we are very fortunate in attracting some of the best and the brightest.

They are here today. They are a group of articling students who are participating in a conference that involves the Law Clerk, Jennifer Furry and Carol Anne Rolf from the government.
[ Page 4723 ]

They are Brian Dybwad, Shannon Davis, Mark Myhre, Justin Mason, Dea Lloyd, Tina Parbhakar, and they are also accompanied by, from legislative counsel, Corinne Swystun. I hope all members will make these talented young people feel welcome here today.

Speaking of the best and the brightest, the Pacific Christian School is here from Abbotsford — 12 grade 8 students accompanied by 18 adults. They are enjoying their tour, looking forward to question period, and I hope members will make them feel welcome.

Finally, joining us in the gallery are three individuals — Wendy Neufeld, Terry Voth, and Ken Funk. They are here not just to participate and watch the proceedings but to visibly articulate their support for hospice and the Abbotsford Hospice Society. I know they're looking forward to question period. It may not be the highlight of the day. The highlight probably occurred earlier when they were landing in a small aircraft and the button controlling the landing gear came out of the panel. They've enjoyed their time. I hope members will make them feel welcome as well.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill M203 — Cosmetic Pesticide and
Carcinogen Control Act, 2010

R. Fleming presented a bill intituled Cosmetic Pesticide and Carcinogen Control Act, 2010.

R. Fleming: I move that the Cosmetic Pesticide and Carcinogen Control Act be read first time now.

Motion approved.

R. Fleming: Introduction of this bill enables our province to join other provinces representing nearly 20 million Canadians that ban the use of toxic cosmetic pesticides that threaten our environment, our waterways, children, pets and personal heath.

The legislation is consistent with provincial legislative reforms urged by the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Toxic Free Canada and the David Suzuki Foundation. The bill is also consistent with recommendations made by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Mr. Speaker, 29 local governments across B.C. governing millions of our citizens have enacted bylaws to ban the sale of cosmetic pesticides, but these bylaws are ineffective because they lack the authority to govern the retail sale of easily obtained environmental toxins. The Community Charter does not give communities the legislative authority to ban the sale of pesticides. Only provincial legislation can accomplish this.

Our society faces a huge potential cancer burden from exposure to hundreds of known and possible human carcinogens from thousands of new chemicals that have not been tested for their cancer potential.

[1350]

The New York Academy of Sciences found that women exposed to pesticides as children are twice as likely to have breast cancer later in their lives. Research by the Harvard School of Public Health linked some pesticides to lowered intelligence, behaviour disorders, autism, ADHD and asthma in children. Cosmetic pesticides also put at risk our food supply, and new research links pesticide runoff to the decline in B.C.'s wild salmon returns.

Much of the pollution of our environment can be prevented. For children and pregnant women, there are no safe levels of exposure to chemicals such as endocrine disrupters and neurotoxins.

In protecting our young children, this legislation offers the promise, over time, of lowered cost of delivering health care services by reducing chronic disease. The legislation takes important steps to protect human health and our environment. The time for government to take strong legislative action is now.

I would move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day at the next sitting of the House the day after today.

Bill M203, Cosmetic Pesticide and Carcinogen Control Act, 2010, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

EARTH DAY

R. Fleming: April 22, Earth Day, is the largest, most celebrated environmental event worldwide. Today more than six million Canadians will join a billion people in over 170 countries in staging events and projects to address local environmental issues, and today nearly every school child in Canada will take part in an earth day activity.

Environmental challenges to the sustainability of our planet are immense. Around the globe national economies remain tied to large-scale daily actions that pollute and degrade the fragile environment that humans and wildlife depend on to live. Earth Day 2010 provides the opportunity for all of us to identify solutions, to take positive action and to achieve results that will shift our societies from the present risk of runaway climate change to a green, low-carbon, sustainable way of living.
[ Page 4724 ]

This year Earth Day turns 40. First launched as an environmental awareness event in the United States in 1970, April 22 is celebrated as the birth of the environmental movement. Earth Day has and continues to be a powerful catalyst for change. The first Earth Day was spearheaded by Governor Nelson of Wisconsin, and it involved 20 million participants in teach-ins that addressed decades of environmental pollution. The event inspired the U.S. Congress to pass clean air and water acts and establish the Environmental Protection Agency.

In 1990 two million Canadians joined 200 million people in celebrating the first International Earth Day. That global event brought pressure on heads of states to later convene the UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro to address climate change and the loss of endangered species.

In Canada, Earth Day is celebrated in every community, from large public events — including Victoria's Earth Walk this weekend — to the thousands of smaller events that are staged by schools; employee groups, including here in our public sector in British Columbia; and community organizations. I encourage local residents to join me at local events this weekend.

ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES IN
WEST VANCOUVER–SEA TO SKY AREA

J. McIntyre: As noted, today indeed is Earth Day, and in over 170 countries people will be taking part in events and projects to recognize sustainability and to encourage greener living.

I'm fortunate to represent one of the greenest ridings in the province. From West Vancouver to north of Pemberton and Mount Currie, the residents of West Vancouver–Sea to Sky have proven by their actions that they take seriously the challenge to change their actions to help mitigate the effects of climate change. We just hosted what is being termed "the greenest games ever."

Recently VANOC's John Furlong recognized Jim Godfrey, who was Whistler's former administrator and executive director of its 2010 games office, for his work in ensuring that sustainability was in the forefront of the games' values. This commitment resulted in a number of innovative programs, crowning us as the greenest games ever. Now that legacy and challenge has been passed on to other Olympic venues.

During Earth Hour on March 27 three communities in my riding — Bowen Island, Pemberton and Whistler — were in the top five in British Columbia, where residents showed their support for the fight against climate change by not using electricity for one hour. Earth Hour is an annual global event hosted by the World Wildlife Fund and sponsored provincially by B.C. Hydro to create awareness of energy conservation.

[1355]

A number of local councils in the riding have adopted leading-edge environmental strategies. For example, the resort municipality of Whistler has been making great strides with their Whistler 2020 initiative, which focuses on a long-term, comprehensive, community-developed action plan. Whistler was also winner of one of our government's seven inaugural Green City Awards at the UBCM conference in 2007.

It's not just the residents helping to make a change. My riding has a disproportionate share of green power projects up and running and just approved in B.C. Hydro's recent clean call that deliver clean electricity to power our province.

To my constituents, elected officials and numerous organizations, congratulations on a concerted effort to work together to halt the effects of climate change.

ALEXANDRA MORTON
AND WALK FOR WILD SALMON

C. Trevena: On this Earth Day I would like to talk about one of my constituents who has been an environmental activist for many years. Alexandra Morton is marking Earth Day by starting an epic journey. She'll leave her home in Sointula on Malcolm Island and follow the path of the wild salmon on migration. She plans to finish the journey in this place on Mother's Day.

She'll be walking with Molina Dawson, a 14-year-old from Kingcome Inlet. They'll be joined along the route by others who want to save wild salmon. First Nations are bestowing a blessing on her at the Nimpkish River. There will be community celebrations on Quadra Island and in Campbell River in my constituency, and more as she moves south down the Island. She'll be joined by others who will migrate along with her, walking from the west coast to meet up with her.

Ms. Morton has almost single-handedly kept the issue of wild salmon at the centre of people's attention, a place that such a cornerstone of our ecosystem deserves. Without wild salmon we know we would not have our abundant forests or our healthy wildlife. There is a reason why salmon have long been central to the life, survival and culture of First Nations.

She has been challenged and vilified by people who question her judgment or her science, but she is this year to be awarded an honorary doctorate of science by Simon Fraser University for her research on sea lice, and her research has moved the debate forward.

Her actions at the B.C. Supreme Court have moved the governance of aquaculture to the federal level. But for Ms. Morton, this is not far enough. The reason for this walk is to show that the missing Fraser sockeye and other disappearing salmon stocks will not be forgotten, nor will the central place that wild salmon have in our ecosystem.
[ Page 4725 ]

ALZHEIMER SOCIETY OF B.C.

L. Reid: Today I would like to dedicate my remarks to Alice Mann, who is an extraordinary caregiver.

Dementia is not an illness we can ignore. A progressive disease, it exacts its toll on caregivers, family and friends. Dementia affects more and more people as our population ages. Over 70,000 people live with dementia in British Columbia, and approximately 15,000 develop dementia each year. Often thought of as an older person's disease, many are surprised to learn that well over 10,000 people are under the age of 65.

The Alzheimer Society of B.C., established in 1981 by a small group of caregivers, is dedicated to helping people affected by dementia to live well despite the diagnosis, building confidence and skills. The society also works to improve dementia care and to raise awareness of the disease. It works to erase the stigma and to secure funds for support and research.

Today the society has grown and maintains 18 resource centres around British Columbia where local residents obtain information on issues such as understanding the disease and how it might progress, skill-building for positive caregiving and useful information such as dealing with the sensitive issue of driving cessation.

The society offers support groups for both caregivers and those who have dementia. I know of one early-stage group that meets every two weeks over breakfast so that people can share their issues around the life-changing experience.

A provincewide dementia help plan is available to enhance the availability of support and information. First Link is a new program introduced by the Alzheimer Society. First Link is an early intervention service designed to connect individuals and families affected by Alzheimer's disease or a related dementia with services and support as soon as possible after diagnosis. Formal referrals from physicians and health professionals allow for proactive contact with individuals and their families.

The Alzheimer Society is committed to expanding this program throughout British Columbia so that families and caregivers have the tools to more effectively manage their long journey with this disease. I recognize and acknowledge the good work of the Alzheimer Society of British Columbia and their dedication to improving the lives of people coping with dementias in British Columbia.

COMMUNITY VOLUNTEER SERVICES
FOR SENIORS

D. Thorne: Today, during Volunteer Week in B.C., I would like to acknowledge the volunteers who have made the Community Volunteer Services for Seniors a valuable wellness program in the Tri-Cities. CVS offers outreach for frail, isolated and homebound seniors.

[1400]

This registered charity's programs include the Shop by Phone program where volunteers take grocery orders, do the shopping and then deliver. They have a visiting program which matches volunteers with lonely, homebound seniors.

CVS also helps low-income seniors who have a computer by providing a volunteer to help them connect to the Internet and use their e-mail, keeping isolated seniors in touch with the outside world. CVS acts as a referral agency with approximately 1,500 calls per year. They also run a recreation program for those with memory loss.

CVS has kept the costs of these many services to a minimum. Small donations from the community have helped, but CVS has primarily been funded by Fraser Health. Two staff members and more than 195 volunteers provided these services to approximately 220 seniors every year for the past 13 years.

Today I'm sad to announce that this program will close on June 11 because the funder, Fraser Health, has decided to no longer fund it. This is the third valuable volunteer service to be lost to the Tri-Cities in recent months because of funding cuts. Today during Volunteer Week I would like to once again and for the last time salute these hundreds of volunteers and thank them for all their wonderful work. They have made our community a better place to live, and we sure will miss them.

SUPPORT FOR CRIME VICTIMS
AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION

D. Hayer: I rise today to speak of rights — the right to feel safe in our communities, the right to live, work, learn and play without fear. British Columbia has proclaimed this week as the Victims of Crime Awareness Week and the Prevention of Violence Against Women Week.

Ever since I was first elected in this House — in fact, for many years before — I have spoken out that the rights of victims should be paramount over the rights of those of criminals, that rights of the victims should be more important than those of the criminals. All victims of crime and abuse deserve to be heard, respected and protected from future violence, and every victim counts. Every child, man and woman counts no matter what the circumstances.

People matter. People's rights and freedoms are vital to the fabric of this nation, Canada, and in the opinion of law-abiding individuals, criminals' rights should be diminished greatly when they commit acts against others.

This week across this great province, we recognize the right of Canadians and victims in activities that will
[ Page 4726 ]
focus on raising awareness of services available to victims of crime and enforce the shared belief that every victim matters. This government supports more than 160 police and community-based victim services programs across British Columbia to help raise awareness.

Prevention of Violence Against Women Week is also being recognized. More than 250 programs provide supports to women and children fleeing violence. We all must work together to support each other and prevent violence to make our communities a safer, better place to live. I urge everyone in this House to support the events in your communities this week in recognition of Victims of Crime Awareness Week and Prevention of Crime Against Women Week.

Oral Questions

REPORTING ON GOVERNMENT AND
CROWN CORPORATION
OLYMPIC GAMES TICKETS

C. James: Last year when reports of taxpayer dollars spent on luxury suites at GM Place became a political scandal for the B.C. Liberals, the minister promised this House that there would be a full reporting on taxpayer-paid Olympic tickets.

Here's what the minister said on October 21 last year: "I've said in this House…there will be a full accounting of each and every ticket used." But there's still no sign of that report. The secrecy continues; the confusion is getting worse. FOI'd documents that have been received back from B.C. Hydro show that taxpayers are still being denied details on who attended.

A request was made — a simple request — for who hosted and who attended events paid for by B.C. Hydro. The response came back with page after page entirely blacked out. So much for access to information.

[1405]

My question is to the minister. Why are taxpayers still being denied information on who used Olympic tickets, and will the minister tell this House what's behind the black ink on those documents?

Hon. M. McNeil: You know, the government has committed to a comprehensive report on the government's Olympic and Paralympic ticketing and hosting strategy. We've committed to that by late spring, but I anticipate it will probably be ready within the next couple of weeks, and we are going to be delivering on that.

But the Crown corporations have their own reporting requirements and their own individual boards they report to, and I understand much of that information is already on the website.

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

C. James: It's pretty clear that this minister doesn't have any kind of handle on what's going on with taxpayer dollars spent on the Olympics.

I would be happy to share the blacked-out document from B.C. Hydro that doesn't, in fact, include any information in the document. Hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars spent at a time when this government is cutting funding for school playgrounds, child care, education.

Last week when we asked the minister if Crown corporations would be included, the minister refused, saying: "We're just including information on government tickets, not Crown corporations." Well, Crown corporations are taxpayer dollars.

Again, my question is to the minister. Nothing short of full disclosure will satisfy the questions surrounding money spent on Olympic tickets, so will the minister commit today to including Crown corporations in the report coming forward?

Hon. M. McNeil: As I said in estimates just this week and I have said before in this House, the government has committed to providing a comprehensive report on the tickets purchased by this government within our hosting and ticketing strategy. We committed to doing this by late spring. We anticipate it will probably be ready in the next couple of weeks, and we intend to deliver on that.

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

C. James: It's very clear that this minister just doesn't get what full disclosure means. Taxpayer dollars are taxpayer dollars, whether they're spent in a ministry or a Crown corporation, and the public deserves to know where those dollars were spent.

We know that B.C. Hydro paid at least $600,000, B.C. Lottery Corporation $400,000 and ICBC $400,000 for luxury suites, using taxpayer dollars.

So I again ask this minister: when will she put an end to the secrecy? When will she agree to a full accounting of all taxpayer dollars used, who went to what event and when?

Hon. M. McNeil: The member opposite refers to the Crown corporations, who were sponsors, by the way. They have their own reporting requirements and individual boards they report to. In addition, it's my understanding that much of the information she's asking for now is already on their individual websites.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
[ Page 4727 ]

J. Horgan: "Complete and full accounting of each and every ticket. I've said in this House, as my colleague" — the member beside her — "has said, that there will be a full accounting…."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just sit down for a second.

Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

J. Horgan: I'll finish the quote, in case those over on the other side didn't get it when the minister made it. "The distribution of whatever Olympic tickets are touched by government will be fully accounted for." That was back in October.

So the minister is telling us that Crown corporations are not part of government. We received a freedom-of-information request dated April 15 that has all of the information available to the minister and her colleagues to release to the public, except it's redacted. It's blacked out.

[1410]

So my question is a simple one. While the minister still has some authority as a cabinet minister, this week, why doesn't she do the right thing and ensure that all tickets touched by pieces of government — whether they be ministries, ministers, Liberal MLAs or Crown corporations — are fully accounted for?

Hon. M. McNeil: As I've said before, we are committed to releasing a report on the cost of the hosting activities and the ticket allocations that were purchased by the government's Olympic Games Secretariat, and we will have a full report. As you can appreciate and as I'm sure many can appreciate, this was the most major undertaking this province has ever done — the Winter Olympic Games. Not only were the Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games the most successful games in history, they were also the most complex event that the province has ever hosted.

We are committed to the report. As I said, the report will probably be out within the next couple of weeks, and I encourage the members opposite to wait and see the report at that time.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: B.C. Hydro expends…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: …hundreds of thousands of dollars for friends and insiders of the B.C. Liberal Party, while ratepayers are looking at 29 percent rate increases on their hydro bills. B.C. Hydro has done the work. They've blocked it off at someone's request.

Will the minister — again, you may only be a minister for a short while — use that authority today to get B.C. Hydro to release full and comprehensive information and do it now?

Hon. M. McNeil: As I explained before, the Crown corporations have their own reporting requirements. It's my understanding that most of this information, including who they gave the tickets to, is on their individual websites, and I encourage the member opposite to go on line.

M. Farnworth: This government committed in this House to full accountability on every ticket that touched the hand of government, and that includes Crown corporations. The public doesn't believe that hiding behind gallons of whiteout is transparent or accountable.

Will the minister stand up in this House and commit that Crown corporations will be included in this report and we will know that Crown corporations were not used as a ticket slush fund for ministers to attend Olympic events?

Hon. M. McNeil: As I've said, again, there will be a full accountability of the tickets purchased by the Olympic Games Secretariat. There will be one, and I encourage the members opposite to wait until they see it. At that time, if they have questions, then we can continue the discussion.

But just as the members opposite were talking about the Olympic Games and not being very successful and panicked before…. Again, we hosted the most successful Olympic Games yet. I encourage them to continue to wait.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Not good enough, Minister. Not good enough.

The minister said in estimates….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

[1415]

M. Farnworth: The minister stated in estimates that ministers could be forced to provide the information. Well, ministers shouldn't have to be forced to provide information. They should be required to provide information that they committed to in this House. Giving back blacked-out FOIs is not accountable or transparent.
[ Page 4728 ]

So once again to the minister: will she commit to ensure that Crown corporations, every single one of them, will be tabled in this House as to how those tickets were used?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat for a second.

Members. Members on both sides of the House, there should be an element of respect when the question is being asked and an element of respect when the question is being answered.

Hon. M. McNeil: What I will commit to, as I have in October and I've continued to commit to, is that we will have a full accounting of the detailed report on the government's Olympic and Paralympic hosting and ticketing strategy. It will be complete with who used what — MLAs and what ministers went to which events.

S. Simpson: The minister made a commitment that all information on who got tickets and who used them would be made public. The minister has said that she will be transparent on this. There's no transparency if she excludes $1.4 million worth of tickets from Crown corporations. Clearly, this is another broken promise by the Liberals to not provide this information — another broken promise.

British Columbians have a right to know who went to the games on their dime, including people who went through Crown corporations. Will the minister keep her promise and release a detailed list, including the Crown corporations?

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, I will, as I have in the past, commit to a comprehensive report on the government's Olympic and Paralympic hosting and ticketing strategy, as we promised. It should be released within the next couple of weeks. It will have a detailed report on who used these tickets.

Crown corporations and the ones you're talking about that were sponsors of the Olympic Games have their own reporting requirements, and I understand much of that information is already on the website.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: The Crown corporations might have their own reporting authority, but the bottom line is that this minister and this B.C. Liberal government are responsible to the people of British Columbia to tell them what money was spent. This minister has that responsibility. Maybe it's because she thinks her job is done now that the Olympics are behind us, but it's not. She has that responsibility, including the Crown corporations.

Will she make that list available, including the Crowns? If not, she's broken her promise.

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games was the largest event ever hosted in this province, and it was a tremendous success. In addition to being successful, it was a very complex series of events — not just sporting events but other events.

I encourage the members opposite to wait for the report, which will be detailed and will be coming out within the next couple of weeks, until they pass their judgment.

ANNUAL FACILITIES GRANTS FOR SCHOOL
DISTRICTS AND CARBON NEUTRALITY

R. Austin: Last year this government took away all the money that school districts used to upgrade their buildings, a $110 million cut. This year school districts are only receiving half as much for facilities grants as they received in 2008.

[1420]

My question is to the Minister of Education. How are schools supposed to become more energy-efficient when this government continues gutting their facilities grants?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: As the member opposite is well aware and as he has actually acknowledged, very clearly we have increased education funding this year. There is a total of $110 million available to school districts in annual facilities grants as well as a number of other grants they can take advantage of as we go forward with carbon neutrality, which is of enormous importance to British Columbians everywhere in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: It's correct the facilities grant has been restored, but over two years, not one. So it's still a cut of 50 percent.

This government's decision to eliminate facilities grants last year left school districts helpless to improve energy efficiency and reduce their carbon footprints. Now, according to Susan Skinner, chair of the North Vancouver school district, calculating carbon will "definitely increase administrative costs."

Again to the Minister of Education: why doesn't this government get serious about protecting the environment by fully restoring facilities grants to schools so they can invest in energy efficiency and carbon reduction?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It is very clear — something on Earth Day but every day of the year — that we owe it to our children and our grandchildren to make sure
[ Page 4729 ]
that we're working toward a cleaner environment and carbon neutrality.

Every school district in this province signed on to the climate action charter. They were aware that in return for this, they would receive their carbon tax rebates in full, which they will. Not only that, they've already received $800,000, and by the spring of 2011 they will receive about $7 million in carbon tax revenues, which can be used for projects in their schools that will help to pay for energy upgrades.

SCHOOL DISTRICT CARBON OFFSET COSTS
AND ENERGY RETROFIT FUNDING

R. Fleming: Carbon offsets for B.C. school districts this year will cost $6.3 million, and they will be paid for out of operating budgets. Incredibly, under the carbon offset regulation, schools can't apply to the fund to retrofit their own schools and actually lower their carbon emissions. Instead, the money flows from our schools to private companies like Lafarge cement and Whistler's Westin ski and spa resort.

How can the Education Minister justify forcing districts that are laying off teachers, that are closing schools, that are cancelling their own energy retrofit programs to pay for private projects like these?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The province is providing school districts around this province with $10 million to upgrade their heating and cooling systems, which is going to realize an efficiency gain in energy of 46 percent.

The health and safety of our students is important, and it isn't just in schools. It is the overall environment of this program. That is why we have taken leadership which has made us renowned around the world — leadership like the carbon tax, leadership like our position on reducing our greenhouse gases. We know the members opposite were against that, but we're in favour of those changes.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The minister knows that the Pacific Carbon Trust actually gets its money from cash-starved school districts, all of whom are in deficit this year, but prohibits green investment going back into the thousands of school buildings across British Columbia.

There are other jurisdictions that do it differently. The U.K. — they allow school offsets to be pooled to then be used to lower the actual carbon footprints of their school buildings. That makes sense.

Again to the minister: why are the B.C. Liberals prohibiting school boards from investing their offset dollars in projects that would actually lower the carbon footprint of our entire school system here in B.C.?

[1425]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It's certainly interesting to be preached at by an opposition that didn't have a plan for the energy or the environment.

School districts around this province are working hard in this area — upgrading. They have multiple sources of revenue. We've been working with them. We've been helping them to access different kinds of funding, including….

Interjections.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Mr. Speaker, the important thing is that we must address the environment, and the members opposite are well aware of that. We have to pay attention to this. We have a plan, and we'll continue to work with school districts and take care of the children, the students in this province.

SURREY SCHOOL DISTRICT PORTABLE USE
AND CARBON OFFSET COSTS

H. Bains: This year the Surrey school board is being forced to add 20 more energy-inefficient portables to hundreds that actually crowd our Surrey school grounds. Not only are they forced to pay $2 million out of the operating money for these portables, they are forced to come up with more than half a million dollars to calculate carbon and to buy carbon offsets mandated by this government.

My question to the minister is this. Why doesn't this government do the right thing, take real action to protect the environment by putting Surrey children in real classrooms rather than in these energy-inefficient portables?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It's interesting. One of the things that we never hear from the opposition, which we never hear any acknowledgment of, is our investment in schools. And it is certainly true that in Surrey even now we're investing $50 million in new schools. Over the last ten years we've invested more than $1.7 billion, and each of these schools is energy-efficient to the highest standards.

What's also true is that the NDP have opposed every single major environmental initiative that we've put in place since 2001. They voted against the carbon tax. They voted against cap-and-trade. They voted against the funding for LiveSmart B.C. We are committed.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: Answers we get from this minister today and for the weeks in the past are a despicable display of
[ Page 4730 ]
arrogance and contempt for our trustees and parents by this minister. The minimum she could do is be upfront with those parents and trustees and say: "Look, we're not giving you money, because we used that money to pay for the ministers' and Liberal MLAs' Olympic tickets."

The money that the Surrey school district is spending on carbon offsets and new portables could pay up to 35 teachers, and not a penny of that money helps the Surrey school district reduce their carbon footprint.

So my question again is to the minister. Does the Education Minister really think that it makes sense to send funding from the cash-strapped school system to ski resorts and cement plants?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member opposite has made such a large number of incorrect statements that I really don't know where to start, but I will begin here. In Surrey we have increased funding by $14 million this year. We're supporting education in Surrey. Surrey is the fastest-growing district in the province, and we acknowledge that. We have invested over $204 million in new schools, in seismic upgrades, and we continue to invest in this.

[1430]

It is difficult to keep up with a rapidly growing district, but to say that we have not been investing in schools, to mislead the public in this way, is simply wrong.

SCHOOL DISTRICT CARBON OFFSET COSTS
AND ENERGY RETROFIT FUNDING

N. Macdonald: I think for now and for the next three years, it's going to be very awkward for any B.C. Liberal to stand up and talk about misleading, after what they've done to the province. Pretty thin ice.

The Central Okanagan school district is facing a $7.4 million shortfall, as this minister knows, which includes $137,000 in unfunded carbon offset costs. That means the district has to cut that money, deprive students of that amount of funding, and there is no opportunity for the district to reduce their carbon footprint.

So the question for the minister is this. Why is the government depriving students of needed services and then using that money to fund private companies through the Pacific Carbon Trust?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I really must correct the record and remind the members opposite of exactly what we have done in this province with respect to our funding in education.

As of next year there will be 60,000 fewer students in the system, and we are investing more than 1.3 billion additional dollars in education in this province. It is really ironic that the NDP would take this day, Earth Day, of all days to argue against the carbon neutrality for school districts — something that is in the best interests of students and the province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just wait, Member.

The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: I'm anxious to go. Let's use an example for the minister. Elkford Secondary School could not replace their furnace because at the last minute, as the minister will remember, facility grants were cut. Neither can they access Pacific Carbon Trust money.

But the money they put in as carbon offsets were available for new heating systems for Westin Whistler Resort and Spa, Pan Pacific Mountainside in Whistler, Four Seasons in Vancouver. So lots for private hotels; nothing for Elkford Secondary School. My question is simple. How does that make sense to use educational funds in that way?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: As I said, our government is absolutely committed to carbon neutrality and to continuing our leadership in this area — without question.

As the member opposite is well aware, school districts around this province have access to $110 million for annual facilities grants. There are other grants they can apply for. We've worked with a number of districts over this past year to allow them to access restricted capital funding, and they've done these sorts of projects. Many of the school districts value this just as much as we do.

I would ask the members opposite how they would manage things differently. How would they raise taxes? What would they download onto these very students that they claim they are supporting?

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

D. Horne: I rise to reserve my right to raise a matter of privilege.

Petitions

D. McRae: I'd like to submit a petition from Comox Valley cycling residents in regards to the HST.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Sather: I seek leave to present a petition.
[ Page 4731 ]

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

M. Sather: I have another approximately 500 signatures from residents in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows calling on the government to scrap the implementation of the HST.

[1435]

Standing Order 81.1

SCHEDULE FOR DEBATE ON BILL 9

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 simply to advise the House that I will be soliciting input from the Opposition House Leader with respect to developing a schedule for debate on Bill 9 that would see the required votes on that bill take place prior to the expiration of the month of April.

I'll report back to the House in due course.

Orders of the Day

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

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — CONSUMPTION TAX REBATE
AND TRANSITION ACT

(continued)

On the amendment (continued).

J. Brar: I rise once again, Mr. Speaker…. [Applause.] I have support on both sides of the House. That's good to know.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I rise once again in support of the motion to refer Bill 9 to a committee called the Select Standing Committee on Finance. I do so because the people of British Columbia have a lot of outstanding questions when we talk about the implementation of the HST.

During the last election the B.C. Liberals promised to the people of British Columbia that they would not impose the HST. That was the promise made by this government to the people of British Columbia. Not only that, as I said earlier, but they gave that commitment in writing to the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, and they signed that letter. They gave that commitment in writing to the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association, and they signed that letter as well.

That was before the election, but as soon as the elections were over, they dropped the bombshell of betrayal on the people of British Columbia by doing completely the opposite to that. Just six weeks after the election, they announced the implementation of the HST. Just six weeks after the election. Now we have found that just three days after the election there were actually negotiations going on between the government of British Columbia and the federal government.

That's why it's very important that we send this matter to the committee so that we can find out the truth as to what went on. Clearly, this government was not honest with the people of British Columbia before the election. They failed to tell the truth before the election when it comes to HST. That's why it's very important to refer this matter to the committee so that we can find out what the reality was.

Now, 85 percent of the people of British Columbia don't support the HST. That's a huge majority, and they deserve to be heard. That's why it's very important for us to send this matter to a committee so that the committee can go out and listen to the people of British Columbia from all walks of life. That's why it's very important.

It is known that this HST tax is unfair. It's unfair, and that's why it's very important that we refer this matter to a committee so that the people of British Columbia can come and provide their feedback to this government so that they can find out how it's going to hurt the average person in British Columbia.

The reality is this. The HST is going to transfer $1.9 billion in taxes from big businesses to the people of British Columbia. So $1.9 billion is going to be transferred from big businesses to the people of British Columbia. In other words, big business will pay less, and the people of British Columbia will pay more. During the last nine years, since this government has been in power, tax cut after tax cut after tax cut to big businesses has been going on and subsidy after subsidy to corporations. Where will it end?

[1440]

When we talk about the minimum wage, they have constantly refused to raise the minimum wage. That's why it's very important that we refer this matter to a committee — so that we can find answers for the people of British Columbia asking at this point in time. It's very clear that HST is going to drive up the cost of many, many things people use almost every day. It's a real thing.

I don't understand. Until today the Minister of Finance failed to tell us even one thing where the cost will go up, failed to mention one figure, a figure of any item where he says specifically that the cost of that thing will go up by so many dollars. He failed to do that. That's why it's very important that we refer this matter to a committee so that we can find out exactly what it will mean to the people of British Columbia.
[ Page 4732 ]

It's going to raise the cost of many things, once the HST is implemented, and the list is very long. Restaurant meals will go up. Many groceries — such as snack food and other prepared food like salad, sandwiches, heated food — will go up. The cost of school supplies will go up. The cost of services, such as taxis, will go up. The cost of live theatre, movie tickets, amusement parks, campground fees, museum admission fees, whale-watching tours — those will all go up.

The cost for accounting services will go up. The cost for veterinarian care will go up. The cost for many other professional services, like architects or real estate agents, will go up with HST.

The cost for yoga classes will go up. People go out to get healthy and probably save costs to the province, and the cost for yoga classes, dance, cooking classes and martial arts will go up. The cost for membership fees for clubs and gyms and players will go up for many teams and sports. The cost of haircuts will go up.

The list goes on, and this government has failed to tell us. How much more will it cost the people of British Columbia for those things? The list is very long, and that's why it's very important to send this matter, to refer this matter to a committee — so that we can find out exactly where the cost will go up and how much it will go up when we implement the HST.

I have heard from the other side time and again that a lot of businesses are supporting the HST, but I have heard the other side of the story. There are a lot of businesses out there that do not support the HST. It will actually hurt a lot of small business people. The restaurant and food service industry is one of them. The construction industry and the real estate industry will be hurt by this. The tourism industry will be hurt. The taxi industry will be hurt negatively. Veterinarians will make less.

Thousands of people in British Columbia will lose jobs as a result of HST, in the restaurant industry alone. The restaurant industry alone forecasts that HST will cost them up to 12,000 jobs — 12,000 jobs to the restaurant industry alone.

The tourism industry predicts that it will cost them up to 10,000 jobs — 10,000 jobs to them. So there are a lot of businesses which will be impacted negatively.

The list goes on. The Council of Tourism Associations of B.C. is opposed to it. The B.C. Care Providers Association is opposed to it. The Federation of Community Social Services of B.C. is opposed to HST. The Rental Owners and Managers Society of B.C. is opposed to it. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs — they're opposed to it.

There are many other businesses opposed to HST. The reality is there are no winners. There are no winners among us, among the people of British Columbia. The only one group of winners if we implement the HST are the people who are the friends of the Liberal government — the big corporations, and rich people and their friends.

[1445]

Madam Speaker, my time is up, and I would like to probably conclude my comments by saying that I fully support that we should send Bill 9 to the committee because there are a lot of outstanding questions that the people of British Columbia are asking.

I support the motion because the HST is the single most powerful bombshell of betrayal thrown on the people of British Columbia during the election and after the election. I support this motion because the B.C. Liberals failed to tell the truth to the people of British Columbia about the HST during the election, when they said they will not impose the HST.

I support this motion because the HST is an unfair tax hike on the people of British Columbia. It will transfer $1.9 billion in taxes from big corporations to the people of British Columbia. I support this motion because the HST will hurt a lot of small businesses in the province of British Columbia, and it will cost thousands of jobs to the people of British Columbia.

I support this motion because people of Surrey-Fleetwood from all walks of life have been calling and sending me e-mails to stop the HST, and that's why it's very important for us to send this matter to a committee. I support this motion because all the supporting arguments I have heard are not very convincing as of today. It's one-sided information, and the people of British Columbia need to be told the truth.

I will conclude my comments by saying that I fully support the motion. It's very important for this House to refer this matter to a committee so that the committee can go out and find the facts and the truth and the reality, and the people of British Columbia can make a very important decision about this.

Hon. B. Penner: It's an honour for me to have a chance to participate in this debate today. Let me just say right at the outset that I am opposed to this motion the opposition has brought forward as a stalling tactic.

The amendment before us, as a stalling tactic, will not help put British Columbia on a strong economic footing to help us recover from the current global economic recession and come out of that recession stronger than before. It is our party and our government's stated position that that is our objective: to come out of the current global economic downturn not just recovering from the recession but coming out stronger than we were when we went into it.

For reasons I'll go into in a moment, this bill itself will allow us to do just that. In short, this bill, Bill 9, is about jobs. On the other hand, the amendment from the members of the opposition and the member for Port Coquitlam is about the exact opposite. It's about stall-
[ Page 4733 ]
ing the passage of Bill 9, the Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act, and it's about stalling the economic recovery, which is now starting to take place in British Columbia.

While it's true that our economy is starting to show signs of recovery, our government isn't satisfied with that. We think that there's more that we can and should do to help propel ourselves out of this deep economic downturn that struck the whole world over the last 18 to 24 months.

Madam Speaker, I would submit to you that this stalling tactic, this amendment put forward by the member for Port Coquitlam and the NDP, is really typical of their approach to job creation and doing what's best for the province. Their approach is, "Well, we can put that off for another day. Let's just stall. Let's do the politically expedient thing, and let's not worry about it," even though there are people in British Columbia today who would certainly benefit if there were additional jobs created.

I was here as a member of the Legislature from 1996 to 2001, when the NDP government of the day was in office, and I had constituents leaving almost weekly in search of jobs, to go to Alberta or Ontario, because B.C. had become the last province in Canada in terms of economic growth.

It was a sad record, a sad history, and it wasn't just a matter of statistics. It had a dramatic impact on individual families, including people who lived in my neighbourhood that were forced to put up for-sale signs and leave the province in order to find an economic future for themselves, for their families and their children.

Since 2001 we've seen a significant reversal of fortunes. British Columbia started to be a net beneficiary of inward-bound interprovincial migration. That means more people were moving to B.C. than were leaving, contrary to the late 1990s, when by the tens of thousands, British Columbians were voting with their feet and leaving the province to go find jobs elsewhere. After we got elected, that trend was reversed.

[1450]

Today we see that British Columbia is poised to lead Canada in the economic recovery. We're already showing some signs of job growth, and when you compare the number of people working today to when we took office in 2001, there are about 400,000 more people working today, even after this recession, than there were when we took office in 2001.

But as I said, as encouraging as these early signs of economic recovery are, our government is not satisfied with that. We believe there is more that we can and should do, and the HST is one step in doing that.

Now, I want to bring this home a little bit, make it a little bit closer to home, because it's already been noted that more than 130 countries around the world have already moved to adopt a value-added tax, which is essentially what the HST is, as opposed to the old and antiquated provincial sales tax that we have here in British Columbia. When you take a look around the OECD countries, the leading economies in the world, 29 out of 30 of those countries have adopted similar tax policies.

In 1991 I had the opportunity to spend some time working in one of the Asian Tiger countries, working at a law firm in Bangkok, Thailand. During the 1990s that country, too, made a difficult choice. They decided to move to a value-added tax.

I can tell members here that it wasn't a popular thing to do in Thailand either, but it was a decision that the government of the day there chose to make, and ever since then you've seen very significant and strong and consistent economic growth in Thailand, so that it has largely outpaced its neighbours in Southeast Asia in terms of growing their economy.

It used to actually be said…. When I was there in 1991 it was often referred to as a Third World country. Thailand is no longer referred to as a Third World country. I'm not going to suggest that the value-added tax that they adopted is the only reason that they moved from that not-so-desirable status to something much more enviable. But I think it is an important part.

I try to stay in touch with some of the former work colleagues I had there, as well as the many friends that I've made in Thailand. When going on the Internet some months ago, I came across a feature article in the Bangkok Post — a retrospective talking about when Thailand adopted the value-added tax and the controversy that was associated with that, but also the economic benefits that they've seen in terms of increased investment and job creation and a growth in incomes year after year in that country.

So even in Thailand, this many years on from making that decision, they still acknowledge that it was a controversial decision. But the academics, the economists, people in government all recognize that it was an important part of making that country a desirable place to invest and to help create jobs for their people and raise incomes by increasing the demand for labour — not just any labour, but increasingly skilled labour, whether it's in the high-tech sector, in the manufacturing of computer components, in the automobile sector or their natural gas sector in processing. There's been significant economic growth.

It would be remiss not to acknowledge briefly some of the very uncertain, unhappy things that are happening right as we speak. My thoughts are with my friends and former colleagues in Bangkok in particular during this time of political upheaval and protest, and I can only hope that cooler heads will prevail and that calm will come back to that country of very inspirational people who are more naturally inclined to
[ Page 4734 ]
smile than to get angry and engage themselves in violent protests.

So I hope that the leaders of the opposing groups and parties there will seek a means to resolve their differences without involving further bloodshed, because that's simply tragic and completely unnecessary in my view.

Let me return back here to British Columbia. There's one particular example that I'm familiar with where a country moved to a value-added tax and has seen economic benefits, overcoming some of the political concerns. Closer to home in my riding there's a company I've visited a number of times. In fact, a number of people I went to high school with are working there. It's a company called IMW Industries.

They're a world leader today in the manufacture, sale and distribution of natural gas compressors and dispensing equipment. That company, over the last couple of years since they moved to a new location in Chilliwack just off of Lickman Road, has grown. They've been hiring people. Even through this economic recession, they've continued to hire additional people and to grow their business. Frankly, one of the challenges they've been facing is how to expand, because some of their customers are asking for more products that would require them to expand their facilities.

But with the Canadian dollar rising in value and much of their product being exported to the United States or to other countries where the common denominator, in terms of the currency exchange, is the U.S. dollar for the contract price, it's getting tougher.

[1455]

The margin has been shrinking because of the rising Canadian dollar compared to the U.S. dollar. That makes it even more important for a company like IMW and for the 150 or so employees working there that British Columbia move to a value-added tax system like the HST.

Why? Because under an HST they will be able to get input credits for the amount of money that they're paying when they purchase new equipment and supplies and the components that go into this manufacturing process in Chilliwack.

Madam Speaker, think about that — 7 percent today that they have to pay on every component that they're putting into their equipment that they want to sell. They've got international competitors, and they're selling on a world market where most of the rest of the world does get input tax credits and does not have to pay an antiquated provincial sales tax, where those exporting companies don't get the input tax credit. So the PST is clearly putting our businesses at a disadvantage.

Frequently in British Columbia, people over the past few decades have rung their hands in angst and despair, saying: "Why is it? Why is it that we haven't had more growth in manufacturing? Why don't we see more investment in high-paying manufacturing jobs in British Columbia?"

One of those reasons is because of the extra, additional cost that's imposed on businesses, like the 7 percent provincial sales tax which they cannot get back through an input tax credit.

So to make it local, something like this HST will be a significant benefit to a company like IMW and the 150 or so workers there today, and the many more that I hope will be working there in the years ahead.

Another community in the riding that I represent of Chilliwack-Hope is Agassiz, legally known as the district of Kent. Last summer I had the chance to stop in and visit another business located there. They manufacture very large steel wheels for trucks in the construction sector, and we're talking big, massive trucks that are used in the natural resource sector around the world for mining and other activities.

Their competitors are also based outside of Canada, and they're trying to compete with one hand tied behind their back in the form of the antiquated provincial sales tax.

To the extent that we can repeal that antiquated tax — and that's what Bill 9 is all about — and move to a harmonized sales tax, we can help that company, too, and the people working in Agassiz can continue to have a bright employment future by assisting that company in its international competition, by removing that antiquated 7 percent add-on for every coat of paint that they require in that facility, their carpet, their computers, the forklifts that they use, the trucks that they need to move their product to the port in Vancouver and put it on vessels to carry it to their customers around the world.

Those are just two local examples where this initiative that our government has undertaken is really about protecting and enhancing our ability to create jobs right here at home and jobs that are good-paying.

I'll just refer back to my notes for a moment. Chilliwack is well known as an agricultural community. Certainly, over the years that's been a mainstay. It's been a very stable part of our economy. While other sectors have had their ups and downs, one thing that's really provided a stabilizing influence in our community is the relative health and strength of our agricultural sector.

I am always interested to hear what farmers in my community have to say, and I'd like to report to the House that, through the B.C. Agriculture Council, they're estimating that the agricultural sector will save about $15 million to $18 million per year through the adoption of the HST and the elimination and repeal of the old, antiquated provincial sales tax.

That will directly assist farmers in my community, not just in Chilliwack but also in Agassiz and Harrison. In all three areas we have a significant number of dairy farms, chicken farms, some pork producers and a number of other operations. So that's another reason why I support
[ Page 4735 ]
this initiative in Bill 9 and oppose the NDP's effort to derail it and postpone it and delay it and procrastinate by way of this referral motion, amendment motion, that the member for Port Coquitlam put forward.

[1500]

Now, I know that the NDP is reluctant to acknowledge many things about the HST. Here's one. You never hear them talk about the fact that we have designed it specifically so that there are tax credits targeted for low-income families and seniors. In fact, under the proposal that our government has put forward with our Minister of Finance, more than 1.1 million British Columbians will benefit from that shift.

Add to that the climate action credit that we put in place when we introduced the carbon tax, something the NDP opposition also was opposed to at that time, it adds up to a total of $340 per year in provincial credits. That's a significant benefit and assistance to people of lower incomes.

You have to ask yourself: is the NDP's opposition today similar to their opposition to the carbon tax two years ago, when they thought they saw a political opportunity and just jumped on that bandwagon and then saw that bandwagon's wheels fall off during the last provincial election campaign and veer into the ditch? Or is it really based on some underlying fundamental NDP socialist principle?

Well, that's a very good question. We hear a lot from the opposition NDP about them being all for socialist principles. Yet when you look across the country, which province in Canada is moving to the highest level of HST in the entire country? Where is that? It's in a province that has an NDP government.

Nova Scotia announced just two or three weeks ago in their latest provincial budget that far from eliminating the HST, based on some NDP socialist principle, they're hiking the HST. I believe it'll now go up to 15 percent in Nova Scotia. So much for principles on the part of the NDP in opposing the HST. The NDP are increasing the HST in Nova Scotia.

We know that unlike the B.C. Liberal Party, which doesn't have any constitutional connection in terms of its membership to any federal party or other parties in Canada, the NDP are constitutionally connected at the hip with their brethren at the federal level and at the provincial level. If you're a member of the NDP in British Columbia, you're also a member of the federal NDP. If you're a member of the NDP in Nova Scotia at the provincial level, you're also a member of the NDP federally.

It's pretty clear, based on the actions of one of the few NDP governments in Canada in hiking the HST to the highest level in the entire country, that far from having some socialist principle opposing the HST, the NDP actually support it, and they're increasing it.

It's interesting to note that the types of credits for low-income earners that have been put in place by the government of Nova Scotia mirror almost exactly the kind of low-income relief that our government is providing to British Columbians for when the HST comes into effect and we repeal the antiquated provincial sales tax. Within British Columbia there'll be a large range of exemptions. For example, books for children, children's clothing, shoes, car seats and diapers will be exempt. All British Columbians will receive a credit for residential energy costs.

In his news release last July Jayson Myers, the president and CEO of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, said: "This initiative is the biggest thing that can be done to boost the B.C. economy."

I've already talked about the local benefits to a number of businesses based in my community that create high-paying and, I also might add, satisfying jobs. Again, I know a number of the people working there from my days in high school. They really enjoy their work and are hoping that governments will do the right thing so that they can continue to enjoy their work and continue to raise their families with a decent-paying job in the community they grew up in and in which they enjoy living in.

A gentlemen, a UBC professor in the department of economics, a fellow named Kevin Milligan, told the Tyee on-line newspaper, the frequent source of NDP question period research material: "HST isn't a left-right issue, and it isn't ideological as far as economists are concerned. It's just a good policy. It isn't pro-business, and it's not anti-consumer. It is the necessary modernization of tax policy."

Yet we see the NDP in British Columbia continue to advocate for a British Columbia that would be left behind in the dark ages of progressive tax policy with this blatant stalling tactic that the member for Port Coquitlam has put forward. Again, that stands in stark contrast to what we see from the NDP brethren in Nova Scotia.

There's another reason I'd like to offer to the members opposite not to support the motion to refer this matter that was put forward by the member for Port Coquitlam, and that's because they really haven't put forward any alternative ideas for how to stimulate investment in British Columbia and get more people working.

[1505]

Just recently we saw an article in the Vancouver Sun from Prof. Jon Kesselman, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Public Finance with the graduate public policy program at Simon Fraser University, one of the universities I graduated from in the past. He wrote in the Vancouver Sun: "B.C.'s PST is seriously flawed and economically damaging, and whatever its potential shortcomings, the HST will be superior in almost every respect."

That kind of learned opinion falls on completely deaf ears in terms of the members of the opposition. You have to ask yourself again: if it isn't about their socialist philosophy, then what is it?
[ Page 4736 ]

Madam Speaker, I'll tell you what it is. It's all about political expediency. They think they've sensed an opportunity — just like they did when they opposed the carbon tax only to reverse their position after the election, just like they did when they opposed the cap-and-trade legislation by voting against it and when they voted against low-carbon fuels, when we introduced that a couple years ago.

I predict that within a short while the NDP, even here in British Columbia, will reverse their position on their opposition to the HST. Their leader has already hinted that's the case by noting that there isn't much you can do after this comes into effect and that it will be there for at least five years. Therefore, she's not promising to repeal it.

Now, there are good reasons why the HST should not be repealed, but it's pretty disingenuous to have the Leader of the Opposition trying to keep up with former Premier Bill Vander Zalm in his anti-HST crusade, never mind how chock-a-block of misstatements and falsehoods his website is. The NDP leader is trying — and not succeeding, it seems — to keep up with former Premier Bill Vander Zalm in terms of her public profile on this issue.

It's been obvious, too, from comments from not just the Leader of the Opposition but a number of other NDP MLAs that they're having a hard time getting their internal caucus position together. They're not terribly cohesive on it. We've seen it in a couple of different ways.

Recently we saw it on photo radar, with conflicting statements between their Energy critic, their Public Safety critic, and others, about whether or not the NDP would reinstate photo radar. Just this week we've seen conflicting, contorted positions on Site C, whether they're in favour or not. Frankly, the Energy critic has said that it makes him excited to think about Site C, that it's the cleanest and greenest form of energy in North America.

Today we see, with this stalling tactic that the NDP is talking about in terms of this motion, that they, too, can't get their act together in terms of what their caucus position is. We have the member for Surrey-Whalley, the Finance critic, saying at one time that they will keep the HST. In fact, here's what he told CKNW: "Once it's out, once it's done, it's done."

On the other hand, we have the member for Juan de Fuca saying to CFAX radio here in Victoria on February 10: "We can reduce portions of the HST, but we have to find revenue to offset that from other taxes." Yet with this motion we have no hint from the opposition of what other taxes they have in mind in terms of cranking them up to offset the reduction in revenue that would be experienced by the elimination of the HST.

I think it's incumbent upon the members of the opposition, if they're going to try and take a position of opposition to something, that they at least get their position consistent with each other. Even if it's not consistent with other NDP governments or parties across Canada, at least maybe within their own caucus they could come up with a position that is more consistent with each other than what we've seen to date. Frankly, one's head spins when you listen to the conflicting and contorted positions of the NDP on this issue.

In fact, you think back to a unanimous recommendation that came from a Finance Committee a couple of years ago where all members of that committee, including the NDP, said something like an HST should be considered and studied. Yet here we are two years later, after a committee already studied and talked about and recommended pursuing the HST, with yet another motion to go back to that very same committee to have more discussion about this topic.

For reasons I've already articulated, as we're coming out of a recession and looking for more investment and more jobs, now is not the time to delay and stall and defer the opportunity to make a tax measure that will expedite our recovery from the economic downturn and boost B.C.'s economic fortunes even more than they're already projected to increase over the next couple of years.

[1510]

I know that the NDP likes to talk about spending more money at every opportunity. We heard it again today during question period: "Why doesn't the Minister of Education, instead of just increasing education spending by tens of millions of dollars, increase it by even more tens of millions of dollars?" They're completely oblivious to the fact that we're already struggling with a $1.7 billion deficit and recognizing, too, that those very school children that they purport to have concern about will be left to shoulder the burden of any increased debt that would result from a government pursuing NDP policies.

This tax reform, this change to the PST — the elimination of that antiquated tax, replacing it with an HST — is really about the future and about creating a stronger economy with more options for our young people that are currently in school. It's one thing to go to school and have an education, but it's another thing to wonder, when you reach the end of your grade 12, whether or not there are actually going to be employment opportunities to go to and what your options are.

We know from experience around the world that countries that move to a value-added tax like the HST see an increase in investment because of the elimination of that discouraging effect of the 7 percent provincial sales tax on new equipment and machinery.

That is, I think, one of the reasons why the NDP in Nova Scotia, when looking to see how they were going to eliminate or at least take steps to eliminate their deficit, chose to increase the HST compared to other taxes. They
[ Page 4737 ]
knew that from an economic perspective it had a better impact on the economy than other choices that they were confronted with in terms of revenue increases.

Again, the members opposite here don't have to take it from me or the Finance Minister or the Premier. They just need to phone up their NDP brethren in Nova Scotia and ask them why it is that the NDP in Nova Scotia think the HST is a preferable tax to income tax, corporate income tax, small business tax or any other form of taxation when they had the choice about how they were going to try to close the gap in their provincial deficit.

I note that the NDP government in Nova Scotia was elected last year and made a number of commitments about not reducing or laying off staff in the public service in order to balance their budget, and three weeks ago they announced that in fact they'll be reducing their civil service by about 1,000 positions over the next four years.

Let me share with you another observation, as I consider whether or not the NDP's motion to delay and stall on this tax reform initiative is worthwhile. We've heard doom and gloom from the members opposite that people will stop going to restaurants.

I was in Nova Scotia last summer, and it was hard to get into restaurants. Their HST at that time was 13 percent — higher than what our rate will be — and it was difficult to get into restaurants. There were lineups to get into restaurants in Nova Scotia, with an HST in place that's higher than what we're proposing. That was at 13 percent, before the NDP government there decided to increase it to 15 percent.

I know that any change can be challenging for people. It's something to get accustomed to, but the empirical evidence shows that over time people can adjust and, as demonstrated by the lineups that I experienced in the restaurants in Nova Scotia, they have managed to adjust to an HST, so much so that the NDP in Nova Scotia saw fit to raise it even higher to 15 percent.

We've done a lot of things since 2001 to support new investment in the economy. That's one reason why we have 400,000 more jobs today than we did when we took office after the NDP's failed decade in office. Bill 9 is a continuation of the work to make British Columbia more competitive, and not just in Canada.

I know we're very used to comparing ourselves to Canada. I just did it myself a moment ago to one of the examples of NDP policy and practice in Nova Scotia in raising the HST there. But it's important to know that we're in an international competition. Simply benchmarking ourselves against other Canadian provinces is not enough.

More than virtually any other province, British Columbia's economy is trade-dependent. More than any other province, more of our exports, as a percentage, go offshore than anywhere else in Canada. We have to look not just to benchmarking ourselves with the rest of Canada or even the United States but for B.C.'s future — and our future growth and our diversification of exports in our economy — at what other countries are doing in the Pacific Rim and around the world.

[1515]

That's why it's important to take note and not dismiss out of hand — as the NDP likes to do here in B.C., unlike their cousins in Nova Scotia — the fact that 130 countries around the world have moved to a value-added tax and abandoned things like antiquated provincial sales tax which result in a cascading effect, where taxes get added and added at every level of the production cycle and then get buried and embedded in the price instead of only showing up once at the end product.

I know economics has never been the NDP's strong suit — nor mathematics, for that matter — so I can somewhat forgive their difficulty in understanding the concept behind stripping out those embedded taxes that exist as a result of the antiquated provincial sales tax. But again, if they're having a hard time getting their head around it and they can't bring themselves to understand basic economic principles or even mathematics, all they have to do is pick up the phone and call Jack.

Call Jack Layton and ask Jack Layton what he thinks about the NDP in Nova Scotia increasing the HST. That's what the NDP has done in Nova Scotia under the leadership of the NDP there and with Jack Layton at the federal level of their party. So if they can't understand the economic concepts here on their own — and I can understand that they're challenged in that regard — all they have to do is phone their NDP brethren in Nova Scotia or their leader, Jack, and say: "Hey, Jack, can you walk us through this? Why did the NDP in Nova Scotia increase the HST?"

Interjections.

Hon. B. Penner: Have you been to Nova Scotia? Obviously, I've hit a sore point with the members of the NDP here in British Columbia, who are obviously uncomfortable by a choice their brethren made in Nova Scotia.

Let's get back to some other effects here in British Columbia that we can look forward to.

G. Gentner: On this side I'll take Jack Layton any day before their Stephen Harper — without question.

I'm somewhat a little handicapped because I'm following the riveting oratorical skills of the member opposite. It was very awesome how he was able to deliver it, but I do have to talk briefly about what the Minister of Environment didn't tell us and why it should be referred. And we'll talk about the motion.
[ Page 4738 ]

It's the fact the HST is going to affect tourism-related industries, tourism-related industries that are part of his ministry itself. You know, campgrounds will be impacted. We're going to be looking at American competition. I mean, why would Americans cross the border and come to our B.C. parks with an HST attached? It doesn't make sense. Our dollar's at par. It's at parity. It's going up. By July 1 we're going to have a Canadian dollar probably $1.04, $1.10, and tack on the HST.

Why wouldn't the minister want to refer this to a committee and get a better understanding of not only what the people are saying but the real economics of small towns — small towns that rely on tourism, rely on camping, RV campgrounds, RV parks, fishing charters? Why wouldn't he want to talk to those people who could possibly lose their jobs because of the impact of the HST? That's due diligence.

I mean, the minister talks about the stalling tactic, but you know, democracy sometimes is exhaustive. Isn't that what we're supposed to do? It's participatory democracy. Ask people.

An Hon. Member: Tell them the truth.

G. Gentner: Tell them the truth.

We're talking about increases on, perhaps, propane. How is that going to impact the camper? The minister talked about his constituency, that of Chilliwack, and of course, we know that perhaps animal feed will be impacted, as well, by the HST.

You know, it's interesting that this government is unwilling to consult, to confer with the people of British Columbia, and that is why I support this motion.

[1520]

The motion made by the House Leader of the opposition states quite emphatically that "the subject matter be forwarded to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and further that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberation."

That makes perfect sense. What's wrong with a heart-to-heart? What's wrong with a true dialogue? I mean, we hear on the other side how we have all this misinformation. Well, okay, let's clear the air. Let's sit down. Let's chew the fat with the people of British Columbia. Let's sit down. That's what this motion is saying. But no, it's a stall.

This is kind of what Archie Bunker told Edith: "Stifle yourself." That's the attitude over there. That's why they don't want to support this referral motion. "Stifle yourself, voters. You made a big mistake. We told you one thing before the election, but we've all of a sudden changed our minds. Zip your lips. Sit down. We don't want to hear from you. We know best."

This is what this motion is allowing the government to do. Instead of telling people, "Sit down. You don't know what you're talking about," here's an opportunity for this government to go around the province and listen to the people of British Columbia. That's what this motion is all about.

Frankly, I just don't understand the reluctance of this government to deal with an opportunity to do a heart-to-heart with the people of British Columbia. Boy, would they eliminate the type of fervour, almost hysteria right now, relative to what they've created with the HST if they would just sit down and have a discussion with the people of British Columbia. That's what this motion is all about, but they don't get it.

I have to talk briefly about…. Interesting that yesterday the Minister of Health Services stood up and enlightened us a little bit about the HST. He was talking about the discussion or the anger against his government, and I quote the minister. Yesterday afternoon, in fact, he said: "Now, you could say, I suppose, that this was a flip-flop or that they changed their position or they completely reversed direction — all the kinds of things that I'm hearing right now about, apparently, our government and our position on the HST."

A flip-flop. He admitted there's a flip-flop, but he goes on to say: "So let the record be clear for this member. I have been pushing a harmonized sales tax since I first got elected in 2001." That's what the Minister of Health Services said. He admitted it. He's the father of the HST in British Columbia.

The Minister of Health Services stood here right across and said that it was his idea way back in 2001. We haven't heard one pip from this side about it till, miraculously, it occurred two days after the election. A little discussion started to happen there.

He goes on to say: "I remember talking to Minister Gary Collins at the time and trying to encourage the minister at that time to consider a merger of the taxes, because I always felt that this was going to be good for the economy."

The minister was already talking to the Minister of Finance way back in 2001, for heaven's sake. It was his idea. He's been lobbying for it since 2001, until it was actually implemented. Could you imagine that? Yet there's no record at all in the House that he is the father of the B.C. HST, the member from Cloverdale. That's amazing. You know, it's like a visionary. He's taking all the credit for the HST. What leadership — truly leadership.

I find it remarkable. In fact, if we refer it to a committee that goes amongst the province, this could be the B.C. Liberal leadership tour. Yes. They'll have an opportunity to go around and explain to everybody — the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health Services, who's got this vision. It's amazing.

[1525]

Here's a minister who in 2000 was running around the recall campaign in Cloverdale and all the rest of it, and he had a vision way back then to squeeze the con-
[ Page 4739 ]
sumers, way back in 2001. But he didn't come clean. No, Madam Speaker.

That's one reason why we need to refer this to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services — to clear the air so that we can ask the Minister of Health Services and other ministers perhaps. Maybe we can call them, subpoena them and get them on the record and find out when this whole nonsense started, because we have the Minister of Health, who says that it's his idea. It's been around since 2001.

You know, at first I had a little difficulty, I have to admit, hon. Speaker, in actually supporting this motion, because I wasn't sure what the Opposition House Leader was going to pull off here. We've seen when they've created these types of committees before, the government, and it's kind of a dog-and-pony show.

Remember the Conversation on Health, this bandwagon that went all around the province? They actually went over to Europe. They told everybody: "This is the Conversation on Health, the Premier's tour, and we're going to consult with people." They didn't consult with anybody. They consulted with their own little stakeholders, and lo and behold, when they got the answer, they didn't like the answer. What did they do? They quashed it.

In fact, if you look in the archives, the archives people have been told: "You've got to remove it from the record now." It's amazing. They want to get rid of it. This is the type of government….

I want to talk about liberalism. Oh, here's a concept. Let's talk about what liberalism really means. I want to talk about the pragmatism, about the 20th century liberal John Dewey. He asserted that complete democracy was to be obtained not just by extending voting rights but also by ensuring that there exists a fully formed public opinion. That's true liberalism, accomplished by effective communication amongst citizens, experts and politicians, with the latter being accountable for the policies they adopt. That's the 20th century of John Dewey.

If you look at some of the American postal stamps, they've got his photo there. He's seen as one of the fathers of modern liberalism. Let me quote what he had to say:

"Democracy is a way of personal life controlled not merely by faith in human nature in general but by faith in the capacity of human beings for intelligent judgment and action if proper conditions are furnished…. I acquired" — the faith in human nature — "from my surroundings, as far as those surroundings were animated by the democratic spirit.

"For what is the faith of democracy in the role of consultation, of conference, of persuasion, of discussion, in the formation of public opinion, which in the long run is self-corrective, except faith in the capacity of the intelligence of the common man to respond with common sense to the free play of facts and ideas which are secured by effective guarantees of free inquiry, free assembly and free communication?"

Free assembly, free inquiry, free communication. I bring it to the House because obviously the members opposite are liberals in name only. They're nothing less…. I mean, they're not liberals.

I'm a social democrat, and we do adopt many of the liberal perspectives — small-l liberal. But when you look at what democracy, in the liberal eyes, is supposed to be, it's consultation. That is called direct democracy, and that is what this motion is all about.

But the opposite side we heard before…. In fact, they referred to the work in this House as busy work. Do you remember that, hon. Speaker? I'm sure you do. It was busy work. "Oh, we don't have to come in the fall." I think it was a fall session — a couple of weeks. What an inconvenience that was going to be. "Let's brush it off." I think that the House Leader on the opposite side called it busy work. "No, no, no, we don't want to do that."

I'm surprised that the government even wants to…. I mean, I know they want to get on with it. They want to get out of here. But I'm surprised they don't want a filibuster so that they can stay in this House all weekend and don't have to face their constituents back home this weekend. I mean, it must be devastating there. Why wouldn't they want to consult the people?

[1530]

Talk about getting the monkey off your back. What an opportunity — to adopt this motion and confer and talk to the people of British Columbia. You'd look like heroes. But you're going to slink and slither under some stone and try and deny that this is going to be harmful, the harmful sales tax.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you need the address the chamber with parliamentary language.

G. Gentner: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Let me address the parliamentary committees. They're "appointed by the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia to undertake business on behalf of the assembly." That's their job, and that's the whole notion of this motion. "Committees are comprised of Members of the Legislative Assembly. Committees derive their powers from the House and must report their findings back to the House." Hon. Speaker, what's wrong with that? That's what this motion is all about.

Maybe it's called busywork by some, but it's to go out there in the province — and it's a little populous; I know — to go to Fort St. John, to go to the Stikine, to go to the suburbs of the Lower Mainland, to go up-Island, to go to the Kootenays and sit down, break bread, talk, find out what people are thinking and even have a discourse and correct some of the so-called misinformation.

Committees consider only those matters that are referred to them by the Leg., so the motion is directive. It's telling the committee to go out there specifically with the idea to find and search the information, to hear the opinions, to collate it, to bring it together and to bring it back.
[ Page 4740 ]

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

"Within its terms of reference, each committee" — and this committee — "is afforded total independence with its deliberations." There you go. What an opportunity to go arm's length and talk to the people of British Columbia — to talk, to consult, to confer with the people of British Columbia.

I thought that's why we were here. That's what I thought we were all about — not to lock us up here in the chambers and turn our back on what the people of British Columbia are most upset about.

"The committee system allows for a detailed examination of matters in a manner which would not be possible in the larger House." Okay, that is the purpose of the committee. It's to get the detail, to get the meat, to get the information, to take the politics out of it, to get out there. "At times, the committee system also allows members of the public to have direct input into the parliamentary process by making written submissions and attending public hearings."

Many of us were on city councils for years, and there were painstaking evenings that we were up till midnight. I'm sure the member for Delta South will concur on that one. We went many evenings late into the night to hear what people had to say. In many ways, I have to tell you that municipal government is far more participatory and directly democratic than what we find in the so-called parliamentary system here today. I think that's a shame, but here's an opportunity with this motion.

You know, it's also information where we can decipher what the people are saying. According to the mandate of this committee, it can travel within British Columbia to obtain all the evidence. This committee would be empowered by the motion which is tabled in the Legislature. The motion calls for a committee to investigate this matter, and it's the Legislative Assembly that votes on the motion.

The substance of the motion becomes the committee's terms of reference. The terms of reference outlines the tasks given to the committee and also permits the committee to meet, to call witnesses, to retain personnel as required. The terms of reference may also specify that the committee must report back to the Legislature within a given time period. Certainly we can do that. We don't have to stall. We can somewhat not necessarily expedite, but I think we can be reasonable in the reporting-back structure.

How much more democratic can it be but to support this motion? What a gift, to use the parliamentary committee system that allows for a more detailed examination of matters that would not be possible in the larger, more formal environment of this House.

[1535]

Committees allow members of the public to have direct input with public hearings, and parliamentary committees may travel throughout B.C. In recent years committees have investigated a wide amount…. We've investigated through the committee system earthquake preparedness, agriculture and food policy, lumber manufacturing, the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle. That was painstakingly long, but it began in a committee that went out there and did it right.

Madam Speaker, you know about the fish farm committee — the standing committee on investigation. That was another one that went out there and got the information. It was an all-party decision. It was an all-party meeting. They all didn't agree, but they found the information. And the result of it…. The government did not necessarily act, and now we're in a mess today, I believe, relative to the federal government's Hinkson decision and the Cohen inquest. But I'm getting off-topic. I'm just giving an example of what a committee can do.

"At the end of its deliberations, a committee must report its observations and recommendations to the Legislative Assembly. The observations contained in a report often refer to evidence collected during the public hearing process. The committee reports contain recommendations" — recommendations for action. Who knows? Maybe this parliament of ours can work together through the committee system.

"Committees in B. C. do not have the authority to directly alter legislation or cause the government to take any specific action." That's the good thing about it. I mean, the government is government, but it can receive advice from the people vis-à-vis through the Committee of Finance and Government Service.

The committee it's recommended to is the Finance and Government Services Committee. The Chair, the convener, is the member for Chilliwack. Now, why wouldn't the member for Chilliwack vote…? He stood up here just quite recently and said he's going to vote against it, when he's the convener of the committee that can go out there and search out there, find out all the information out.

T. Lake: Already done it. Done it already.

G. Gentner: Or Kelowna–Lake Country — there you go. He's on the committee. He could tell his constituents that instead of hiding this weekend from all the fervour, he could sit on a committee and say: "I'll meet with you, and I'll show you some leadership, and we'll invite you in for coffee and find out what you have to say." The member for Kelowna–Lake Country has that ability right now to do it — right now.

He could vote for this motion and get involved with participatory democracy and invite insightfulness from the people of Kelowna and the people from all over the Okanagan, but will he use that advantage? Will he use his position on that committee? No.
[ Page 4741 ]

Or the MLA for Comox Valley, another member. Huge opportunity to strike up the band in his community and find out what's going on. Same with the members for Abbotsford South, Nechako Lakes, North Vancouver–Seymour. They sit on this committee too. What an opportunity to discuss, to confer with the people of British Columbia. I ask them to reconsider their position.

To consult is a matter…. There's a little tactfulness in all of it, but I believe Edward Kennedy said: "The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die." You know, I wish that's what this government would employ, because that is what consultation is all about.

We know the public hearing process. We have the public Utilities Commission. It has public hearings. It initiates and examines applications. The commission counsellor has staff, has sequences and procedures followed by hearings.

It's part of our DNA, our culture. It's already in place. We've seen alternate dispute resolutions. We see the first step, order and notice of public hearings, availability of the applications, interventions, record of proceedings. It's part of our tradition. Then why is this government denying this opportunity? There are so many different types of public hearings. We can see what happened with negotiated settlement processes, the proper locations, orders, notices of public hearings, information requests.

[1540]

I just don't, frankly, understand why this group across the way is unwilling to consult with bike owners and stakeholders of the province of B.C. You know, in my community we have something wonderful. It's called the Tour de Delta. This is a bike race that's been around for quite a while now. It came out of the Tour de White Rock. I think even Victoria had something with a bike race downtown. Young kids are involved in biking. They are enthused about it. Nevertheless.

Where's the consultation there? Where is the consultation with the restaurant associations or the realtors? That's what the opportunity of this motion is, you know. Where is the opportunity to actually sit down? Maybe you should sit down and talk to the Vancouver Canucks. We know the HST is going to hit them after July 1. I know they did well last night, and we're all hopeful they're going to go all the way. Thank heavens the Stanley Cup final in Vancouver will be finished before the HST is in place, before July 1 this year.

But what about next year? Why aren't we talking to hockey teams, the hockey moms and dads, or the Prince George Cougars, the Kootenay Ice? Here's an opportunity. This government can network with the Vancouver Club, the Arbutus Club, the Terminal City Club. Their memberships are going to be impacted. Boy, what an opportunity that would be.

Bus fares — what about the bus riders? They hear it's going to be incorporated in their fares somehow. But you know, here's an opportunity to go out there in the ether in the province and describe to everybody what's actually going on rather than spending perhaps millions of dollars on a propaganda machine. That's what we're going to see.

That is what this motion allows you to do — to go out into the province of British Columbia and talk to the people, have a cup of coffee and find out what's going on and what they think.

Interjection.

G. Gentner: Coffee's going to go up. Yeah, well, that's true, but nevertheless, maybe over a cup of java we can talk about what the implications are.

Golf fees. Let's get on the golf courses and talk to the golfers this summer before they decide to go Stateside and hit a ball somewhere in Washington State because the fees are cheaper and there's no tax.

Taxis are going up. Boy, there's another one we should talk to. But don't worry about that. Let's not talk to taxi associations or taxi drivers because — you know what? — they're the biggest messenger in the province. You know what they're going to say to the rest of the people of B.C.

Why don't we talk to the barbers, the beauticians? Why don't we talk to them? That's what this opportunity is. But I know the minister doesn't…. The minister should be worried because he's going to need a haircut some day. What's your barber going to say, hon. Speaker? It'll be a bad hair day. July 1 is a bad hair day in the province of British Columbia.

Well, we can get into the Beatles revival again, but we won't. The fact that people will be putting bowls on their head to cut their hair because they can't afford the cost of a barber anymore. Unbelievable. Maybe we'll see the HAIR musical revival coming, and we'll all be wearing beads and sandals. Heaven forbid.

Why aren't you talking to the naturopaths? Why don't you talk to the dieticians and see how the supplements are going to affect them? Here's an opportunity. If you vote for this motion, you'll be able to talk to stakeholders, and that's what we're supposed to do.

Home maintenance. Or how about home renovations? Here's an opportunity to get out there and talk to Shell Busey. What an opportunity that would be. Get out there and talk to Shell. I know you listen to the home improvement show every Sunday morning. Nevertheless, I'm sure Shell could tell you what's going on out there and how it's going to impact it. You know, he could give you a few little tips maybe on how to do some drywall or something over there. I don't know, but what an opportunity.

Concert tickets. I like concert tickets, and I'm looking at what's coming up this summer. I'm just wondering if
[ Page 4742 ]
I'm going to be able and a lot of my friends are going to be able to afford it anymore. Maybe we should sit down and get an opportunity to go talk to some rock stars, some pop, hip hop guys. Go and consult with them. How is it going to affect their situation?

[1545]

Firefighters, smoke detectors — why don't we talk to them? I hear we're getting rid of the ICE fund — you know, the independent clean energy fund. Oh, we're not getting rid of it. Yes, we're going to suspend the fund, slowly drain it and trickle it away. There's another one. Why don't we talk to them? After all, solar power is going to be impacted now. Why don't we talk about the real alternate energy needs out there?

Here's an opportunity. By supporting this motion, we can get out in the province and talk to anybody we want. If you go back to some of the debates, what was said in Hansard years ago, I just want to leave you with this thought….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: One moment, Member.

Members.

G. Gentner: The current Minister of Finance said the following: "You know, at the end of the day it's not government's money; it's the taxpayers' money. It's the people that are working eight and nine hours a day, that are struggling to raise their families, feed their children, attend their local parent advisory committee meetings, be involved in the community, coach soccer. Those are the people that are making the contribution, and the work they do and the taxes they pay are something that we have to treat with the utmost respect." March 7, 2005.

I leave you with this notion, hon. Speaker. Why doesn't this philosophy hold up today? Because it's a massive tax grab. Why is it that the government doesn't welcome this motion and hit the trail and find out what the people of British Columbia are really saying about the HST?

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

S. Simpson: I'm really pleased that today in the gallery we have 23 Templeton students and their teachers. They're over here, as students come from all kinds of places, to see what we do here. I'm sure they're excited to come and watch this stimulating HST debate that's going on here. I would ask the House to make the students from Templeton welcome.

Deputy Speaker: I'd like to remind members that if they want to have separate conversations, they should do it at a more muted level.

Debate Continued

Hon. I. Black: Thank you to the previous member for making the introductions. Hon. Speaker, let me say through you to our guests in the gallery that not only are they most welcome, but it's nice to have an audience that's actually looking at you. So thank you for being here.

For the benefit of those marvellous school children up there, by way of reference, I stand to speak against a motion that's currently on the floor, which is effectively designed — a suggestion by the opposition of the government — to delay putting into law one of the more important tax measures that our province has seen in decades.

I rise to speak against the motion that's here because it involves delaying. It involves delaying the motion that's the main item of debate at the moment, which is known as the harmonized sales tax.

There's been a great deal of opportunity in the last number of months for political theatre, and we are at a point in this debate where we have to rise above that wherever we can. This is not about refighting the last election. This is about focusing on the most important thing we can do for the economy of British Columbia at this point in our history.

To stall the legislation that is being proposed is to stall the benefits associated with this very, very important move. In order to address, I think, the needs of our communities at the moment, there's a need to rise above…. Frankly, a lot of fearmongering has been taking place and a tremendous amount of misinformation, which is often the case. Fearmongering is often caused by a fundamental lack of facts. Most people, when they have an issue of some kind or another, can very often through communication have their concerns addressed.

In fact, I think back to when I was in business. One of the phrases I used to use is that 80 percent of all problems can be solved with communication. That, I believe, is very, very true. I think that as we stand here today, part of the job we have in this House is to address the miscommunication that has been taking place and, in doing so, illustrate why there is no time for the delay associated with this very important piece of legislation.

[1550]

I think of the ridiculous e-mail that's been making the rounds with respect to senior citizens and how there has been a perception that's been allowed to grow — completely against the facts, completely against the very commonly available information on the HST — that
[ Page 4743 ]
somehow this would punish seniors. The example used is of punishing seniors in the $40,000 income range to the tune of $2,100 a year of additional out-of-pocket expenditures that they otherwise would not have.

That is a preposterous scenario. If one simply does the arithmetic, one could see that in order for that to be true — of the money that that seniors couple is making, in this fictitious e-mail that has gone viral within British Columbia now — that couple would effectively have to spend $30,000 of that $40,000. After all taxes are paid, they'd have to spend $30,000 of that $40,000 on items which are not today currently taxable by the PST.

That is just not an arithmetically possible or logical reality. It just can't happen, especially when you contemplate the scenario of young families, who may have lower income brackets at a time in life when they're starting out in their careers, starting out with young families — a path that I've had the challenges and joys of experiencing myself.

The reality is that in conjunction with introducing this HST, we're also introducing a $230 credit for every working British Columbian. That, along with the $1,700 extra income they're allowed to make on a tax-free basis, announced alongside of this measure, means that low-income British Columbians will not be negatively impacted by the HST. Neither will be low-income seniors. It's mathematically not possible. It's one of the jobs incumbent on us to try to correct some of these myths that have been propagated at the moment. That's just part of our job.

You know, the list of the myths around the HST…. I've touched on a couple of them. The seniors e-mail is one of the more prevalent ones. The list of myths around the HST continues to grow. I still have people coming up to me asking me whether somehow there's going to be a 19 percent sales tax in July. Well, no, that's absolutely not true.

The vast majority of things that we buy today have 12 percent tax on them — 7 percent PST and 5 percent GST. That will continue to be the tax rate after July 1 on those vast majority of things that we buy. In fact, the irony of that myth is the fact that what we are actually debating stalling is the piece of legislation that will remove the existing 7 percent PST in order to allow the new 12 percent PST to continue at that level.

One of the other myths, of course, is around this notion of the products and services that we buy today. As I've already mentioned, the vast majority of those products and services already have 12 percent tax on them, 7 percent PST and 5 percent GST — soon to be combined, harmonized if you will, to the 12 percent level.

The reality is that for families, over 80 percent of what they purchase today for their household needs is going to have absolutely no change to it whatsoever in terms of the tax rate that is paid. Again, it's this tremendous number of myths that have been floating around that simply just are not true.

In fact, when you combine the $230 credit that's been associated with this measure, that every working British Columbian is going to get at the lower income levels…. If you combine this $1,700 of extra tax-free money that British Columbians are getting because the threshold has been increased from $9,300 to $11,000, in terms of when you actually start paying tax in B.C. as a person, with the fact that the average British Columbian today has $2,000 more in their pocket in cash because of all the tax cuts that have been made by this government in the last almost a decade now, it really decries and speaks against the notion that somehow this is going to be punishing to low-income British Columbians.

And, I might add, we've also eliminated the need to pay tax entirely for about a hundred thousand British Columbians since we took office in 2001. The track record of the government in these different tax measures is very, very clear, and we're not changing our approach now. We protect seniors, we protect low-income families, and yet we've still managed to create almost 400,000 more jobs today than there were ten years ago, in the face of one of the worst recessions we'd seen in generations.

That point, I think, is one of the most important elements of this debate. That is when I mentioned the hundreds of thousands of jobs that we are still ahead, relative to our position in 2001. That, ultimately, is what the HST debate is all about. It's about jobs. It's about jobs.

[1555]

When we voted on, and the opposition voted against, eliminating the corporate capital tax, that was about jobs. When we voted to take the small business tax rate from 4½ percent down to 2½ percent, that was about jobs. Taking it from 2½ percent to 1½ percent? That was about jobs. And eliminating it altogether for the small business community? That also was about jobs.

When we raised the income tax threshold for our small business community — that I so proudly represent as the minister associated with Small Business, Technology and Economic Development — that, too, was about jobs.

For the benefit of those watching at home and our children in the gallery, a tax threshold is all the money you can make before you actually have to start paying the government your fair share to make sure that you can pay for things like health care and education and all the other public services that we've come to rely on as British Columbians and in fact as Canadians. We continued to raise that because it allowed the small business community to invest into their businesses and to create jobs.

Also about jobs is the $2 billion that is freed up in cash flow within the business environment, within the oper-
[ Page 4744 ]
ations of small businesses across British Columbia. The $2 billion that is freed up as a result of implementing the HST — that is about jobs, because small businesses have dreams of wanting to become big businesses, and the way they do that is by hiring people.

They know that they have to be competitive. Any notion that somehow the small business community is going to be able to sit on and keep that $2 billion…. I'm afraid we've got a couple of thousand years of economics that absolutely point out that that's just not possible. Because the small business people — they know. They wake up every morning knowing that part of the thrill and excitement of owning a small business is also the very real risk that there's another small business down the street that would like to take their customer. It's part of business.

They know that in order to keep that customer, they have to sell their products and services at a really great quality with customer service that they can be proud of and at a price point that will allow them to be competitive. That is exactly why the other provinces that have implemented this environment have seen a drop in consumer pricing when an HST-type system has been put into place — because small businesses have the desire to grow, the desire to serve the customers and the desire to be competitive.

That's why the prices get lowered to the consumers, in the research that has been done in this one area. It's also why disposing of the hidden tax, the PST, the very measure that the NDP opposition wishes us to not proceed with…. They don't want us to get rid of the 7 percent PST. Well, I have to tell you, we have to do that because that's all about jobs as well.

The other element of the HST is the direct result of lowering the cost or the risk, if you will, of investing in businesses by 40 percent — immediately, a 40 percent reduction in the cost of investing into companies here in British Columbia for those small businesses that are in the position of hiring. That is a very, very important part about job creation, and it's very, very critical.

The $14.4 billion that's expected to be created over the next ten years as a result of moving to the HST — $14.4 billion of new investment money that's expected to be attracted to British Columbia because of us moving to the HST. That's about jobs. We can't delay that measure. We can't delay the creation of those jobs, and I can tell you that on this side of the House we will not delay the implementation of the most important tax measure that British Columbia has seen in decades.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. I. Black: Now, one of the many things I've heard in this House, and it makes me shake my head, I have to tell you, is the notion that somehow the HST is bad for small business. It's a silly notion. It's a preposterous notion, and it's one that can only be put forward by those people who do not have the experience with small business. Now, I've had the opportunity to run small businesses, but in the context of the job I have right now, I'm speaking to small businesses all the time.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Just a moment, Minister.

Members, would you give the minister the courtesy of allowing him to continue his speech. Other members will have the opportunity to speak as the afternoon goes on.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. I. Black: I appreciate the fact that the members opposite have their own point of view and wish to call out remarks during the debating process. It's part of what makes it a rather spirited place to be, on occasion, in this room.

But if not my point of view, then consider that of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce, by its very definition, represents small businesses, not in one little corner of British Columbia or another but across the entire province. Tens of thousands of small British Columbia businesses are represented by the B.C. Chamber of Commerce.

[1600]

In the long, long list of associations, think tanks, organizations and businesses that have come out and said: "Yes, this is good for us. It allows us to compete and grow our business and hire more people." One of the first organizations out of the gate were the people at the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, and the leadership that they showed so soon after the announcement of our intent to go down this path was echoed almost immediately by countless chambers of commerce from across the province.

I think of the Vancouver Board of Trade. They have also come out and endorsed it. Are they wrong — the very people who run businesses every day and who actually provide employment to 2.3 million or 2.4 million British Columbians? Is the opposition suggesting that they're wrong? I suggest that I would defer to those who are living that every day.

You think of the associations. You hear the drivel from the members opposite about large corporations. If you think of the retail association, the retail association is predominantly representing small businesses — not big ones, small ones. The retail association in British Columbia has strongly come out in favour of the HST.

You think of the technology associations. The technology association is almost exclusively small business,
[ Page 4745 ]
and yet it's one of the ones that's come out and said: "This is the right thing for our members and the men and women that they employ."

You think of the forestry industry. We've heard much in this House about what could or should or can or would or might be done for the forest industry as it goes through a phenomenal transition in its history. You know, the forestry industry stands to gain $140 million — right back into the operations of the mills and the companies that run them.

In a time when the jobs in that industry are desperately wanted by the people who have been in a difficult position of being laid off and the families associated with those jobs are looking for opportunity, I would think the members opposite would embrace something that could put the mills back in operation if they're operating one shift instead of three or if they're actually in a warm idle. I would think this would be embraced, and I find it unfortunate that it is not by the members opposite.

The manufacturing sector in British Columbia — again, almost predominantly represented by small businesses. They are in favour of this. I think the of roadbuilders, the truck loggers — many of those are one-, two-, five-, six-person operations — by their very definition, small business. They are in favour of this. They are in favour of the HST, because it means that they can be more competitive, their likelihood of success is greater, and their ability to retain and grow their employees grows as well.

If you go away from the associations themselves and you go to a broader level, you're faced with an organization such as the CGA Association. Now, the CGA community — the certified general accountant community — has as their clients almost exclusively small business, and they too were one of the first to come out and say: "For the clients that we have, this is a very important step. Don't delay."

So the notion of a delay being proposed by the motion on the floor at the moment has the CGAs — who are the ones giving advice to the 384,000 small businesses across British Columbia — shaking their heads and going: "What is this NDP opposition thinking? They've got to cut through the emotion."

Well, I'll tell you, one group that's pretty good at cutting through emotion is the economists. They're not known for being particularly emotional. The reports that they produce can be pretty dry reading, but they are saying one after the other across this great country — the brightest minds in the economy are saying — that British Columbia once again is showing the appropriate leadership in moving to this tax measure. They are saying, "You must not delay in this step," as well.

So they know it's good for the millions of British Columbian workers. We believe that we know what's good for them as well, and I think our track record of job creation over the last almost decade now backs us up on that, as it does back up the notion that the members opposite voted against every major initiative that has created the 400,000-odd jobs that we're ahead at the moment.

Again, when I think of the various compelling reasons that took us down the path of implementing the HST, one of the key ones is the province of Ontario. We cannot leave the 384,000 British Columbian small businesses at a disadvantage to the province of Ontario.

It's not something that I'm willing to stand and have happen, and I'm not willing to stand here and vote in favour of a motion that is designed to delay this implementation of this important measure. I will not vote for something that delays the HST and subsequently leaves the 384,000 small businesses in British Columbia at a state of disadvantage.

[1605]

Now, I think we should review here the areas where the members opposite have "taken a stand," the various policies that they've so proudly stood against over the last little while. I mean, the policies that they've stood against since 2001 are policies that have directly helped the economy.

They stood against things like the 400,000 jobs since 2001. The tax cuts that put about 200,000 additional dollars in the pockets of the average British Columbian, they voted no, and they were wrong. The 25 percent tax cut in the first day that this government took office, they voted against that, and they were wrong.

The hundreds of other tax deduction measures that we've put in place since 2001 were voted against time after time after time by the NDP. And despite the fact that we have 400,000 extra jobs to show for our efforts, despite one of the worst recessions we've seen in 40-odd years, they still voted against it and still believed that they understand the economy. It makes me shake my head.

The gateway investment — $14 billion. The twinning of the Port Mann bridge is absolutely something that they were voting against, and we were absolutely voting for it — right? They voted against it, and they were wrong.

When the small business tax rate was dropped from 4½ percent down to 2½ percent, 384,000 small businesses in the province stood up and cheered, and the members opposite in the NDP stood up and voted no. When it was going to be reduced from 2½ percent to 1½ percent and then proposed and now committed to be eliminated in 2012, the 384,000 small businesses in this province stood up and voted that that is a great idea. They cheered. And the members opposite in the NDP stood up and voted no.

I guess where I stand is that I will not support a motion that is designed to stall the $140 million being eliminated in the small business cost infrastructure that they're currently spending filling out duplicate forms for
[ Page 4746 ]
GST and PST. For collecting, administrating, remitting and reporting all the things one needs to do as a law-abiding small business is costing them $140 million a year. You can hire a lot of people for $140 million a year, so I am not going to vote in favour of something that delays that step.

I'm not going to vote against something that frees up $2 billion of job-creating cash flow that's inserted into the lifeblood of the small business community of this province — $2 billion, $880 million in the construction sector. One of the key measurements of job creation is our construction sector, and $880 million of that $2 billion is going to be injected into the lifeblood of those small businesses.

And $210 million in transportation. I mean, transportation covers so many different industries, because if you manufacturer something, you've got to get it from point A to point B. If you're in the forestry sector, you've got to move those trees. The bottom line is that the $80 million in the mining, oil and gas sector…. I'm not going to vote against something that prevents or slows down the injection of that job-creating investment into that area.

So at the end of the day, I think where I stand on this is pretty obvious. I am not going to vote in favour of this motion. I will vote and I will continue to vote for measures and policies and the steps that are taken, the bold steps that are often needed to ensure that the British Columbia economy…. It has enjoyed a place of leadership since 2001, to the astonishment of a lot of economists to see how quickly that came back from one of the worst performing economies to one of the best performing in the country.

I am not going to vote for anything that would put that in jeopardy. I am not going to vote against something that would prevent us from retaining our standing as the top economy in the country, and I am not going to vote against something that has proven to attract jobs. As the MLA for my community and for the Minister of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development, job creation is job one. This motion works against it, and I will vote against this motion.

J. Thornthwaite: Madam Speaker, I want to request leave to make some introductions.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Thornthwaite: I have four school trustees, actually, from Richmond, friends of mine as well as past colleagues on school board: Linda McPhail, Donna Sargent, Debbie Tablotney and Grace Tsang. I would like everybody to welcome them to the House.

[1610]

Debate Continued

S. Fraser: I'm happy today to stand up to debate the motion that's been put forward, and I'll read the motion into the record. "Be it resolved that Bill 9" — just for those tuning in, Bill 9 is the Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act, which is actually the HST act — "not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be forwarded to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and further that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberation."

Now, I saw this as a friendly motion — friendly, certainly, to the Liberal members, who are in some trouble now over bringing in Bill 9, over bringing in a tax that they said they would not bring in before the election. This motion actually allows them some leeway. It's like an olive branch to Liberal members.

Believe me, anyone in this province, unless they've been sleeping for a very long time, knows that this tax is a job killer, and I'm not talking about the thousands of people that can lose their jobs in the restaurant industry or the thousands of people that can lose their jobs in the tourism sector.

I'm talking about: it's a job killer for B.C. Liberal MLAs, who are in big, big trouble right now because they said they would not bring this tax in. They said that it would be damaging to the economy, and then days after the election ministry staff were already working on bringing in this tax. The public is angry over this.

Now, the motion being proposed is a very benevolent one, I think, from the opposition to the government members, allowing them potentially a chance to recoup some of their reputation, maybe some of their integrity that they lost during the election process over a huge, huge flip-flop about what they said before the election and what they said after the election.

Before I continue with where I was going to go with this, I have to make comments on the Minister of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development, who spoke before me. The minister said, and this is a good one….

As everyone knows, the HST will take $1.9 billion out of the pockets of British Columbians, average British Columbians and families, on everything from haircuts to vet bills to restaurant meals and hockey helmets and ice time. So it's going to cost…. The way the minister put that cost was he said: "This will be almost $2 billion freed up and injected into the lifeblood of the economy." What a wonderful spin.

As the average British Columbian, who's already being faced with massive increases to hydro, to MSP payments, to ferry rates, to park fees — you name it…. All these public things that should be part of what's paid for through taxes are going up as fees. While British Columbians are facing those increases, they're going to
[ Page 4747 ]
have to pay 7 percent more — what amounts to $1.9 billion more — on a whole bunch of things. And the minister says that that's $2 billion that's freed up. It's $2 billion that's picked out of the pockets of British Columbians. That's the fact.

This is a friendly motion to go and talk to the people, the public. This is something that the government didn't do. They did do it. They said they wouldn't bring the tax in. At this point, the outrage by the public should be quite clear to the members as they head back to their constituencies. The fact that not only did they say they wouldn't bring in the HST and are now bringing it in — a misrepresentation, if there ever was one, to win an election…. This is an opportunity for Liberal members in a committee, a bipartisan committee, to recoup some faith and some face here.

[1615]

Liberal members, government members, ministers, have been talking about myths and misconceptions about the HST. Well, what a wonderful opportunity to actually consider talking to the people of British Columbia. This motion would allow for that to happen.

Madam Speaker, it's been noted that you are a member of the legislative Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture. I, too, was a member of that committee. We have, certainly, a tried-and-true mechanism for addressing things of public interest, for getting input from the public, for clearing up myths and misconceptions, if that's the case. Then let the chips fall where they may.

Right now, that is an option that is being offered to the Liberal members here. The Liberal members need that because they are in trouble here. They have a big problem. It was Einstein who said that no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it. Well, the level of consciousness that created this problem was saying one thing to win an election and doing the opposite.

That mindset has to change, I would suggest, for the Liberal members. This motion allows the opportunity and the mechanism to create that change, to actually consult with the people of British Columbia. Now, I don't know which polls to look at, but somewhere between 88 and 98 percent of British Columbians are against this tax.

The minister before me and other Liberal members quote some corporate leaders, business leaders, that claim to like the tax, who may be a beneficiary of that tax, but they do not represent British Columbians. They're a very select group.

Now, I believe that all governments, no matter what their political stripe, even the extreme right wing, as we have here in this province…. Any government should listen to the people, not to a select group, a group that has the government ear. Because shifting $1.9 billion onto the backs of British Columbians, the families, to benefit a few corporate sectors is a big, big change — probably the largest tax change we've ever seen in the country and in the history of British Columbia.

It would not be outrageous to consider talking to the people of British Columbia about that, especially if you're going to do the complete opposite — like this government did — of what you said you would do during the election.

The real poll is an election, and this government won an election saying that they would not bring in this tax. Now, the people of British Columbia voted in good faith, I would suggest, based on the fact that the government wasn't going to bring in this tax. It was in writing, so to do the opposite days after the election — to start the process of bringing in the tax that they weren't going to bring in — is fraught with problems.

This is the solution, because the least the Liberal government can do is to talk to the people, to consult with the people about what this will mean, what it will mean for hockey parents. We know that ice time will now be taxed. In some municipalities, some regions, this will mean a $50,000 increase, say, for minor hockey. That's on top of a tax that's going to do everything…. It's going to tax not just ice time; it will tax hockey helmets for kids. How ludicrous is that?

When you create a tax that can take away the ability of many families to afford hockey for their kids, when you're going to bring that in, you might want to consult with the public first before you do that or with the municipalities that have fixed costs around these rinks. They may lose the business of minor league hockey, because some of these minor league hockey organizations will not be able to weather that increase, especially when the Liberal government has also cut grants to sports and for children.

[1620]

So it is a very reasonable and reasoned approach to talk to British Columbians, which is what this motion is about. The minister before me called this a stalling motion. That's an appalling statement from a minister of the Crown. To consult with the public on the most fundamental and radical right-wing shift in taxation in the history of the province — to consult with the public on that as somehow being a stall tactic is ridiculous.

There's been talk of fearmongering. Well, for me, this is a very simple topic. Talking to the public, consulting with the public, about whether or not there is the stomach to weather a $1.9 billion tax increase — that's a very worthwhile thing to do. To talk to the public about that is not a stall tactic, not in any way. This is something the public deserves because this government has no mandate to bring in the HST.

Their mandate is to not bring in the HST. They won an election on that promise. Considering that the Liberal government doesn't have a mandate to bring in this tax, it is certainly not outrageous for them to consult with
[ Page 4748 ]
the public, to inform them about all the things that are going to go up in price. There hasn't been that level of consultation, not from anyone. There's been no consultation, nothing.

I'll quote from a letter here. "The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs strongly opposes implementation of the harmonized sales tax, HST, in British Columbia. It is a regressive tax that will greatly increase the financial burden of First Nations families who are living in poverty, including the working poor."

It goes on to say: "As directed by the UBCIC resolution 2009-41, we have repeatedly contacted both the federal and provincial Ministers of Finance to address impacts and lack of any substantial consultation process for the proposed HST." This is on First Nations families and communities.

I would think that this represents the position of most British Columbians. This is from Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, but it's cosigned by Chief William Charlie and Chief Robert Chamberlin also, on behalf of the members of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. Their opposition to this tax and their concerns about the lack of consultation that this motion will address are the concerns of British Columbians — the vast majority of British Columbians.

We've seen way too much when this government makes policy decisions based on contributions, on people that have their ear, on insiders. You know what? They have not done their homework. The minister before me and Liberal members speaking on this issue, on this motion, have suggested that this is going to increase employment. Where are the statistics on that?

For ten years this government has been cutting corporate taxes. When they hired Mintz to do the report on the HST, the 12 pages for $12,000, they should have hired him to quantify: has there been any benefit to British Columbians? Has there been any benefit in creating jobs or investment in the ten years of cutting corporate taxes in this province? They should have had him do that study, because they're talking in the wind. They have no statistics.

They know it's actually been a dismal record. The low corporate tax regime that they brag about…. They're still bragging about it. They're running a multi-billion-dollar deficit, the largest deficit in the history of the province of British Columbia, and they're bragging about how low they've been able to cut the tax rates. They've cut the tax rates to the point where there is not enough money in the treasury to pay for basic services. If I were government, I wouldn't be bragging about that. That's bad management.

[1625]

The total employment across the B.C. economy grew by an average of 2.1 percent per year under the B.C. Liberals. The total employment across the B.C. economy grew by an average of 2.1 percent per year under the B.C. Liberals. It was 2.4 percent the decade before.

The billions of tax breaks this government has levied have left us, the treasury, in a deficit position. With all of that, the growth in the job rate in the economy has dropped in the last decade. Manufacturing employment grew by 1.6 percent per year under the NDP, the previous decade. It fell by 0.5 percent per year between 2001 and 2008. With the loss of 25,000 manufacturing jobs in 2009, the province has sucked out an average of 1.9 percent of its manufacturing jobs each year of this Liberal government's reign.

So when the minister talks about, "This will be a $2 billion injection into job creation," it's hogwash. It's based on nothing. The facts state otherwise. The minister finds himself, once again, on the wrong side of the facts.

If the public were allowed to have a discussion about this tax, then we could have this debate openly. The public could be informed and involved. They could make the decision of whether or not to bring in this tax.

The people did make the decision, and they said not to bring in this tax. That's how they voted in the election, because this government said, as an election plank, that they would not bring in the HST.

Interjection.

S. Fraser: "That's not true," the member for Parksville-Qualicum states. Well, I don't know if the member for Parksville-Qualicum has been reading any of the letters to the editor lately in his newspaper, but they don't buy his position at all. The people of Parksville-Qualicum feel betrayed by this member.

Now, for this member to suggest that talking to the public about this tax that they promised not to bring in to win an election…. If he has a problem with talking to the public, then he's got a problem with his constituents, because they want to talk about this. The last I saw, they have received over half of the petitions required under the Vander Zalm initiative, so obviously, there is a problem there for the former Minister of Agriculture and Lands, the current member for Parksville-Qualicum.

It really was too bad that they did not hire Mintz to actually analyze what corporate tax breaks, endless corporate tax breaks, do for the economy. I would submit that the public would be up for the task of a debate and a discussion about how much tax they want to have increased.

The $1.9 billion a year for average British Columbians is a lot of money. If that money were to go, say, into protecting health care and education — which was another broken Liberal election promise — I'm sure British Columbians might have that discussion. They could weigh whether or not they could afford to pay $1.9 billion a year. They would like to have that discussion, I think.
[ Page 4749 ]

Or if they could see that it was going to create jobs — for instance, if the government had negotiated with those corporate sectors that are going to be the beneficiaries of this $1.9 billion of largesse. If the Minister of Finance had got some kind of a deal saying: "Look, you have to create jobs with this, or you have to invest in technology and innovation to prepare us for the future." But they haven't done that. It is a faith-based massive shift of wealth from those that can afford it the least.

Interjections.

S. Fraser: Oh, this is good. I love it when I get heckled, because it means that they're listening.

[1630]

You know what? They have to go back to their constituencies and explain why they will vote against discussing this tax that they promised not to bring in. They're voting against discussing it with the public, consulting with the public. They're calling that a stall.

I would suggest that discussing this with the public by having Liberal members vote for this bill would be to their benefit. It's not that I'm feeling sorry for them, because I know the beating they're taking in their constituencies. I know it's probably difficult for them to go home. But if they were to open the doors to discussion about this tax, it would go at least some way towards re-establishing some credibility as government.

You know what? It doesn't help any government or opposition or politician when the credibility of a government is questioned to the extent that it is with this taxation shift.

I would note that, as the member for Parksville-Qualicum was making comments earlier, in the Parksville–Qualicum Beach News we've got a letter from Duane Round. He's the building chair of the Parksville Lions Housing Society. This is his letter to the editor. Sorry, it's an article from the Parksville–Qualicum Beach News:

"Building chair of the Parksville Lions Housing Society spoke to council during their committee of the whole meeting Wednesday about the development cost charges that had recently come up. 'We really appreciate all the assistance from the city,' Round told council, but explained that with the unexpected additional $100,000 cost of the HST and the fact that their funding from B.C. Housing is a set amount to construct the affordable housing component, they could be looking at a serious stumbling block."

I would suggest that Mr. Round would like the discussion with his member, and that could be facilitated and should be facilitated and would be facilitated if a sufficient number of Liberal members…. I think it would only take seven to vote in favour of this friendly amendment, this motion, that would allow discussion about the HST.

Bill Rollier is a store owner, small business owner. Parksville–Qualicum Beach News again, April 12, says the Premier and our MLA "should be very afraid of their political future. I learned something today, and that is how angry people are and how fed up they are with both of them. I have heard people call them cowards and liars. They will not survive this, and they should not."

Deputy Speaker: Member, you can't…. Please withdraw that.

S. Fraser: I beg your pardon?

Deputy Speaker: If you cannot say it, you cannot quote it, so please withdraw it.

S. Fraser: I withdraw it. I apologize, Madam Speaker. Thank you for your guidance on this.

I guess, suffice to say, that there are a lot of angry people out there. It is about a $1.9 billion tax shift onto them, but it is more than that. It is about a feeling of betrayal. It's palpable.

I'm the critic for Community and Rural Development. I've been travelling the province to various municipal association meetings, and it doesn't matter where you go in the province, there is a certain solidarity. It's not a left- or right-wing issue. It's a right or wrong.

This is a government that is bringing in a tax that they suggested they would not bring in. They won an election based on that. The fact that these members and these ministers of the Crown would consider a motion to discuss this tax that wasn't supposed to be brought in with the public…. How could that be seen as anything threatening to this government? It cannot.

I would welcome to hear that explanation from government members as they stand up. I'll hand it to government members. They are standing up, and they are speaking on this issue, so that's a good thing. What they need to do is expand that to speak to the people of British Columbia in a committee system, which we are suggesting here, because we can hear this over and over again.

[1635]

The people of British Columbia on the ground want to know what this tax is going to mean, what this $1.9 billion tax shift is going to mean. They want to know why they may not be able to have their child take part in hockey, in minor hockey leagues, or in soccer on the soccer field, because this will affect the fees there too. So it could have dire effects on families, and that discussion should happen.

This friendly motion is an olive branch to the Liberal government members, who are in an awful lot of trouble. There's been no representation from the public to bring in the HST. There is no mandate. This is truly taxation without representation, and that is why I think the outrage is there.

If the public were ready for such a tax shift, if they thought it was going to be good to pay $1.9 billion
[ Page 4750 ]
more…. To get what? Well, to get less than nothing, because this actually reduces the treasury. It's between $100 million and $200 million a year that the treasury of B.C. will be out because of this tax, because of some of the exemptions for some of the larger organizations that manage to get an exemption.

It actually means that for the opportunity to spend $1.9 billion more a year out of our pockets, we will have to lose between $100 million and $200 million worth of services. The public wants to maybe weigh those options before making a decision that they want this tax or before changing their minds, because the public has already spoken on that. They said they don't want this tax, and they voted based on that. They voted Liberal because the Liberal government said they wouldn't bring in the HST. It's not even on the radar screen.

Here we are, months later, debating this. I mean, the bill is already coming forward. It looks like it's a done deal. It is not a done deal. The public can stop this. The public has the right to discuss whether or not this is a good tax. If it is a good tax, as some of the members from the government side are saying, then they should have no problem with the open discussion with the public. As a matter of fact, it would be to their benefit. If they're so sure this is a great tax, great enough to bring it in as a complete 180 U-turn before and after the election, and if it's so good, then why won't they allow a discussion with the public? Why won't they do that?

The fact that this government is not speaking in favour of this friendly motion to bring this to committee for discussion so the public can be involved, the fact that they're fighting against that brings more suspicion to the government members. They aren't willing to go to the public with this issue. They're willing to quote some of their friends in business and stuff in corporate land that are going to actually be the beneficiaries of $1.9 billion, but they're not willing to discuss it with the other 80 percent or 90 percent of British Columbians.

Those are the people that matter, because they represent the public, and this is a public interest issue. This is the largest tax shift in the history of the province of British Columbia. It is part of a concerted pattern by this government to concentrate the wealth into the hands of very few at the expense of everybody else, and everybody else deserves a voice on that. They were denied that voice through the election process. They voted in good faith, believing that there would be no HST brought in.

That was one of the main reasons many people cast a ballot, and they deserve their chance now to address a parliamentary committee, a legislative committee, that is being suggested through this motion. It is about democracy.

[1640]

P. Pimm: I will also stand and take my position to oppose the amendment that's put forth in front of us on this bill. It's very interesting to listen to some of the discussion that's taken place to this point. Some of the opposition members…. The member before me explained how we're afraid to go and address the public on this issue. I think I want to give you my experience, what I've just gone through myself, actually. I'll put that forward to you.

I don't need to go through a committee stage on this. I want to go to the public myself directly, and that's what I actually did on the weekend. There's been all sorts of information out there now, and a lot of misleading information — in fact, a lot of it very close to mistruths, to be quite honest.

This weekend I had the opportunity to go and meet with an entire trade show in my community. There were probably about 12,000 people that went by that I had an opportunity to talk with and discuss the HST with. It was my sole reason for being there, to go and address my constituents and see what the major concerns are. Certainly, there are concerns. No question about it. As you probably all well know, I've got lots of opposition to this in my area, and part of that is how it all came about and where it comes from and whatnot.

You know, what I found…. Over the weekend I had an awful lot of people that came up to me and said: "It's nice to see you out here and defending this position. I'm glad that you're out in the front and on the front line and talking to us about it."

In fact, I did a bit of a presentation where I had done up a little PowerPoint, and I had that rolling as we were going. People would stop and have a look at it and see some of the facts that were actually out there. It was quite interesting. They would watch for a couple or three minutes, and that was long enough to get a little interest, and then we'd get a chance to talk about it. It was amazing, as we talked, how things changed a little bit.

As they started to get a little more information and some truth around the matters and how it was going to affect them, it was actually quite nice to see how they went from being pretty disturbed to being not so bad with it when they started understanding the whys — why we have done things — and the different changes that came into effect to allow us to move forward and to make some decisions around this sort of thing.

One of the things that I want to just state before you go too far…. I'm assuming that back in 1948, when PST was first brought in, I bet you there were all kinds of petitions against PST, because nobody likes a new tax. Nobody likes a tax of any description. They don't like a tax that changes anything or anything at all like that.

But it's pretty easy to get a petition going. All you have to do is have some people with opposition to it, send some misleading rumours out — that it's going to cost
[ Page 4751 ]
people $2,100 per household, that sort of thing — and then get an opposition member that maybe doesn't like you. He gets a pretty good campaign started, and the next thing you know there are a lot of folks that are out there spreading misinformation.

When you actually do get your chance to have your turn…. And I had my chance. I have to tell you that the trade show went on for 24 hours this weekend, and I spent 19 hours of them there talking to my constituents. I must say that by the end of that 19 hours I actually felt like I had gained a lot of ground, and I think that a lot of people went out of that knowing a lot more about the HST and the information surrounding it. So I did deal with those folks one on one.

When they started to hear the facts, their minds definitely changed. When they started to hear about the myths that are out there, and when I told them to think about what that $2,100 actually means, to get to $2,100 worth of expenses….

[1645]

The people in this room, all the opposition members, know that you can't get to $2,100, because the last time I talked about this, I gave them an invitation. If any one of them could get to $2,100, I'd take them out and wine and dine them at their favourite restaurant. I haven't even had anybody come back and ask me about that. Obviously, they don't like to go to fine restaurants, or they know they can't get to $2,100 — one or the other. I'm not sure which one it is.

Anyhow, to get to $2,100, first off, you have to spend $30,000 worth of PST exemptions — items that are presently PST-exempt. You have to spend $30,000 additional dollars. Anybody can do the math on that — it's very simple — but when you just say it fast — $2,100.

You'd be surprised how many people came by my booth and said: "The reason I can't support you and can't support this decision is because you're charging me $2,100. You're going to cost me $2,100." You start talking to them about it, and they realize: "Holy cow, I can get a golf membership. I can go to a restaurant, $1,000 a month. I can go to gyms. I can go to curling. I can get all the memberships for everything I want, and I couldn't even get up half of that — anywhere close to half of that."

All of a sudden they start responding in a different manner, and they start saying: "You know, maybe this isn't so bad, and maybe I will get a little more information from you." You give them more information, and you talk to them for a little while.

You start to reason with them, and pretty soon they're starting to think: "Hmm. Maybe some of the arguments you're putting forth aren't so bad, and maybe they're actually accurate. Maybe there's some truth to all this stuff that you're talking about. If there wasn't some truth to all this stuff that you're talking about, why would you be at this trade show taking it on the chin in front of 12,000 people?"

Well, you're there taking it on the chin because — guess what — it is the right thing for British Columbia. It is the right thing for our constituents, and we're there to defend it. I had no problem defending it, because it is the right thing to do.

I have a presentation to do tomorrow, in fact. I did some research on this presentation for tomorrow. It's in a care home in my community, and I'm going to be going to the care home tomorrow. I had the operators of the care home come in last week, and I got some information. I talked to them a little bit about how many people would meet the $20,000 threshold so that they could get their full rebates.

It was interesting enough. The executives that were sitting at the table said: "Oh, well, very few people would actually meet that threshold." But the manager actually said: "Really, that's not quite right. About 95 percent of the people in the care home would meet that $20,000 threshold."

So I decided, because I'm going to this thing tomorrow…. I thought, well, why not go out and do a budget and get their budgets and do a budget calculation so that I know exactly what I'm talking about, so that they know they're true numbers and they know it's going to be accurate. I got some numbers back, and a typical person in this care home gets $17,721 a year on their pensions. That's what a typical pensioner at a care home actually gets.

After all is said and done, they end up with $143 a month left in their pocket. That was all the expenses that they showed me. They gave me a list of expenses. These are their numbers; these are not my numbers. They actually took the budget challenge. No one in here would take the challenge, but they took the challenge.

Lo and behold, when the numbers were all run through this with the added HST on these things — $237 was going to be additional HST costs. By the time they got all their rebates back, that single person in the care home is actually going to be $107.78 ahead. That now means that that person has got $107.78 in their pocket due to HST.

Now I'm wondering who's going to tell them that you'll have to take that money out of my pocket now. Because we're bringing in HST, they've got money in their pocket, and I'm going to be able to prove that to them tomorrow.

Another girl came by during the trade show and she said: "Boy, oh, boy; $2,100 you guys are going to cost me for this tax. I'm disgusted with you." I said: "Well, pay attention, and let's go through."

[1650]

She took the time, and she listened to this, and guess what. She was a single mother, she had three children, and she's going to get $230 rebate for each one of her children and herself — $920. So I said: "Okay, now that we figured out that you're going to get a $920 rebate, why
[ Page 4752 ]
don't you sit down and take this budget challenge with me, then?" She said, "Okay," and so off we did.

We went and did the budget challenge. By the time it was all settled, she ended up with a rebate of $625. It's what she is going to net. So she says: "Well, I have to go down and get my name off that petition. I just signed that petition on the other end of the rink."

So my question is: who is going to come up with the $625 for that gal? Who's going to pay her now if we get rid of this HST? I don't think that any of the members here are going to pay her. The bottom line is that you're definitely going to do better with the HST implemented, for the lower-income people.

But that wasn't good enough. A lot of the folks still had some discussion. They said: "Yeah, but you guys didn't present this properly. You didn't tell us the truth. You fudged the whole thing, you know. You just didn't bring it in right."

Okay. I said: "Well, you know the truth is that things do change." I said: "Take a look at what happened through the budget process." We ran a budget that said we were going to be $495 million in deficit. Guess what. Things changed. All of a sudden the resource revenues go down by $2 billion. The price of natural gas goes from $11 to $2. Guess what. You're not going to have the money in there. So there are a couple of things you can do.

You can have a deficit budget. That's something that this side of the building doesn't agree with. Or you can initiate a few different things. So the Finance Minister gets a chance to go over to the first ministers conference, and they start talking about it. Guess what. HST happens to come up. Well, HST doesn't come up. It's always on the agenda with our Finance Committee that goes around the province every year. They talk about HST.

As the member for Chilliwack explained to everybody in this House earlier, every year HST has been on the agenda. Every year the B.C. Chamber of Commerce has endorsed the HST as part of the budget presentation. Every year they endorse it. They've been endorsing it since 2001. Every year they've endorsed the same thing. It's been their position, and they're not going to move off that position.

Every year our Finance Minister takes a look at it. "Well no, everything is going along pretty good. Really there are not too many reasons to make any changes." All of a sudden you get a drop in your revenue, and now maybe we do have to do something. Maybe we do have to change.

When you're at the conference, the federal government's…. We all know that Ontario is coming on. They announced in March that they're coming on stream for July. The minister says to all the provinces: "Well, if you all want to come on board at the same time, we'll sweeten the pot a little bit for you. We'll make it interesting. We'll make it so that…. You know, it makes it better for us as feds to sweeten the pot because we're doing it for Ontario, and it only makes sense we do it for as many others as we can at the same time."

When you start thinking about it, they always said: "No, it has to be 13 percent." Now they're going to change that. They're going to allow the flexibility to make it 12 percent, or whatever number you want to pick.

Previously it's GST. HST is going to be the same. Whatever is exempt for GST will be exempt for HST. But no, now this year around they've changed it a little bit. We were allowed to take 5 percent of the total package and customize it the way we wanted. It allowed us to exempt the gasoline, diesel fuels, home heating fuels, children's car seats and books, women's hygiene products and children's clothes. We were allowed to tailor it for our own needs, and that certainly makes a big difference.

Then, of course, also to sweeten the pot and to finally make it to a point where it's worthwhile bringing it to the caucus and to the rest of the members, they throw in an additional $1.6 billion. Well, that's a whole year's deficit. You have to take that into consideration.

[1655]

I mean, with all these facts — and this is what I was explaining to people in the trade show — that are put in front of you, you've got to look at it at least. That's what our Finance Minister did. He looked at it. I give him credit for looking at it, and I supported him on it as well. I'm going to continue to support him, because I think that it's the right thing to do. It's the right thing for us now, and it's going to be the right thing for us in the future. It's definitely going to be good for B.C. in the long term. No question about that.

Then the next discussion I had with the folks in the trade show….

Deputy Speaker: Member, if I might remind you to talk to the amendment.

P. Pimm: This is to the amendment, hon. Speaker, because the urgency of it is…. When you get out to talk to your constituents, it allows you to show them the urgency behind this. That's exactly what we were doing.

So they told me: "Well, there's one more fact that I really don't like, and the fact is that it's going to be an additional tax. Whether it's $200 more or $500 more, it's going to be an additional tax." I said: "Well, you know what? I do agree with you on that. Any additional tax is something that this government doesn't like."

I went through that a little bit with them. I said: "You know, this government has a pretty good record on tax. In the 1990s the corporate tax was 16½ percent on corporations, all the way through the '90s. On small business that tax was 10 percent all the way through the 1990s. Meanwhile Alberta was sitting there at 5 percent. Well, guess what happens. It doesn't take long to figure out that if you're paying half the tax in Alberta, you're
[ Page 4753 ]
starting to move. That's what happened. The businesses started moving out of our area just by the droves. They were moving over to Alberta."

They said: "Okay, well that's great. You looked after the big corporations, you looked after the business, but what did you do for us? What did you do for this little guy?"

I showed them. I said: "You know what? We reduced taxes for everybody. In 2001 your taxes were as much as 35 percent to 40 percent higher in British Columbia than they were right next door in Alberta."

I said: "Today we are now the lowest. We're the lowest in Canada." If you think about this now, just keeping it in perspective, in the 1990s the business tax and the corporate tax was the highest in Canada — in British Columbia. Tenth out of ten. The highest in Canada. Now, after this next coming year, we're going to be down to zero for small business tax. Corporate tax is going to be down to 10 percent, and so now we are going to be the lowest for corporate and for small business.

From the worst in Canada to the best in Canada in ten years. That's a pretty good tax record to stand behind. It really is a pretty good tax record to stand behind.

But I said it goes further than that. Individual taxes too — same thing. Here we are in 2001 — and I had a nice little presentation showing 2001, 2010 taxes, and in every bracket they reduced from at least…. They were 35 percent less, and now in most cases they were as much as 50 percent lower. I showed them that this government absolutely does not like taxes, whether it be on corporations, whether it be on small businesses, whether it be on the general public.

You know, they got it. When they saw all the tax reductions that we've had over the last ten years, they understood. They understood that we were doing the right thing for them. They understood that we have gone the right direction, and they understood that: "You know what? They're continuing to try and look after us. They're looking out for us, looking out for the small guy."

They understood that when we reduce the taxes on business and on corporations, you're actually allowing those businesses and corporations to supply you the jobs so that you can go to work, so that you're going to have a paycheque. They understood the urgency.

[1700]

It was very, very interesting. It was probably the best weekend I ever had in my life. Was it the easiest? No, it wasn't the easiest. But at least I was there, and I was doing exactly what the opposition was saying: get out there and talk to the folks and deliver the message. I did deliver the message, and they understand the urgency behind it.

As we're going through the process, when I started telling them stuff like prescriptions…. Prescriptions aren't going to cost you anything more due to HST. Gasoline in your vehicle — absolutely nothing more. Heating your homes. They couldn't believe that heating your homes is going to cost nothing more, because everybody had been telling them that was going to be one of the things they had to do. There was going to be a tax on groceries.

When I explained the truth to them, it was amazing the outcome and the respect I got for standing there and explaining the truth to them. I think the truth has to be told, and I for one am not afraid to stand up and tell the truth to the people.

This is going to be a good tax. This is going to be good for British Columbians. It's going to be good for all of us in the long term. It's going to be good for industry. I know for sure that as we come through this tough time that we've got right now and as the economy starts to pick up, I can assure you that British Columbia is going to lead all of us through the tough times. We are going to lead the parade into the next go-round here, and that's starting to happen already. With that, Madam Speaker, I'm going to call it good enough.

D. Routley: I rise to speak in favour of this referral motion. The motion seeks to refer the content of this bill to the Finance Committee for further consideration, and it might then even be able to be debated and discussed by British Columbians. That would be the purpose of this referral. The referral is brought forward as a good-faith amendment in an attempt to give government an opportunity to square things with the people of B.C.

George Orwell said that "in a time of universal deceit, to tell the truth is a revolutionary act." So we offer the opportunity for the B.C. Liberals to become revolutionaries by accepting this referral and going to British Columbians and telling the truth. Clearly, in the election campaign, that didn't happen. This amendment to refer to committee seeks to give this Legislature a chance to consider why the B.C. Liberals thought it was necessary to break a promise such as the one they made to the homebuilders of B.C. when they promised not to impose the HST.

They answered a questionnaire from the restaurant industry, which was also offered to our party in the opposition. We answered by saying that no, we won't harmonize the PST with the GST. The government said that no, they wouldn't. Imagine that, Madam Speaker.

They gave several reasons why. They expanded on their answer to say that it would cost British Columbians our tax autonomy and that it would be unfair to the disadvantaged, that prices would rise and that it was not a good thing for our economy. Suddenly after the election, mere days it seems, negotiations began to do exactly that.

This referral to committee gives the government a chance for sober second thought, a chance for the B.C. Liberals to consider not continuing a pattern of deceit, which included other election promises quickly broken,
[ Page 4754 ]
like, "We will not sell B.C. Rail," quickly followed up by the sale of B.C. Rail, "We will not tear up the contracts of HEU workers," quickly followed up by the act of tearing up those contracts.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

This referral would give the government an opportunity to avoid harming the people of B.C. They harmed the people of B.C. when they broke their promise of not tearing up the HEU contracts, found seven times by the International Labour Organization to be unlawful and found by our Supreme Court of Canada to be unlawful and costing the B.C. purse millions of dollars.

That broken promise cost B.C. millions of dollars, and it caused the largest mass firing of women in the history of Canada. Referring this bill and accepting this motion would give the government an opportunity not to repeat that kind of costly mistake.

[1705]

Well, as we heard in the old Lucy show, this government has a lot of explaining to do — a lot of explaining to do. They say in politics that when you're explaining, you're losing, and they're doing a lot of explaining. They're explaining why it's the best thing for the B.C. economy. They're explaining who is supporting them and why they took this decision. What they aren't explaining to British Columbians is how they could make a promise not do something and follow that up with a reversal.

Back to George Orwell: "In a time of universal deceit, to tell the truth is a revolutionary act." So be revolutionaries, I say to the government. Tell the truth.

We are told that the PST was such a disadvantage. Well, our neighbours to the south, Washington State, have a state sales tax. They haven't harmonized their taxes. There are several other provinces that haven't. But that's debating the merit of the tax, when I think what is paramount in people's minds is the fact that they weren't told the truth. They were misled. Every Liberal member, every candidate — even who was defeated — went to the doorstep and campaigned with a deceptive set of promises.

They promised the restaurant industry not to do this — in writing. They promised the homebuilders that it wasn't on their radar screen. The Premier campaigned against harmonizing sales taxes for ten years. Suddenly this epiphany when they're faced with the massive $3.2 billion deficit: they needed cash. They needed cash to fractionally make up for their other broken promise during the election campaign — that the deficit would only be $495 million.

We've heard that this will free up $2 billion, and yet we're told that it's revenue-neutral. What it will do is free up $2 billion from the biggest corporations and hand it into the pockets of their shareholders. Maybe forest industry owners, Third Avenue, all those New York shareholders will benefit, but what about the people of B.C.? The people of B.C. will be the ones who pay for that benefit.

Again and again and again we see this philosophy from the B.C. Liberals to transfer the wealth of this province upward to those who least need it and off and away from those who most need it through the cutting of programs, through the increasing of fees and taxes to ordinary people and to the relief to their funders and their donors and those huge corporations that are the base of the B.C. Liberals.

We have been told so many things about this. Clearly, it's a regressive tax. Clearly, it impacts people who are on the margins more than others. I think that was recognized by Gord Fuller when he wrote to the Nanaimo Daily News. He said:

"The Premier and the B.C. Liberal's push to implement the harmonized sales tax is yet another kick to the posterior of the poor and disadvantaged in British Columbia. After cutting funding to children and families, then removing gaming grants from many programs that offer services allowing people to move forward in life, the HST shows an utter contempt and disregard not just for the poor but for all citizens of B.C."

Now, that's one of our voters speaking, friends. You….

Deputy Speaker: And the member is speaking to the amendment?

D. Routley: Yes, Madam Speaker. I am giving the government the reasons they need to step back and reconsider, because in reconsidering, in referring the motion, these very people would have a chance to address our Select Standing Committee on Finance. These people could have a chance to have their views heard.

They didn't get that chance during the election campaign. In fact, they were misled by those promises not to do this, not to bring in a harmonization of our provincial sales tax with the GST.

So here we have Gord Fuller pointing out how unfair this is. Gord Fuller would have a chance to come and correct the government's perception of what they're doing, remind them of who they work for, who they actually represent — the people of B.C. Yes, corporate success is important, but their first obligation is to the public interest in this province. This referral would give them a chance to remind themselves or be reminded of that fact.

[1710]

It was recognized by June Ross when she wrote to the Nanaimo News Bulletin. She says:

"Of course, the HST will benefit the large corporations. Can someone tell me how it will benefit this retired senior citizen? The last time I added up the charges that would now be levied, I believe my pension will shrink in the realm of $1,000 per year."

That should remind the last speaker of the budget test, because this person has obviously taken it. She sees $1,000 a year in increased expenses.

"This tax will wreak havoc on seniors, the disabled — mentally and physically — families, the poor and small businesses. The
[ Page 4755 ]
struggle will become how to pay for the rent or mortgage or to choose eating or purchasing medications and paying bills."

That is the voice of a British Columbian. That is an accurate portrayal of the way people are feeling about this deceptive and cynical move.

Then, also addressing fairness, Ken Johnson writes to the Parksville-Qualicum Beach News: "People, please wake up. The consequences of the Liberal government bringing in the harmonized sales tax will be catastrophic to the disposable incomes of the middle class, the lower middle class, the poor and the disadvantaged."

These people are not to be dismissed with the shaking heads on the other side. Their supporters, the heads of the hugest corporations which will benefit…. Of course we would expect them to say that it's a wise move. They're the ones benefiting. But the people paying the price are the ordinary people of British Columbia, and they're calling out. They're crying out, and this government isn't hearing them.

Fees and taxes to ordinary people have been driven up. This transfer of the burden of supporting our society and our services has been loaded onto the backs of ordinary people, and those who have been the biggest donors and those who have taken the most benefit from our province are running away to the bank.

MSP premiums — the most regressive form of taxation — have risen, doubled, and more than doubled now. Ferry fares, which we all depend on, on our coast, for economic development as well as just an equitable right to travel in our province, to have healthy communities. Health fees. All of these have gone through the roof, and these are the things that affect ordinary people, the people of B.C., the people this government should be representing.

This is why we need to refer this bill to committee. This is why these people deserve a voice. They didn't have that voice in May during the election. Now we find out that three days after the election the negotiations began to impose this tax on them without their approval.

All of this points to a lack of fairness and a lack of principles, a lack of integrity, a government that operates without integrity, a government that has lost any shred of credibility when it comes to trustworthiness with the people of B.C. This leads to cynicism.

Cynicism is a booming commodity in British Columbia. It grows in between the words of unfulfilled and broken promises. That's what's caused the cynicism in this province and the disenchantment with public process. This kind of cynical betrayal of the voters of B.C. is what we are trying to prevent.

We are trying to give people the voice they need to convince their government, if their government is listening, that they do not want this HST to be imposed on them. That is the bottom line, and that bottom line needs to be met by this government.

There's an anger growing, and we see it everywhere throughout the province. There's an anger that our democracy isn't working for us, that we are not being represented accurately and honestly. We cannot accept in a democracy a government that is won through deception. We cannot accept that. Democracy has its remedies.

Thankfully, that cynicism hasn't come to the point where people are resigned to accepting a deceitful presentation by a party seeking government. Thankfully, that anger reminds us that British Columbians still care enough about democracy that they are prepared to respond when they are not told the truth. When they are misled, they rise up in anger. We see it in the 82 percent to 90 percent rejection of the HST.

[1715]

That rejection isn't going to be convinced by all the explaining that's being done by the government members. That can only be convinced once this government honestly stands before the people and has the discussion that they failed to have during the election campaign.

This government, with its philosophy of transferring wealth upward in our society…. That's okay. If that's your philosophy, fine, but present it to the people. At least have the courage to present it to the people, and let the people vote knowing what they're voting for. It's a system of picking winners and losers. It was recognized by Pirjo Raits, who writes to the Nanaimo Bulletin. I apologize to Pirjo Raits, if I have mispronounced his name.

"People feel disenfranchised and unheard." The raw material of cynicism — isn't it? "They are becoming increasingly frustrated at the lack of accountability on the part of government and the lack of a public consultation exercise. When they see the distance between those in power and those on the ground, it leads to a feeling of helplessness, probably not unlike the peasants just before the French Revolution."

I mean, it's pretty clear. The members in the government, with their lofty connections to the heads of corporations who are benefiting from this and their contentment with their approval, had better get ready for the distinct expression of disapproval in this province as resistance to this betrayal grows. It's not going away, Members — not before you go away. It's staying, but you're not. This government is not staying, because democracy has its remedy for deceit.

Then our Finance Minister says that he didn't know about Ontario. He didn't know that they were considering the HST. He didn't know that they were consulting with the entire province of Ontario. Well, that's an admission of incompetence. So pick your poison. It's either dishonest or it's incompetent — one of the two. Either way it's a condemnation of this government, and people are condemning them. People are condemning them for what they've done.
[ Page 4756 ]

They didn't have the discussion. The deficit, $495 million — boom! — over $3 billion. Now we find out that the Premier was warned about plummeting revenue. These are things that destroy people's faith in our system, and referring this bill to committee would give the government a chance to hear from people and consider changing their direction. The homebuilders and the restaurant owners were betrayed. This is the action of a weak government.

A weak government fails to protect the people from harm. This government is exposing the people to harm. We need to refer this bill, and we need to support this motion so that the government can consider welling up enough courage to do the right thing. It's a weak government that only satisfies the demands of those powerful corporations that have supported it and ignores the pleas of the people it is elected to represent. That's a weak government.

This as a tax policy is regressive. It affects the most vulnerable. We had the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts say: "Well, I was lobbied by McDonald's, and I told them, 'Well, what is 7 percent on a $7 meal? It's no big deal, 49 cents. Who won't go there?'"

He rewards the corporate leaders with a 1 percent gain, and that's supposed to be the magic panacea for investment in British Columbia. They pat themselves on the back. They wave flags: "Look what we've done. We've incented investment." Yet when it's ordinary people who are having to spend $7 on a meal at McDonald's, somehow 49 cents isn't going to impact their choices.

That's ridiculous. That's a ridiculous statement. You know what? If you have that philosophy that tax policy will incent investment and that tax policy will disincent investment, then apply it to the people too. You've raised so many fees on people. You've raised their taxes so much. But the people don't have a choice, do they? They don't have the voice of the forest industry. They don't have the voice of the government's friends.

[1720]

Well, Susan Barcham, the director of corporate development for Oak Bay Marine Group, recognizes it. She says: "Everybody knows it's an incredibly uncertain time financially." Noting that the HST was brought in without consultation, she explained: "Profit margins are already very slim, and Oak Bay has been attending meetings talking about what resorts are going to be open next year."

She said that the announcement demonstrates a lack of sensitivity to tourism, just as the Tourism Minister displays a lack of sensitivity to tourism and to people who eat $7 meals, as though 49 cents doesn't mean anything to them. That's really sad, and we see this disconnection from the people, which was referred to by Mr. Pirjo Raits, that in fact they've lost touch.

The government has completely lost touch with the experience of British Columbians. They not only have lost touch, but they are fearful of British Columbians, because they know that if they displayed the truth of their agenda they would be swept out of power.

If they had stood at the doorsteps and told British Columbians, "You know what? We're going to do this to you — okay? After the election, we're going to take $2 billion from the biggest corporations. It will benefit mostly shareholders in New York, London, wherever. We're going to transfer it onto the backs of mostly the middle class and lower middle class and small business," how do you think that would go over?

"Are you going to vote for me?" No. Over 80 percent of people have rejected it, in large measure because it was hidden from them. It's the ultimate hidden tax. It was hidden from the people — amazing. So if the government doesn't have the courage of its convictions, it can defeat this motion. If it has the courage of its conviction, it will stand before the people and have a discussion about what this really means and listen to the people of B.C., listen to all these people that I've read here, to their words. They deserve to be heard.

Tourism. Well, we just held the Olympics, and everybody is proud of what Canadians did. But this government…. We had a Premier, who so wanted to own the Olympics, stalking the torch around B.C. It was disgraceful, really. It was disgraceful that the Olympics, the most….

Interjections.

D. Routley: Oh, we were the ones who applied for the Olympics.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

D. Routley: Madam Speaker, I believe we, the NDP, were the ones who made….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I will bring you back to consideration of the amendment.

D. Routley: Absolutely.

Tourism. The Olympics were meant to benefit tourism, and what do they do? They turn around and put a burden on the tourism industry. How much sense does this make?

It doesn't make any sense unless you come from the perspective that it's a government that didn't tell the truth about this tax or about the deficit and then was faced with the horrible realization, before the election, that the deficit was going to be much higher.

They needed to cushion that blow. So they decided that they could do it by harmonizing the sales tax and by furthering this agenda to transfer costs onto ordinary people, the same people who have suffered under their policies when it comes to resource management.
[ Page 4757 ]

That's why we need to give this government a chance to hear those people. We need to let them be heard. They weren't heard when the government deregulated the forest industry, so they lost the benefit of their resources. We need to let them be heard before more costs are transferred onto their backs.

Yes, a government that would take these actions, that would decide that it's permissible and acceptable…. They even called it the best thing they could do, to make this transfer from those who benefit the most onto those who face the biggest struggle. It marks the face of a weak government. We have a weak government in B.C. that needs to take another look.

We on this side stand with the people of B.C., and we are trying to give this government a chance to reconsider. We want to do more than that. We want to give the B.C. Liberals a chance to save themselves. Imagine. I'm sure that they're surprised.

[1725]

We want to give our Premier a chance to save himself. What a surprise. What a surprise, because I'm sure they've read the polls. The Premier — 72 percent of British Columbians say that the Premier is arrogant; 56 percent of British Columbians say that the Premier is secretive; 55 percent….

Deputy Speaker: Member, are you addressing the amendment?

D. Routley: Absolutely. The amendment would give a chance for the Premier to reverse these numbers.

Deputy Speaker: I will draw you back to consideration of the amendment.

D. Routley: Absolutely. The Premier, if he comes into this House as soon as I sit down and takes the floor and says, "You know what? We're going to support this amendment because — you know what? — 72 percent of the people think I'm arrogant, and I need to turn that around…."

You know, the amendment would give the Premier this chance in one move to come in here and say to the 55 percent of British Columbians who think he's dishonest: "No, I'm truthful, and I will truly give you a chance….

Deputy Speaker: Member.

D. Routley: Yes?

Deputy Speaker: Parliamentary language is what I expect.

D. Routley: Absolutely, and I think the dishonesty…. I'm not making an accusation, but the people of B.C. have judged, that 55 percent, that they feel that the Premier is…. The Liberal Party — 64 percent of British Columbians believe they're arrogant. So we could make a one-day turnaround. The people of B.C. could, in one moment, turn around….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I've now cautioned you three times. You do know that you're not able to do indirectly what is not possible directly in this chamber. There will be no further warnings.

D. Routley: Absolutely, Madam Speaker.

Let's look at some more numbers, then, in order to support the notion that this motion needs to be supported. Support the notion that the motion should be supported. Some 82 percent of British Columbians, as the smallest measure, are opposed to the HST.

We live in a democracy. This motion of referral would allow the government to meet the test and would allow the government to listen.

We have a circumstance here. When do you have 82 percent of people on one side or another of the issue? And that's the smallest number of any poll. I've never seen it. Have any of the members on the other side seen it? Maybe in their own ridings 82 percent of people might be opposed to them now. This motion, if supported, would give the government the opportunity to answer 82 percent of British Columbians — at least to stand and explain. It would give them a chance to communicate.

One of the Coquitlam–Port Moody members on the other side said that the purpose of this place is to communicate. Well, the ultimate communication should have occurred during the election campaign. It didn't. That's why people are so upset. Any amount of explaining of the merits or demerits of this tax or that tax won't answer the core question. It won't address the real problem.

We want to give the government another chance to address the real problem, and that is deception, betrayal of an election promise. Once you've done that and once you repeat that and it becomes a pattern, then the people become cynical, angry and disengaged, and you threaten the value and the health of our democracy by taking such a cynical act.

This motion, if supported, would give this government at least one more chance to listen to the people of B.C. — the tourism industry, the restaurant industry, the seniors of the province, the people who advocate for the disadvantaged in our province, those without housing. These are the people who need to be heard in order for this government to come to its senses.

This government has lost its sense. This government has lost its sense of democracy. It isn't good enough to just stand in front of people and say: "We know best."

[1730]

If you believe you know best, then your job in a democracy is to convince enough people that you do. Hiding your plans doesn't suffice.
[ Page 4758 ]

This motion would give them another chance, albeit belated, to speak to British Columbians, to allow British Columbians to speak to them — for them to hear the 82 per cent minimum number of British Columbians who are opposed to this tax. And then, perhaps, give them that explaining time — that time when they can perhaps convince enough people that this is a good idea.

So far, they have failed miserably. They have displayed themselves to be a weak and arrogant government — out of touch. We need to give them the opportunity to rescue themselves. Supporting this motion would give British Columbia the opportunity to rescue its democracy from betrayal.

R. Sultan: I'm delighted to speak on the motion of the opposition member for Port Coquitlam amending Bill 9, the Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act of the government. Just to remind us all on the motion, which we all try very hard to speak to: "Be it resolved that Bill 9 not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be forwarded to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and further that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberation."

So what are we debating here? We're debating an amendment to the law eliminating the provincial sales tax. That's what we're debating in this House. We are not debating the adoption of the harmonized sales tax. That decision was made six months ago in a capital city about 2,500 miles that way by the Parliament of Canada, and it's now the law of Canada.

Whether we pass Bill 9 amended or whether we pass the amendment to Bill 9, will it make any difference to the federal government? I don't see why it should. If B.C. wants to double its sales tax and not pass this bill, they'd probably say: "Well, that's your decision out there on the west coast. We always wondered about you folks."

So what we're debating is whether to remove a 7 percent sales tax in B.C. That's the debating point here — or whether, as has been proposed by amendment, it should be sent to committee for, shall we say, an indefinite consultation with the public.

Apparently, the NDP doesn't like the idea of eliminating the 7 percent sales tax. They want to take that decision to the people. I suppose the question for the consultation they propose could be, for example: "Do you or do you not favour reducing the provincial sales tax to zero?" That would be a pretty clear-cut question. I think I can predict what the answer would be. It would be almost unanimous, I think — higher than some of the polling numbers that have been cited earlier in the House on a different question.

If the public and the NDP say, "No, no, no; we want to consult the people about a federal law passed six months ago in Ottawa" — well, they can take that idea up with their Member of Parliament. But it's not really a subject to debate it here. That law belongs to somebody else.

Furthermore, I find it faintly offensive that the NDP would urge us to take a consultation on a fundamental matter of economic policy of the people such as reducing the PST to zero when this is the people's palace. This is the House of the people. This is the forum with democratically elected people of all points of view, and I find the idea that we're incapable of debating this matter right here and now but have to take it into the ballrooms and high school gymnasiums of the province faintly offensive.

[1735]

On the amendment. Here's why I think that defeating the amendment would be a good thing — what I advocate. Three good reasons. If the amendment succeeds, it might just keep the PST, so we would end up with double taxation. I don't think that's a very good economic plan. Secondly, if the NDP plan succeeds, it would cast in doubt the extensive simplification of the point-of-sale tax collection.

Clearly, for many months now, since it was clear that Ottawa had put the HST into law, companies and organizations, retailers and indeed tax accountants throughout the province have been at work sorting out the procedures of adopting this new simplified tax to be collected at point of sale. The rationalization of our own internal government organization and the diminishment of the wage bill around here, paid by the taxpayers to the tune of $30 million to $50 million would halt.

More importantly, it would bring to a shuddering halt the estimated rationalization of the duplicate tax system — GST and PST — now operational in the world out there, a duplicate two–tax return effort that's been estimated to cost small business people, large business people and others $150 million a year — a straight, deadweight loss in inefficiency.

We would revert to a sales tax system with some 150 different categories. As my faithful assistant tried to sort out what it actually meant — as, rightly, so many people asked — and as you start digging into each of those 150 categories, you can easily find 50 or 60 pages of instructions. It has, through the accumulation of well-meaning tax-twiddling over the years, become an administrative nightmare.

It's no more nightmarish than for the retail clerk who by law is to make all these complex decisions as to whether that piece of clothing of child size is being sold to a small adult woman, illegally, or as to whether the miner's helmet is tax-exempt but not the safety lamp on the miner's helmet or as to whether a safety coat which is orange is non-taxable but one which is yellow is. Or maybe I have it the other way around. How is a high school graduate clerk supposed to remember all that stuff?
[ Page 4759 ]

When we went around the province with the Small Business Roundtable, we heard over and over again: "Please let us escape from this nightmare of administration complexity that you've created." That is, of course, what the harmonization would accomplish.

Finally, if the amendment succeeded in stalling and perhaps even eventually killing this bill, it would be effectively a 40 percent marginal tax increase on business machinery. That is the extent to which the tax cut which is due to kick in on July 1 would be forgone. A 40 percent increase in the marginal tax of business machinery and equipment investment certainly would be no help for the forestry companies and communities of Quesnel, Terrace, Yale, Lillooet, Port Alberni, Powell River, Sunshine Coast on and on and on.

It would be no help for the mining companies or the communities of Nelson, Creston, Prince George, Kamloops, and I could go on forever. It would be no help for the truck loggers, who have come through a hellish period. Let's not try and gild the lily in terms of the economic circumstances that they've experienced in the last few years.

The example here that struck me was that a long-haul Titan logging truck by Mack, base price estimated between $148,000 and $238,000, will now show HST savings of up to $16,500, or if you include the federal portion, $28,500. So you're going to say: "I'm sorry, you're not going to get that $16,000 tax break after all."

[1740]

So the cost of rebuilding our primary industries, generally resource-based, is going to get a great big kick in the gut if we do not pass this tax. I think, at the core, that is the supreme economic benefit of the value-added tax for this province.

There are other industries, of course, that are very enthusiastic about the prospects. We had the film industry come to see us — I believe it was yesterday — a $1.3 billion industry. They're very enthusiastic.

If it fails, it would be no help for Kitimat, the member from Kitimat-Terrace. I am told that given the further economies now in sight with the value-added tax, the HST, the $2 billion Kitimat smelter expansion will probably go ahead with Rio Tinto. In short, it would be a body blow to business.

On the amendment, which of course aims to stall the HST…. Why was the HST itself a good idea in the first place? Well, fairness, and the fairness argument really played itself out a decade or two decades ago in the Mulroney GST fight.

In those days it was even more dramatic. The federal government was funding itself with a manufacturers' sales tax, and services escaped taxation completely. But meanwhile over the decades, the world had turned increasingly to becoming a service economy, so the tax burden of running the economy — paying for health services, paying for education, paying for national defence and so on — was unfairly imposed on the manufacturing sector, which was gasping for relief. And to rub salt in the wounds, exports were taxed but imports weren't. We were subsidizing import competition.

So the GST fight was won, although not without great political damage. It's very hard to tell people that what wasn't taxed is now going to be taxed, and of course, we see a playing out of that same scenario today.

I think it's essential that the manufacturing sector of B.C. receive assistance, because we see the hollowing out of the mill towns of Quesnel, Powell River. I think Nanaimo Forest Products has seen its share of difficulties. Woodfibre is gone. I used to look up Howe Sound and see the smoke plume. It's not there anymore — going, going, gone.

What happened to the high-paying union jobs that these mills represented — the core support group of the members opposite — lifetime jobs, lots of fringe benefits, even pensions? These are disappearing, and as they point out to us frequently, it's hitting these families in the breadbasket, destroying families. They need help. A lot of their jobs and what they're trained to do and maybe the thing that they do best are, in fact, the jobs in mining, in the pulp and paper industry, in the forest sector and so on.

I look at these towns in B.C. struggling, and I've seen it happen before. When I first got out of school, I worked in Buffalo, New York — a wonderful town. They had the Lackawanna steel works on Lake Erie there. It stretched for about ten miles of great big smokestacks and steel mills. Costs got out of line, and they didn't reinvest. You go down there today, and it's a wasteland. Detroit — the same situation.

If you want to be a tourist, go around New England and look at all the mill towns up the Connecticut River, which were the bases of the immense surge in prosperity of New England in the 19th century. You see row upon row of wonderful red brick buildings powered by water wheels in those days, and they're tourist attractions now, if they haven't been torn down.

We don't want to see that fate for our heavy industry in British Columbia, and one of the most important things we can could to make sure it doesn't happen is to make sure that we adopt the HST.

The opponents on the other side of the aisle have made some interesting arguments. The member for Victoria–Swan Lake said: "Well, what's the excitement about the value-added tax? The Americans don't have one."

[1745]

I thought: "Now I've heard everything." The Americans, the NDP Antichrist, are now being held up as the economic model we should emulate. I don't think we should. I think that on this one, the Americans are way behind the rest of the world. That's no argument for us to follow them.

Another reason is the fact that the experts are almost unanimous in recommending the HST value-added
[ Page 4760 ]
tax. With an eye on the clock, I think it would be foolish for me to try and read all those names. It ranges from Michael Smart to Jock Finlayson to John Allan to a whole roster of people, Dr. Jon Kesselman, etc. You don't find many economists who say this is a goofy idea.

Another good reason for not delaying the adoption by adopting this amendment is transparency. Few of us realize that when we buy a piece of capital equipment for our own personal use, like an automobile or a pickup truck, we are, in fact, perhaps paying today a sales tax in the range of 9 or 10 percent.

We say: "Wait a minute. That can't be. The sales tax is 7 percent." No, no, no. There are 2 or 3 percentage points of hidden sales tax in that car or that refrigerator. You just don't see it. It's not reported. It's not shown on the price tag, but it's there. It will be erased with the passage of this bill, and it's why it should not be delayed by the amendment.

Another good reason is that it's been endorsed by the very best NDP thinkers in the land. I'll quote two of them. Art Charbonneau. I think somebody else read this letter, but it's too good not to read it again. This is Art's letter to the Kamloops Daily News:

"It appals me" — Art says, Art Charbonneau of the NDP — "that the NDP is standing with Vander Zalm to block the HST. Are the NDP and Vander Zalm also recommending higher income taxes to offset the loss of government revenue? I don't think so."

"I can understand Vander Zalm's position, but darned if I can understand the NDP's, unless they're just jumping on the anti-tax bandwagon like a bunch of Johnny-come-lately Reaganites because they know it will garner votes. It can't be because they want to protect the poor, because with the HST the poor will receive an increased quarterly credit, just like they receive a GST credit right now.

"So I'm puzzled. How do people think we can fund education and health care at all levels we desire unless taxes are there to pay for it?"

I'm interpolating a little bit from Art's language. I apologize for that.

He says: "Tommy Douglas must be spinning in his grave." I like that. Have you thought about it? Tommy Douglas, every time he hears what you're saying — and I'm sure Tommy is up there and not down here — is spinning, saying: "Oh my god, these are my progeny. These are the people I've tried to indoctrinate in good social democratic principles. They've jumped into bed with this guy. I can't believe it. It's terrible."

Now, a more analytical source of commentary is my favourite target, and I've said very unkind things about them, very impolite and rude things, and I should take them back. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

You may recall my saying that CCPA reminded me of those Russian tanks clanking across Red Square all the time. Well, that was a cheap shot. I shouldn't have said that, particularly when they have funded a paper by University of Toronto economists Lightman and Mitchell, saying: "The net distributive impact of the combined personal income tax rate and credit changes in the HST…." It concludes that for the most low-income households, the tax and credit savings offset the HST increase.

Now, they're talking about Ontario, but I'm sure the impact is very similar to British Columbia. It contradicts directly the point of grinding the hungry faces of the poor, made so eloquently just now by the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan. The CCPA, the brain trust of the NDP party, says: "Hey, it's neutral. There's no impact."

[1750]

Then, the most interesting thing, if I have time, Madam Speaker, is the flip-flop that's occurred. Much of the anger which has been vented by members opposite says: "You didn't tell the truth" — in fact, they would be so bold in this House as to use the "L" word, but you won't catch me saying that — "and you knew you were going to do it all along. You didn't tell the truth about the budget, etc."

Well, there's now been a big flip-flop in the media and in the arguments presented in this Legislature. They didn't know about it, it appears, but as soon as the election was over, then there were a lot of briefings. The officials said: "It appears we've got a real problem, but by the way, we have a solution." That's how officials think. They hate to be the bearers of bad news without a solution.

The solution is a $1.6 billion pot of cash that they can get from Ottawa if they just go along with the HST thing, which has been kicking around for a long time without much enthusiasm. The officials said: "By golly, you're right. Let's do it."

It did indeed become a decision that I think was made post-election, not pre-election. All this folderol about conspiracy, mistruths, concealment, "they didn't fess up," fudge-it budget, smudge-it budget…. Well, cut the ground out from that argument.

Now it is: "They made the decision too quickly after the election." You know what? I'd agree with them, because if ever a pretty basic change in the taxation kind of had a — well, I have to choose my words carefully — less than professional rollout, it was this one, folks. That's why we're having this debate today. Because it wasn't explained very well at all.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I tried to explain it the other day to a group of 85- to 90-year-old ladies using my Harvard charts and value-added…. I realized: "I've got to get out of here real quick. This is a hard thing to explain." I'll forgive the government for not doing a very good job in explaining it. Nevertheless, everybody who hates taxes immediately passed the word in the absence of the facts, so I had people in my office saying: "Why are you charging HST on my food? I cannot afford that." Somebody said: "Why
[ Page 4761 ]
are you charging it on my heating bill?" Somebody said: "Why are you charging 12 percent on a $500,000 house, $60,000 tax on a half-million-dollar house?"

A lot of them think it's a 12 percent tax on everything brand-new. No wonder they're upset. I mean, signing up people on a petition saying: "Would you agree that we shouldn't charge a new 12 percent tax on everything…?" "Okay, where do I sign? I'll go for that."

Well, to put it kindly and parliamentarily, there was a certain amount of distortion going on, and now we reap the whirlwind. Meanwhile Tommy Douglas spins and spins and spins.

So my final plea. I see the Speaker is giving me the eagle eye. We've had a lot of very heartfelt pleas to save ourselves, particularly from the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan. It's a chance for the Premier to save himself by unwinding it. It's a chance for the member for West Vancouver–Capilano to save himself.

I have a quotation to put back to you. It's from William Shakespeare, The Tempest: "Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows." The misery of the NDP party has acquainted the NDP party with a rather strange bedfellow from the past, a man who took a wonderful 40-year track record — competent, careful, prudent, thrifty Social Credit Party — and destroyed it in four years, put it out of business.

I would suggest to you that if you continue to follow the flag of this gentleman…. I won't be so unparliamentary as to list the cash in the brown paper bags at 3 a.m. at the Bayshore hotel. I would never bring up that subject or the fact that he wanted to restrict access to the right to life for women.

Interjections.

R. Sultan: I didn't vote for Bill. I wasn't here. Well, you shouldn't follow those people. Believe it.

[1755]

Now the Opposition House Leader is giving me the signal. I rest my case. There's still time to save yourself. Abandon that cause. It's a losing cause, and it may cost you your party.

R. Sultan moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
AND RANGE

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

The committee met at 2:42 p.m.

On Vote 34: ministry operations, $380,357,000.

The Chair: Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to the budget estimates for the Ministry of Forests and Range. If I could remind the people in the gallery that the small gallery is the same as the big House. You can use electronic devices but no audio or no communicating by waving hands, etc., with members at the table.

Hon. P. Bell: I just have a few brief opening remarks. I understand that we're going to start out with the integrated land management bureau and then move on to the Ministry of Forests and Range. I'd like to thank the critic for that. That's very helpful from our perspective to organize our executive team and make sure that we don't have too many people away from their respective offices, so I want to thank the critic for that.

I'd like to start out by introducing the staff. I have here Steve Carr, the president and CEO of the integrated land management bureau. Craig Sutherland is our CFO. We're also joined by Charles Porter, who has responsibility for about half of the integrated land management bureau, particular on the First Nations consultation side, and Gary Townsend, who has responsibility for FrontCounter B.C. and other aspects of the integrated land management bureau.

ILMB, as I think the members opposite know, is a service delivery arm of government. We provide services to other branches of government, particularly with regards to First Nations consultation and the delivery of permitting processes for small and medium-sized businesses across British Columbia.

FrontCounter B.C. was established about five years ago and has had significant success in terms of providing services to small and medium-sized companies. The thinking behind this when it was established was that while large companies are capable of moving permits through the system and visiting different ministries in order to acquire the necessary permits, small and medium-sized businesses found that very challenging.
[ Page 4762 ]
It was difficult for them to acquire the necessary permits, so it was useful for them to have a single-window approach into government.

We also have GeoBC within the integrated land management bureau. GeoBC does almost all of the mapping work within government. There have been many very exciting initiatives in GeoBC. One of the more recent ones was the agreement that we signed with Google so that when an individual goes on Google Earth and looks to see the satellite photo of their home or of a specific area that they're interested in looking at, at one point in time as you continue to focus in on the particular area of interest, you'll notice that you transition from a satellite photo to an aerial photo.

When you do that, you actually come to GeoBC. Google automatically transfers over to GeoBC, which is located right here in Victoria — about 70 employees or so — and you see the most current aerial photographs of the area that we have on file.

[1445]

We're the first jurisdiction to do that around the world, which we are very proud of. We thought that was a great initiative, led by Mark Zacharias under his management regime of GeoBC. It was a wonderful initiative.

We also have great work in terms of overlaying different maps that help us project ahead on things like land and resource management plans, in dealing with the details of mountain pine beetle and the potential impacts, in trying to create longer shelf lives and understanding what the opportunities are. GeoBC has done a wonderful job. We also deliver some electronic licensing services and that sort of thing.

I talked a little bit about FrontCounter B.C. already. The First Nations consultation division, under the leadership of Charles Porter, works with cross-ministry initiatives so that instead of multiple individuals going into First Nations communities from different arms of government, consulting oftentimes on the same project, we just have a single individual responsible for those projects.

This isn't exact, but generally speaking, as a division of responsibility the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation deals with issues inside treaty or in the negotiation of treaty and those consultations. The integrated land management bureau deals with the bulk of the consultations outside of treaty, especially when they're cross-ministry-type consultations.

That, in a very quick nutshell, is what we do inside the integrated land management bureau. We have a great team of people across the province, and we're very excited about ensuring that we provide services to the public. I'll start with that, and I'd be happy to take questions.

N. Macdonald: Basically, over the time that we have — I've had the opportunity to speak with the minister's office — we'll start off with ILMB. There will be a number of individuals that have questions on ILMB, and then I think they'll start to move into some forestry issues. That will be, basically, what will take up the bulk of the afternoon. Then we will go on and really be concentrating on silviculture issues and then trying to understand the reorganization and the changes that are going on in the Forest Service. That's what's going to take up the bulk of the time that we have available to us.

To begin with ILMB, it's just some straightforward process questions to put a few things in context, and then I'm going to turn it over to my colleague from Victoria here to ask some more specific questions on an issue that's current and important to her. I just want to understand some of the principles of the application process on public lands.

The first question is this one. Before there's a tenure or a licence of occupation, before that's given, is there always a public notification of the tenure with a public input period? Is that something that will always happen?

Hon. P. Bell: The answer to that question, I think, is no. There are some circumstances where there isn't a public process or notification. Those typically would be around temporary use permits. If those temporary use permits are something that we think may be of public interest, then we would go ahead and consult on those as well, and we would publish those. On any tenure permits or any tenuring, there is always public notification.

[1450]

Then, depending on the nature of it, it may not go through a detailed public consultation if it's a very minor item. An example of that might be a private dock on a lake. There might not even be a notification of that. So generally speaking, temporary permits, no, any sort of tenuring, yes.

N. Macdonald: Just to be a bit more specific, the example that the minister used for something that's so small in scale that it likely would hold no interest would be something like a dock on a lake. Can you just expand on that? What are some of the other things? Just give me a sense of at what point the notification would be required. And yeah, I guess that's just a bit more of the scope.

Hon. P. Bell: We're trying to find something that's right on the borderline of yes, you would or no, you wouldn't consult on it. I think that's what the member's looking for. Clearly, one that we would, would be a communications tower. It would be published in the local media. It would also be gazetted, so that one definitely falls in the "yes, you would consult on."
[ Page 4763 ]

One that is borderline, that you may or may not, is an investigative use permit. So that's where a proponent may go in…. Actually, I was just speaking with a First Nations group today on a potential investigative use permit, and in that particular situation they're looking at providing a sewage system for about 3,000 people. That's a relatively large one, and we would probably publish that type of thing, even though it's only an investigative use permit. A minor permit that has a lower level of impact we might not.

So an investigative use is just kind of in the middle of the pack in terms of something that could fall either way, depending on the nature of it. If it was a larger one, we would, and if it was a smaller one, we wouldn't. Things that are less invasive than that likely would not involve consultation or publication. Anything that is more invasive than that, likely we would.

N. Macdonald: So is this a requirement by legislation or by regulation, or is it simply a practice?

Hon. P. Bell: It's by policy. That policy is written. Typically, the president of the integrated land management bureau or perhaps the minister may sign off on it, but typically it's done within the public service.

N. Macdonald: The term "licence of occupation" — is that a specific term, or is it a more general term? Licence of occupation — is that something that could be the placement of a dock, or is it something that's bigger than that, like for a particular tenure or something? What exactly does the term mean?

[1455]

Hon. P. Bell: A licence of occupation is a non-exclusive use. It does provide the right to use a specific area for a specific purpose, but others also have the right to use that area for other reasons — the generally. An example of that would be a heli-ski tenure.

N. Macdonald: I'll just put two questions together, then. Would a heli-ski tenure, then, be something that…. Would there generally be notification? With something like a heli-ski tenure, would there be consultation with First Nations? Here I'm thinking: would that be automatic? Maybe a degree of whether it's automatic, that it would happen and it has to happen, or it can happen depending on…. Or it wouldn't, necessarily. Sort of the degrees as well.

Hon. P. Bell: Yes to both questions, and yes, it would be automatic with regards to consultation with First Nations in that circumstance.

N. Macdonald: On the tenures, just the last thing that I need to understand, then…. If these are in the back country — and some of these tenures would likely include building of roads; maybe there would even be temporary placement of buildings, things like that — is there always a security deposit? Or is there…?

What sort of guarantee does the Crown have that the public is not going to be stuck with liability — for instance, if they have an oil tank up there and it leaks or something like that, and there's a cleanup that's required? What mechanism does the Crown have to make sure that that doesn't happen?

Hon. P. Bell: The member added an additional element at the tail end of his question that I just needed to be clear on. When he started the question, I was going to automatically jump up and say that typically, if a lodge was being built on a tenure of this nature, it would be done under a lease.

So they could have a licence of occupation as a heli-ski company. They could have a licence of occupation over the area that they ski on. But likely the lodge and fuel tanks and that would be in a lease area, and that would require some sort of a performance bond or some sort of security that ensures that the Crown is held harmless. Now, of course, that hasn't always been the case, but that's current practices.

But then the member added an element in at the end that got me thinking a bit when he asked about the fuel tanks, because there are fuel tanks as refuelling stations, not at the primary lodge but in other areas in those forms of tenure. I am advised that those could be on a licence of occupation, as well, or even some small outbuildings that are used by a heli-ski company for warming up or that type of thing — so not necessarily permanent structures, but more temporary structures away from the primary lodge.

Those could be on licences of occupation, and those also include bonding requirements to ensure that if there are any environmental impacts, there is funding there to ensure that it can be cleaned up.

N. Macdonald: Just to be clear — and we can use the example of heli-skiing, then — if there is an access road built up, if there's any sort of construction, even minor, there will be some sort of bonding mechanism that will presumably make sense relative to what is being done up there? So if they are leaving a fuel tank in a place, that would set a certain amount that the Crown would want for bonding, and if it's something more elaborate, there would be different bondings? Do I understand correctly that that's the system that's in place?

And the second part of it is: is that required? Is that always going to be there? Is that set in regulation or in legislation, or is it simply good practice?

[1500]
[ Page 4764 ]

Hon. P. Bell: The current structure of the system that the member is referring to opposite…. I just want to use that word "current" because it's what I know. There may be some historical ones. I'm sure there are historical ones going back many decades. Perhaps there were different standards applied, and some of those leases may not have been renewed yet. But under one issued today, if there's one issued today, or at least for the last three or four or five years that I've had responsibility for the integrated land management bureau, the requirement for bonding is in policy. I know that can sometimes be….

People can think: "Well, what's policy? Is it considered to be a significant requirement or not?" Policy is seen as being as important, in terms of a licensed document or anything of that nature, as a regulation. Perhaps not as legislation — that's a bit different. But it is something that frames a requirement for all decision-makers when they issue a licence.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

So it is there. It is actually in the tenure document. The bonding requirement is actually listed in the tenure document and identified as the level that is required for that particular area.

The final element of the member's question on roads. Typically, our understanding…. We're reaching a little bit here. We'll follow up and make sure that we have this right, but we're reaching a little bit. Typically, roads are done under road permits, and this is just because a number of these individuals have forest service experience. That's typically where those are done. But the road is usually permitted under the licence or tenure.

If we're talking about a heli-ski tenure, just as an example, that then holds the bond for the deactivation or remediation of the road. So, the bond is not directly associated with the road use permit or with the road permit, but it is in that the road permit is connected to the licence document, which holds the bond for both.

N. Macdonald: We'll probably move to some specific questions on issues. Thank you for that. I mean, that was useful and interesting, and in terms of the specifics, I know that the member from Esquimalt will be talking about the harbour issue.

I do have some questions just from people in Invermere around the Farnham Glacier — the licence of occupation. I can give you the number, if that's useful to staff. It's 343545, and there again, they just have fairly specific questions about that. Then there was another gentleman that was going to ask questions, and I don't know that he's going to be available, but they'll be on fairly specific topics. So I'll just turn it over to my compatriot here.

M. Karagianis: I am sure that it will come as no surprise that I have a number of questions about a proposed marina development in the Inner Harbour here, and I would initially like to just start off with some broader process questions.

[1505]

The proposed project in the Inner Harbour is a 52-slip marina for mega-yachts that is consisting of two one-storey buildings on water lots that are owned by the developer, and the project would also include a parcel of water lot that would be leased from the province. There are a lot of unique elements to this proposal. It is highly controversial in the community, as I'm sure the minister is aware.

What I would like to do in this question opportunity with you is perhaps dispel some incorrect information about it, if we can, and clarify some issues for the community.

I would call the minister's attention to an article that ran in the Times Colonist on March 17, which was an editorial. What it says is: "The marina process is failing everyone." Really, my purpose here is to talk about that process and see if we can in fact clarify some information the community has and a growing concern that the community has.

I would like to first clarify with the minister, if I may, the term "water lots" and "owned by the developer." Perhaps the minister could talk a little bit more about: how were they acquired? When were they acquired? And are they freehold tenure, or what is the nature of that ownership?

Hon. P. Bell: We don't have that title search here, so I can't confirm for certain that this is the case, but our understanding is that the lots have been held since the 1980s. Unless we knew exact lot numbers…. I'm not sure we have that level of information here anyways, but I think that they are freeheld lots. They're not tenured lots, at least the two I think the member opposite is referring to.

M. Karagianis: In the case of this, is this kind of water lot ownership common in a public harbour of the nature that we have here in Victoria?

Hon. P. Bell: I just have to double-check with the member opposite. I may have given her an incorrect piece of information. Was the member opposite referring to the water lots in her previous question, in her first question, or to the privately held lots on land?

M. Karagianis: No, I'm actually talking about the water lots in both cases.

[1510]

Hon. P. Bell: It appears as if we're going to go down a path that's highly technical in nature. I think, to get the
[ Page 4765 ]
right answers for the member opposite, I'd prefer that we have a different individual here who, unfortunately, is based out of Nanaimo. We could have that individual here on either Monday or Tuesday. I understand that the estimates will go through that period as well.

I am just going to ask if the member would be willing to wait until either Monday or Tuesday, whatever is convenient for her. If she lets us know now, we could have that individual here, and then we'd be in a better position to answer that level of detail.

M. Karagianis: Yes, I think I would like to avail myself of that opportunity. Is the minister at this point, though, asking that all the questions I might have wanted to ask or just those that technically refer to the water lot tenure ownership, etc…? Maybe he can clarify exactly where the cut-off point is. How many questions can I ask today, or should all of my questions about this process, as well as about the water lot ownership, be kept for later?

Hon. P. Bell: The reason why I asked the question is because I'd already provided some incorrect information in my first answer. I assumed the member was referring to some land-based lots, not water lots. We now understand that. In a quick review of the team we have here, we understand that two of those water lots are privately held, but don't have the level of information of how long they've been privately held.

We just very quickly reviewed as a team if water lots are a common feature in British Columbia, and none of us could come up quickly with significant numbers of water lots. They do exist, but it wasn't something that we could come up with immediately. However, the individual that we would bring would have that level of knowledge.

If the member wants to go on and pursue other questions around this file, we're happy to do that. If we find that we're unable to get the level of answers, then I'd suggest that we put off the remainder of them. But we could certainly continue on. I just want to make sure I'm providing the right information for the member.

I know that this is a contentious issue for her riding. I agree with her that it's important that the public have all the correct information on it, so they know exactly who has what roles and responsibilities within each level of government, and they can direct their commentary to the appropriate level of government.

M. Karagianis: I appreciate the minister's comments. Yes, obviously, some of these more technical discussions we'll follow up next week. Certainly, I'm hoping that there are a number of questions that we can pursue here.

Again, around the issue of process. The 52-slip marina project is based on the use of these currently owned water lots, and the largest parcel of land here is expected to be a leased water lot property from the province. Perhaps this is again a technical question. How does this leasing of provincial water lot ownership work? How common is that in public harbours?

[1515]

Hon. P. Bell: What initiates the process would be an application from any individual or company. They could apply for a water lot. This is a very common practice. Any marina in the province would likely have a water lot, so it's not an unusual type of application that we would receive.

If it was successful, it would end up in a lease. Going back to the previous member's questions, that automatically triggers notification in the form of advertisements in local newspapers and that sort of thing — public comment periods, consultation, all those elements — as well as, of course, First Nations consultation.

Currently, just anticipating what the member might ask next, in this particular circumstance the public consultation period has not been concluded yet. That's still active; it hasn't closed off. The file is still considered active from our perspective at this point.

M. Karagianis: I would take, then, from the minister's comments on the process, that an application has been submitted, that the process is underway and that we are currently in the public consultation phase of that process. What form and shape exactly does the consultation…. The public consultation stage of the process — what does that look like? What does it entail? Is there a beginning? Is there an end? How, in fact, does the public engage in that process?

[1520]

Hon. P. Bell: The kind of kickoff to the consultation process is the advertisement that gets run. In this particular file, I understand, there was an advertisement taken out in December of 2009, but there was some incorrect information in it. So it was re-advertised in January of 2010, and that was considered the starting point of the public consultation period.

In this particular circumstance the proponent has had open houses. As I think the member is aware, the local federal MP had a public kind of a meeting, which we sent staff to, as well, to be part of.

Once we moved through that process, it then is in the adjudication phase, which is where we are at today. The adjudication phase still accepts public comment. Written comment is taken and considered all through the adjudication phase. While there are lots of elements of this….

As I think the member opposite is aware, there are three other key agencies here that are involved. Transport Canada and the work that they are doing. Then the fed-
[ Page 4766 ]
eral environmental assessment process, and clearly, we would not make any decisions until that process is complete. Then, of course, municipal zoning authorities. If the zoning authority was not appropriate for the use, then that would automatically disqualify the tenure as well.

We see ourselves a bit as largely a technical agency in terms of pulling together all the data from the other agencies. The Canadian environmental assessment authority reviews all of those elements. The local municipality makes a decision on whether or not they want to allow the zoning to be in place for a specific use. Then we align our decision with those other agencies.

Any of those agencies can automatically disqualify the tenure by not allowing the environmental assessment approval — Transport Canada in this circumstance or the municipality. Any one of those three elements that is not approved automatically means that we have no more work to do, and we would not approve the tenure.

M. Karagianis: I do want to kind of proceed through the comments that the minister has made and some of the information that has been made public by the federal jurisdiction and, certainly, some obviously very publicly disclosed information and a stand that the municipality has taken.

The minister said we'd go through the application stage, the public consultation process. We have now moved into an adjudication stage, but public consultation is still accepted in the form of writing. So the province does not anticipate in this process holding their own public consultation that's not either led by the proponent or, in the case of the initiative that was taken, by the local MP.

Does the province not go out, then, and engage in their own process? Or is the notice of advertising simply notification to the public to then submit in writing or in person or in some other form? I mean, I see that the province has piggybacked on what the proponent has done and has participated in what the MP has done.

Certainly, from the public point of view, I know there's a great deal of concern about what kind of consultation process the province on its own would undertake. Can the minister address that for me?

[1525]

Hon. P. Bell: I think I'll just try and again explain the division of responsibilities here. The federal government has the responsibility to do two things, two primary issues. One is to determine whether or not the site is suitable from an environmental perspective and would be appropriate for that use and that there would not be any environmental damage.

They also have responsibility for ensuring that navigation is not impeded — Transport Canada, through the other arm of the federal government. Both of those require public consultation processes, and they are well equipped to make those decisions.

The municipal government has a responsibility for zoning and determining whether or not they deem that particular use is acceptable for a piece of property. If they want to make changes to that, they have public consultation periods for zoning requirements and they determine whether the uses of that property are appropriate.

We are kind of stuck in between those two places, from the provincial government perspective. We wouldn't be consulting on either of those issues. We don't make decisions based on either of those elements. If the federal government has done their due diligence and determines that this is an appropriate use of the property…. It hasn't triggered a provincial environmental assessment; it's triggered a federal environmental assessment. They would consult on that. They would consult on the navigable waters issue. The municipality consults on the land use and the zoning of it.

Our decision is in the middle of those and is largely technical in nature. We do, of course, have a responsibility to consult with First Nations, and that work has been ongoing, and we've had feedback there. That would be our primary area of responsibility.

But just to be clear. I know this is an emotional issue for residents, but our role is largely technical in nature. Really, the municipality has the authority to make decisions around zoning and whether or not they think that's an appropriate use. The federal government has the authority to make the environmental decision, and we're the ones in the centre of the whole thing.

M. Karagianis: I understand the three levels of authority and the various tasks that they undertake, but I hear the minister say that the municipality and their authority over zoning is a key element to the approval or non-approval of leasing. I believe that the municipality at this point cannot and will not make further determination on that until the process has been completed both federally and provincially. Now, that is my understanding.

It would seem to me that…. I've sat at the municipal level, so I know that for the municipality to undertake a zoning process…. It includes, you know, first, second reading, a public process, a public hearing on that and then a determination whether or not they would approve the zoning or turn it down. That process, of course, is contingent on other information that municipalities don't undertake — being the responsibilities that both the federal and provincial government do.

I know that at the federal level Transport Canada has at this point said…. The federal minister has stated in writing that it's unlikely that a panel review process is warranted for the marina project. He justifies this claim,
[ Page 4767 ]
saying that the majority of the public concern is about quality-of-life issues.

But in no way does the federal government here clarify any concerns about the environmental process or an environmental assessment. So who takes on the evaluation of the environmental assessment of the Inner Harbour and of the implications of this?

If the federal government is looking at simply, you know, navigation, which I would say is highly questionable, but nonetheless, it is their responsibility…. It seems that nowhere in their comments have they talked about public consultation, for one, other than saying that they believe this is a lifestyle issue.

[1530]

Certainly, the whole environmental assessment aspect of this — who takes responsibility for that, and where is the reporting out of that? How is that open and transparent to the public?

Hon. P. Bell: Just to be clear for the member opposite, there are actually two federal processes underway currently. Transport Canada is responsible for navigable waters and is doing that. Environment Canada is responsible for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. The questions the member asked with regards to who reviews the environmental aspects of this decision and who has the authority to give it a green or a red light…. It is in fact the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, and they do their own public consultation periods.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

We would not make a decision on this if either of those two agencies were to not approve their work. So once their work has been done, if either of them gave it a red light, then it's done. Our work is done.

At a municipal level, if this property were not to be zoned appropriately for the use, then we would not consider the tenure application either. So there are three red lights there that all have to be green in order for us to really complete our work.

M. Karagianis: I'm just trying to, again, piece this together. I know that the minister has publicly stated that you were waiting on the results of the screening assessment. I would presume that means environmental assessment.

The city of Victoria at one point, several years ago, inquired about rezoning the water as parkland. They were told by integrated land management that they needed to seek the approval of the proponent, the developer, because he had an interest in the Crown land.

I'm sure some of your staff may be aware of the rather contentious nature of the timeline here. The developer had, in fact, not actually filed an application at that point, when the city made that request. So the city, really, technically had been under no obligation to seek his approval for…. We're talking about the leased water lot between the two privately owned, and we haven't explored that for reasons that we have canvassed here. This piece of leased water lot here between the two pieces of privately owned water lots is, I think, under intense scrutiny from the public.

So I would like to ask about…. Perhaps the minister needs the expertise of someone else here, but perhaps his staff knows. Can we talk about the actual application and when it was submitted and why the city was unable to put in their rezoning application to turn this into parkland, which of course would have then considerably changed the magnitude of the current development proposal? Can you comment on that, Minister?

[1535]

Hon. P. Bell: Two things I wanted to touch on, as I understand it. We can, for Monday or Tuesday, get the e-mails and so on associated with this over here as well. My understanding is that it was a technical discussion between someone at the city and someone at the integrated land management bureau, and it was only a suggestion: "Well, you should go talk to this person, but if you want to apply for a rezoning, if you want to rezone it, you can rezone it."

But also — and this has not been well publicized, I don't think, in the media — there is nothing preventing the city from applying for rezoning the lot today. They could rezone the water lot today if they wanted to. It's up to them. They have complete authority over that. It's not something…. They hold complete control over that decision.

It's ultimately, again, stepping back, a federal government responsibility around navigation, around environmental assessment, municipal government — if this is an appropriate use. If it's not, then they'd better think about the zoning that's been on there for whatever length of time it's been on there, or they could make a decision to rezone it. The member actually has more experience in this area than I do. I haven't been a member of local government.

I'm just going to ask tolerance of the members opposite for a five-minute recess, if we can. Okay, recess five minutes?

The Chair: Yes, we'll have a recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:37 p.m. to 3:40 p.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

M. Karagianis: I appreciate the minister's comments about the city's ability and rights at this point to choose what rezoning process they wish, which would indicate to me that….
[ Page 4768 ]

The application has been made for lease of this property, of this water lot. As it currently sits, there is zoning in place for a marina, but it's certainly anticipated to be somewhat — and I would say extremely — smaller than what the current proponent is applying for. I'm sure that the minister is aware of that as well. We'll maybe canvass that a little bit.

The minister did talk about the various other levels of government authority over this and the processes that they go through. A red light for many of them would then trigger a CEAA process for the minister. What is the red light at the provincial level, then?

Hon. P. Bell: We may have to go back and forth a few times. I'm not sure I'll be able to get the whole answer, because it's a complex issue. This particular situation is unique compared to many of the adjudications that we would take part in, in that there are multiple other agencies involved in the decision.

We'll go back to the critic's original questions around heli-ski tenures. There likely wouldn't be an environmental assessment process, a CEAA process, in the assessment of one of those tenures — although there might be, I suppose.

In that case, if that level of consultation and that level of work were not being done by a different agency, we would do that work. But in this case, because the federal government is leading the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Transport Canada is leading nav waters, and then there's the municipality zoning piece, our work is relatively limited in terms of what we do.

One of the key pieces that we have fiduciary responsibility for is First Nations consultation. That is probably one of the biggest single areas that we need to play a role in. The other element pulls together public consultation — the input that we get from the public in terms of both during the consultation period and now, during the adjudication period, where the public can continue to comment. We would take any comments that we received. When we get the work, if there was a green light….

Who knows whether it'll be a green light or a red light? I don't want to presume that. Let's for a moment say that there's a green light that comes from Environment Canada and Transport Canada. We would compare the comments that we received from the public on that work to determine whether or not either of those two agencies had assessed that specific area of work. Then, if there were areas where we thought there were gaps in the work done, then we would participate in that work as well.

It's a little unique situation, in that we have other levels of government doing a lot of the work this time around, whereas for many of the files that we adjudicate, it's just us that have to do all of those different pieces of work.

[1545]

M. Karagianis: It's very interesting. When we talk about all these various processes that have to be undertaken here, I know that the minister has actually stated publicly that the amount of time that all this is taking is, in fact, putting the developer at risk. Well, I think the inference might have been. The amount of time that this is taking is certainly not beneficial to all parties involved. We'll put it that way.

I do note that an engineering firm that's been hired to do an environmental assessment is claiming on their website that this project has passed every environmental review, both federal and provincial, including that of the integrated land management board. That's clearly cited on the website of Chatwin Engineering, which has been hired to do some parts of this.

Can the minister comment on that? Clearly from the discussion we're having here, that doesn't really fit in with the process as the minister has outlined it. I'd like to hear from the minister maybe some feedback on that.

Hon. P. Bell: I'll start out by saying I am unaware of any role that the board of the integrated land management bureau would have in any environmental assessment processes. They are a group of deputy ministers from half a dozen or so — six; well, that's pretty close to half a dozen, give or take one — ministries. I'm certainly not aware of any time that that group of six individuals has been involved in environmental assessments.

One of the members of the board is the deputy for Environment, but it's a board that just really reviews performance, sets general direction, high-level decisions, helps support the development of the service plan, that type of thing.

The second is that we have not received anything from the federal government or an approved environmental assessment from the federal government. It could be that this individual has information that I don't have, but I have not received a copy of any documentation from the federal government that suggests that they've approved this file.

It could be that this individual has an in that I don't know about. I can tell you that I have not personally received any documentation from the federal government that says that this deal has been approved.

M. Karagianis: That information has been on the website for some time. One of my intentions was to clarify some misinformation, so I would have to say that the information on this Chatwin Engineering website, then, is not factual as it stands right now.

Could the minister perhaps just comment on whether or not the First Nations consultation process has been undertaken and what stage that's at?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm going to just be a little careful how far I go in answering this question because it is an active
[ Page 4769 ]
file. I'm not entirely sure it would be appropriate for me to discuss specifics of an open and active file at this point.

What I will say is that there have been numerous attempts to connect with First Nations by ourselves in the integrated land management bureau and, as I understand it, by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the developer, and that the consultation period has not closed off yet. It is still active in terms of discussions with the primary two First Nations.

[1550]

M. Karagianis: Can I ask the minister, then: on the issue of riparian rights, has the integrated land management bureau addressed the issue of riparian rights? The city of Victoria and two of the strata councils of the properties on the upland have notified, to my understanding, the ILMB about their intent to assert riparian rights. Can the minister comment on what bearing that will now have on the adjudication process?

Hon. P. Bell: Again, I'm just going to be a little careful on this because it would be inappropriate for me to fetter a decision-maker who hasn't been asked to turn their mind to a decision yet through comments I make here. I will talk specifically about this file in one area, but I'll move to a generality in terms of how files of this nature would be dealt with once we get to kind of the touchier place, at least in my opinion.

The very, very complex situation here…. There has been, as I understand it, foreshore that's been infilled. There are questions about who has what riparian rights and where. It's an unusual environment. It's not just kind of a normal environment. I know that there have been varying legal opinions on this as well, so it is a very complex decision specific to this environment, a difficult decision because of the nature of the differing legal opinions and the complexity of the activities that have taken place in this region.

Moving to a more general perspective, any tenure that we would issue currently under the current decision matrix or model…. One of the boxes that we have to tick off in it is that we make sure that we're not infringing on riparian rights from other users and/or residents in the area. That's one of the things that would be considered by the decision-maker during the process of them adjudicating the file. They would have to ensure that there was no infringement of riparian rights, and then that typically would carry forward in a tenure document as well.

That's an element, perhaps, that hasn't been explored fully in the past at other levels of discussion that might be new news for the member.

M. Karagianis: Would it be fair to say, then, that this could be one of the things that is a red light at the provincial level — the assertion of riparian rights?

Hon. P. Bell: Again, just being careful that I don't fetter a statutory decision-maker on this specific file, what I can say is that any statutory decision-maker, by policy, would ensure that in the process of making their decision there wouldn't be an infringement on the riparian rights to other traditional users and groups in the area. The reason just why it is so complex an issue is because of all the varying legal opinions that have occurred on this file, and also the nature and the history behind the region in terms of the different activities that have taken place on it.

[1555]

M. Karagianis: Thank you very much, Minister, for your responses. I realize that I have one more fairly technical question to ask. Whether it's something that current staff can address or not, you can let me know.

It actually goes back to environmental assessment. There will be an extensive amount of dredging required in the proposal as it stands now. I must tell you that my prejudice, naturally, is that I spent ten years with the Veins of Life Watershed Society cleaning up the Gorge waterway and helping to restore and repair as much natural shoreline as possible in both the Gorge waterway and the harbour. So of course, the term "dredging" is immediately very disturbing.

Now, I know that there are a lot of historic issues with the Inner Harbour, but I would just like to ask technically a question here around the location for disposal of the dredgeate. This, I believe, is the responsibility of the ILMB.

If this were to go ahead…. In fact, maybe one of the questions that I would ask is whether or not this is a consideration within the adjudication process: where will that disposal site be for contaminated…? And we do know that it's contaminated. I mean, in the process of the federal government beginning to divest properties to the harbour authority and to communities, we do know that there is a great deal of contamination in this area. Certainly, once it's disturbed, as we all know, that significantly changes things and sets off new reactions.

Is that not a requirement? Would that not be a requirement if the responsibility for this is with the ILMB? Is this not a fairly significant implication in the adjudication process — thinking about how that could be done, if it should be done, what will be done and where will it be deposited? All of those questions, I think, are of great concern to the environmentalists and, certainly, to Veins of Life and other organizations like that.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. P. Bell: We actually have an answer to an earlier question, which was: are privately owned water lots commonplace? I am advised that no, that is not the case.
[ Page 4770 ]
There are only a few. They are largely in the traditional E&N land grants at the bottom of various lakes and, as I understand it, some of them are owned by forest companies. But I understand that, generally speaking, it's not a commonplace type of freehold ownership.

I can answer half the question, and the other half gets technical, so we'll have to wait and get the other individual here. The actual dredging component of this project, as I understand it, is included in the Canadian environmental assessment review, so the component of that dredging process would be there.

The second part of the question that the member has — what do you do with that material, where does it go, how is that assessed and how do you determine whether or not that's being appropriately managed? — I do not have an answer to, but we will make sure that we have an answer.

I'd just ask the member…. We can continue on if there are other questions, but perhaps she could just provide us with a little bit of detail and when it would be convenient for the member opposite to continue this line of questioning, and we'd be happy to have the right person here to make sure that we get all the answers for her.

[1600]

M. Karagianis: In fact, I'm happy if the minister wants to provide that to me. The question is fairly straightforward, and that could be sent to me after the fact without necessarily impeding the rest of the estimates as you move into forestry estimates, obviously, after this.

I would like to ask a few questions, then, around the process here and how much bearing public opinion has on your adjudication process. We've talked about the implications from other levels of government and their processes.

As the minister is aware, this is a highly charged and highly contentious proposal in the community, and there is a great deal of public opposition to this, including past mayors that have led quite a strong opposition to this. I, at one point, delivered a petition of 7,000 names to the Legislature in opposition to this.

Can the minister tell me: how much bearing does that public opinion have on your adjudication process?

Hon. P. Bell: Again, this particular file may be a little different than some other files. If we were the sole decision-maker on this particular file — if it was a remote location, if there wasn't a municipal government, if there wasn't the need for a Canadian environmental assessment review — then we would, of course, bring more factors into our determination.

In a file of this nature, where there is a Canadian environmental assessment review, which determines if there are environmental impacts to this decision, and a local municipal government, which I certainly believe is the one that is best positioned to determine whether or not it's an appropriate use of the property — we've already had the discussion that they could make the decision today, if they wanted to, to change that zoning; that would be up to them — those are the appropriate agencies to do that work.

Our work in this particular file is largely technical in nature. The input that we receive from the public we would review when we receive — assuming that we get — a Canadian environmental assessment review that approves that level of the project. We would compare and see what had or had not been responded to of the public concerns or comments. If there were gaps, then we would pursue those gaps to determine whether or not there are legitimate concerns.

I think the question that the member asked really, though, is…. There is this public concern that's out there that's been expressed, and the member asked if there were varying levels of input. Yeah, it's probably not an HST, but maybe close to it — not a lot of variance, a little bit.

I mean, certainly I believe that the municipality has full authority to make zoning decisions here, and they are the locally elected officials that should make those decisions based on their constituents. If their constituents are sending a strong message to the municipality that this is an appropriate use, then I don't know why they wouldn't rezone it. I mean, they have that authority and that ability to do it. We don't have the authority or ability to rezone a piece of property, so we're largely a technical agency from that perspective.

M. Karagianis: Minister, if I can be frank, you know we've seen that decisions made by government in Jordan River have had consequences that ended up costing taxpayers a lot of money to try and purchase back land for decisions that were made early on in the process. I think, in fact, the government has now determined that they're going to put a little bit of money towards purchasing back land because of a decision that was made.

[1605]

You know, the public impression of this — and I think that it's very valid and legitimate — is that a proponent is asking for lease of a piece of provincially owned water lot which rightly, I think, in the public's view belongs to the people of British Columbia.

If such a huge opposition to this project has no bearing on the province's decision-making process, then are we not following the same path that we did in Jordan River? A decision is being made around public interest in a public water lot, yet the public opinion is not being included in this process.

How do you explain that to the public, then? To say, "Yeah, it is publicly owned at this point. The province owns the water lot…." The application is to lease it for a project that, I would say, very clearly a majority of the public that are concerned in this region about that have
[ Page 4771 ]
opposed. How do you explain to them that their opinion on the use of this publicly owned piece of water lot is not a critical red light in this adjudication process?

Hon. P. Bell: Again, just to take a step back, or two…. In an environment where the provincial government has responsibility for determining whether or not it is an appropriate use of a specific piece of property, that would be an absolutely appropriate question to ask — where the provincial government has responsibility for understanding the use of it.

In this case the responsibility for determining what an appropriate use is, is guided by municipal zoning. If the municipality were to choose to zone this lot in a different way, then we would be guided by that decision.

The member has been around the political world for long enough to know that there is often overwhelming, or what appears to be overwhelming, opposition on a file, because those that disapprove typically are the ones that are the noisiest. The ones that like something tend not to say too much. So we have to be guided by other levels of government on decisions of this nature.

If the file was not a case…. The member for North Coast is here. If it was a piece of property, perhaps on Haida Gwaii, in a remote area where the provincial government had full responsibility for zoning, then clearly we would incorporate those views in that decision matrix. But in a major urban area where the municipality has full authority and responsibility for determining appropriate uses of the land, that, I think, is the appropriate agency to follow. We would take our direction from that municipality, if they were to make a decision around changing the zoning.

M. Karagianis: We have two cabinet ministers who reside in this area. May I ask if they have approached you on behalf of the public and made application to you about this or made their views known about the marina application?

Hon. P. Bell: I have met with both individuals on this file and explained to them exactly what the processes would be for a decision and an outcome on the file similar to the information I've provided the member opposite.

M. Karagianis: I guess at this point I will wrap up my questions. If I can just review my understanding of this, the federal government has jurisdiction over several aspects of approval of this project. Should they determine to proceed, the provincial government would then look to the municipality for their guidance on this.

They would follow the guidance of the zoning decisions should the municipality determine to leave the zoning as it currently is or to put some restrictions on it. The province, then, sees themselves strictly as a technical mechanism in this process that does not take into consideration in their adjudication the very significant public opposition to this.

[1610]

The mechanisms that are in place at the provincial level that would halt this project, in fact, really are only triggered by either the federal government or the municipal government. Is that what the minister has really told me — that the province plays no significant decision-making role in this, other than taking their cue from the other two levels of government but not from the public?

Hon. P. Bell: I need to add a couple of pieces, because I think the member has been a bit narrow in her description of the role of government. I may not have been clear in this area.

First of all, a red light from any one of the three groups we've talked about — the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Transport Canada or the municipality — leads to an automatic red light from us.

We have an obligation to fulfil First Nations consultation. Should we find, through the period of First Nations consultation, that there is a legitimate objection on the part of the First Nation, that there is a potential infringement, then that leads us to one of two potential outcomes — either not approving the application going forward or finding an appropriate accommodation for the infringement. So that's the second piece. That's a key element that the member opposite should know.

Then the other piece I wanted to add is that we would take all the public input we've received through both the period of time where we just have open consultation and also, currently, even in the adjudication process — the public comment that comes in — and compare it to the reports and work that we would receive from both agencies of the federal government, Transport Canada and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, and any direction that we get from the municipal government, to ensure that anything within that public comment has been addressed.

If you found through that process that there was some public comment received where neither of the other agencies involved had addressed that, then we would go back and review that work.

Then finally, I would just add, as I mentioned earlier and not specific to the file…. I'm speaking generally now, but in any situation where we were dealing with a leased water lot, we always consider the riparian rights issue of other residents and people in the area. That would be another element.

So there are some elements there that come into the equation. I think, really, that the strongest advice I can give the member opposite is that I think most of the feedback I have seen around this tends to revolve around
[ Page 4772 ]
this being an inappropriate use of this area. That's what people largely are saying.

Some people are trying to build an environmental argument or a navigable waters argument, but at the end of the day I think really what they're saying is: "I don't want you to do this here," "I don't want to have to look at it," or "I don't want to deal with it." And that's fine. People have that right to make that comment.

But that is an issue of zoning and the use of that property. If municipal leaders choose to accept that advice from their constituent base, they have an option to deal with that. If they choose to not deal with it, they shouldn't download that responsibility to another level of government. That's a municipal decision.

G. Coons: Before I ask my questions about the land use agreement with Haida Gwaii, I would be remiss if I didn't mention to the minister about the disappointment of the closure of the forestry office in Prince Rupert and some of the situations that are happening in the northwest.

The minister knows with the NDI, that they did the presentation about the northwest being the hardest hit and the most oppressed region in the province. With the closure of this office we lost 12 to 14 full-time jobs, with people having to move.

[1615]

I know that in some of the agreements they have, you could bump within a 50-kilometre radius or whatever. But with the nearest community being 150 kilometres away, being able to take other jobs available in the public service just means that every one of those 12 to 14 — and there were varying reports on the numbers — basically have to leave the community if they want to continue working with the public service.

I'm just wondering if the minister could comment on what he could say to the workers in that office.

Hon. P. Bell: First of all, I should probably say that some of the confusion around numbers was likely my fault. I think I was probably quoted as saying 12 to 14. I recall an interview that I did, and it's actually 11 positions that were impacted in the Prince Rupert office. I should make that clear.

The one other element that hasn't really been out there that I should advise the member opposite…. As he knows, the initial thinking was that we would manage the Prince Rupert operations out of the Queen Charlotte office, and we've had representation from, I guess, probably some of the member's constituents. I'm not sure if they were from Prince Rupert or Terrace. Well, I'm sure they were from Prince Rupert, actually, asking that that work be done out of Terrace, and we are reviewing that. Likely we'll have that region run out of Terrace, I suspect, in the end.

A very, very challenging time. At the end of the day we looked at the amount of volume that was moving, the amount of activity that was in the office and our ability to service that office, and there has been very limited harvesting activity in the region for quite some time. In the end, that was the decision that we had to make — not a pleasant one. It wasn't a happy day for me. It was a very difficult time as we worked through how we were going to make those workforce adjustments, but they are what they are.

G. Coons: Just before I get to my question…. Yes, it's fairly devastating to a community when you lose 11 or 12 jobs. If that happened down south, it's equivalent to a couple of hundred, as the minister knows.

My next question…. I'd like to get to the strategic land use plan on Haida Gwaii. For the last year and a half there's been a promise of about 800,000 cubic metres for the AAC. But again, it means very little unless the licensees, whether they're the Haida tenure or community forest, big companies or little companies that know what land base they're working on.

It's been going on for years with quite a bit, a great deal, of uncertainty for a lot of people on Haida Gwaii, especially the forest industry. I'm just wondering what commitment there is to the existing workers and contractors to ensure that their jobs are attached to the AAC once this tenure reallocation has occurred. When will this tenure reallocation process be completed?

[1620]

Hon. P. Bell: I think that there were two or three questions there, so I'll try and respond to them.

Harvesting rights were defined under Bill 13 several decades ago. Those rights stay with tenure as it is transferred from licensee to licensee. The log-harvesting individuals who hold those Bill 13 rights would continue to hold those Bill 13 rights post–tenure transfer.

I think, more importantly, what the member was asking is on local jobs on the islands for local loggers and how that would look. I think that is probably going to be a pretty good news story. Certainly, my sense is the Haida are committed to using local loggers wherever they can on the tenure volume that they have. The communities…. I would be shocked if they don't use local loggers on the tenure volumes that we are working on to get into their hands.

As I suspect the member knows, there have been ongoing negotiations on the part of both the Haida and, to a lesser extent, the communities on purchasing potential tenure from other licensees.

I think in the end this is going to be a pretty positive outcome for people on the islands. The member knows I've been up there many, many times and have worked hard to try and create some value on the islands. I think in the end this is going to work out very well for islanders.

The final question the member asked is kind of: when is this going to all be complete? I want to answer that, I
[ Page 4773 ]
think, in two stages, because it is very, very complex — the work that's going on.

When you take an annual allowable cut from…. Well, I guess they were at about three million at one point — right? Yeah, I think they were up edging in on three million metres — 1.8 million more recently. The 800,000 is a minimum number, and it may actually be higher than that. We're not convinced that it won't be closer to a million than 800,000 metres, although there are varying views on that particular issue. Regardless, obviously pretty big changes there.

We hope to have the preliminary work and the definition of the tenures and an understanding of that as we get into the summer months of this year, and then the cleanup work in through the fall. There may be some legislative requirements as well.

In terms of what I think the member's really looking for, the kind of basic outline of how it all works…. We are actually in consultation with all of the groups that I've just mentioned already, talking to them about some preliminary thinking in that area. We hope to have that in a more formal package as we get into the summer.

G. Coons: Thank you, Minister. I guess over the years…. The minister mentioned "in the end." You know, "in the end" has had a long beginning. I'm sure the minister has received the letters from Sandspit — "Our town is dying" — in 2006. It's renewed every year. Four years later: "Our town is still dying."

There are many, many on Haida Gwaii, whether it's Sandspit or Queen Charlotte or Port Clements or Masset, who are looking for details that say a compensation package is also…. When the minister talks about this "in the end," the end, hopefully, will be this summer, but it may be quite a ways down the road.

I'm just wondering whether or not there are going to be any compensation packages, whether for forest workers, for contractors or companies that, since the last close to five years, have had negative impacts, financial and economic job loss, etc., from the plan. Is there any plan to communicate compensation packages?

[1625]

Hon. P. Bell: Compensation in terms of reductions of annual allowable cuts is articulated in the Forest Act and is not easy, so I'll ask the member to refer to the Forest Act. I think it would be far too complex to try and describe it in this forum. But there are no broad compensation regimes for other individuals planned, nor would that be appropriate.

As the member opposite knows, we did provide some money to a cross-island development initiative, and we hope to see that move forward more aggressively as well.

N. Macdonald: I, too, will just ask specifically on an issue with ILMB. There are some general questions really quickly on ILMB, and then we're going to just do the Olympic ticket portion of the exercise. Then I'd say most of us will be moving around from member to member.

Specifically, it's licence 343545, which is about 1,415 hectares. That is near the vicinity of Jumbo Creek and Farnham Creek, and it's an area, again, that in our part of the world the public has watched very, very carefully. The minister might not be aware of this, but there was an actual quasi roadblock on the approach to this area. I think it would have been the summer of 2008.

One of the questions that was raised with me was around public notification. If there was public notification, the public didn't notice. People have gone back and looked at newspapers. So I guess the question would be: if you have on file that information with this tenure or licence of occupation, was there public notification? If not, what's the rationale for it not being there?

Hon. P. Bell: We're not entirely sure that we understand what this tenure is, but I heard the word "Jumbo" in the member's comments, so I'm guessing this relates to the Jumbo ski resort. I'll just ask if he could confirm that.

N. Macdonald: Well, it is the same company that now holds the tenure. At least it has the name Jumbo, or it's Glacier Resorts Ltd., and there's an incorporation number and address that would be similar to one of the proponents or the same as one of the proponents. So it certainly connects in the public's mind, and it certainly extends, as well, over an area that would be part of that resort development. I don't think it has anything to do with the development of the resort. I don't think we're at that stage. But in the public's mind, it is linked to that.

Just to give more perspective, there's about a 15-to-20-year period where it's been very contentious. From my perspective, it's really important that the process be very clean so that the people can leave feeling that the process has been proper. Of course, the public has concerns about whether it's been a fair process or not.

I guess the first question would be: was there public notification of the tenure or licence of occupation application?

[1630]

Hon. P. Bell: I'm just going to ask the member to repeat the file number. It will obviously be in Hansard. But we're just going to e-mail the Cranbrook office to see if we can get a bit more detail. We think that this is a MTCA — Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts — file. They have responsibility for files around resort expansions and strategies.

So we're not sure. We'll find out, and we can report back to the member, certainly, before this process is
[ Page 4774 ]
complete. But we think that any of the consultation, advertising — all those things — would have been done through the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, not the integrated land management bureau.

But if we could just get him to repeat the number one more time, we'll file that in. Unfortunately, in Cranbrook it's 5:30 now, so the office will be closed. But we'll certainly be able to get that information for Monday.

N. Macdonald: Maybe I'll just give a series of questions then, and it'll all be in Hansard. The number is 343545, and it's an agreement between, obviously, the ministry responsible for the Land Act and Glacier Resorts. It was commenced December 15, 2007. Now, the area that's included is in the vicinity of Jumbo Creek and Farnham Glacier. It's about 1,400 hectares.

The concern that the community has expressed to me is that for this tenure, they didn't feel there was public notification. They didn't feel there was an opportunity for public input. That's the other complaint that's been expressed to me. They didn't feel there was First Nations notification. And it's in here. There is no security deposit, which seems odd because part of what is going to take place here is some roadbuilding. There has been some roadbuilding. There have been questions about some of the things that were left up on site.

Basically, those are the concerns that the community has — that somehow this process to get this tenure didn't follow what would be the normally expected manner in which you would go forward and get a tenure. Obviously, there are people in the area who are very familiar with tenures. You have established heli-ski operators, and so on, that are watching this carefully and raising that question.

I guess what we'll do is, given that information…. If the minister can check on that file, then we can continue with that on Monday or Tuesday morning. Okay? And then, just before we get to the Olympic ticket questions…. My colleague here, I think, is going to put you through the paces, as she has all ministers.

Just going to page 37 of the service plan, it looks like there's about a $6.1 million difference. If the minister could explain that figure. Are there staff reductions? I'll just give you a whole series of questions that the minister can go through.

If there are staff reductions, how many FTEs? Have they been announced already? Is this something that the minister is still dealing with as an issue? If there have been changes to FTEs, where are the changes in terms of physically in the province, other changes? Also, what work were they doing? That's a whole number of questions, but that might be the most efficient way to lay it out.

[1635]

Hon. P. Bell: There was a total of 38 staff reductions that was announced the same day that we announced the 204 staff reductions in the Ministry of Forests and Range, and included in the associated information that was released at that point in time.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

It didn't perhaps get the public attention that the larger number in forests did, but it was clearly identified in all of the media information.

I just asked staff if I provided the member opposite with a breakdown for Forests and Range already, the impacts on each office. I asked staff if they were comfortable with me releasing this. I think we would certainly be prepared to share it with the member.

Because the offices are much smaller in some cases, it doesn't take long to figure out exactly where the impact was in the office, so for personal confidentiality reasons, we wouldn't kind of want it as a public document at this point yet. There's one individual that hasn't been notified yet, so there are some reasons like that. But certainly I would be prepared to sit down with the member and the assistant critic and share this information with you.

I'll walk the members through. Victoria — altogether there were 17 positions impacted out of the 38. So it's not quite half of the positions, but very close to half the positions. We did close the FrontCounter B.C. satellite office here in Victoria. It was seeing very limited activity. We have the primary FrontCounter B.C. office located in Nanaimo, where most of the work goes on, and we just weren't finding there was any level of activity here. There were individuals in administration and some spatial analysis work and some First Nations consultation.

In Nanaimo there were two. Kamloops was four, Nelson was five, and all of the rest of the areas were one or two individuals. I can walk the member through if he wants me to, area by area. I don't know whether he wants that level of information, but it's 17 in Victoria, four in Kamloops, five in Nelson, and all other areas were either one or two individuals.

N. Macdonald: Just a sense of what work they were involved in, especially the Victoria office. What was the focus of that work?

Hon. P. Bell: The Victoria office was a combination of management and administration. The FrontCounter B.C. office I mentioned already, and then, in GeoBC some spatial analysis reductions were the bulk of the reductions. It worked out to 9 percent of the staff currently located in Victoria.

N. Macdonald: At this time, I would just like to thank ILMB staff. I guess we'll be back on a couple of topics, come Monday. I would just like to turn it over to the Olympics critic.
[ Page 4775 ]

K. Corrigan: Hon. Chair, it's nice to see you back here again. We seem to coincide whenever I'm asking these questions.

I do have a few questions about the Olympics, and I'm wondering if the minister or any of his staff received Olympic tickets or Paralympic tickets. When I say Olympics, I mean Olympics and Paralympics, if that's okay.

[1640]

Hon. P. Bell: I'm not sure what the word "received" means, so I'll just walk the member through, because I suspect I have a reasonable idea of the information the member opposite is looking for.

As the critic knows, the first week of the Olympics I spent in the Kootenays touring all of the different mills and operations and had an opportunity to meet with the critic. The second week I was in Vancouver. I attended a total of three Olympic events. Two of them were as a result of hosting requirements or hosting requests. One was tickets that my wife and I purchased for a women's curling semi-final. Canada won, so that was a great thing. That was very exciting.

The two events that I attended were, on the Monday, a women's hockey game at GM Place, and I hosted the probably top eight or ten customers — primarily from China, Japan and Korea; in fact, that's where they were all from, those three areas — with British Columbia Forest Products.

On the Friday evening I attended short-track speed skating at the Pacific Coliseum and hosted a number of individuals from a provincial government in Korea, at which we were working on their interests around bioenergy.

K. Corrigan: I would assume that, as in other cases, it was not this ministry that paid for those tickets, that those tickets were paid for by the Olympic Secretariat. Is that the minister's understanding?

Hon. P. Bell: That is my understanding. If that's what everyone else has said, I guess that's right.

K. Corrigan: We have been promised a report on hosting and on the Olympic tickets within less than two weeks now. My understanding from speaking to the Minister of State for the Olympics is that that report has gathered together the information from all the various ministries and ministers about what the hosting program was in those ministries and the number of tickets, and that that information has been forwarded from each ministry to the minister. Is that what has happened in the case with this minister and ministry?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm not sure I entirely understood the question. I think the question was: did we prepare some information and forward it to the Olympic Secretariat of our activities with regards to the Olympics? And if that was the question, the answer to it is yes.

K. Corrigan: And that information included the names of the people who had tickets, the people that the minister was hosting at the Olympics?

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct.

K. Corrigan: Were there other expenses associated with this hosting that the minister did, things like hotels, meals, travel or other costs? If so, I'm wondering: what were they?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm not sure that we aren't kind of treading into an area that wouldn't meet the test of an estimates discussion or debate.

I will tell the member opposite that I'm very fortunate to have a brother that lives in North Vancouver, and there were no hotel expenses incurred during the Olympics as a result of that. If memory serves me correctly, the flights were pretty cheap too. I don't know why, but they were. But it also included that.

I was down for the entire week. If the member wanted to ask that question, she could. It included a number of other pieces of business that I did during the week that were not related to the Olympics but were related to my portfolio.

[1645]

K. Corrigan: With that information, that which was associated with the Olympics…. And I'm thinking, for example, of…. The member said that there were seven or eight — eight, I think — people that were hosted at one of the events. So if there were any costs associated with meals and so on, would that have been included in the report that went to the Olympic Secretariat, and if not, is that information available?

Hon. P. Bell: The report, as I understand it, is going to be released in two weeks, and I'm sure the member will have access to all the information she could possibly desire at that point.

K. Corrigan: Just for clarification. The information that was forwarded to the Olympic Secretariat: did it include the information that I just asked about — costs of hosting, other things? You know, those eight people — not just tickets but any expenses related to food or drink. I just want clarification that that information will be in that report.

Hon. P. Bell: I think we're well beyond the scope of the estimates debate at this point. The report will be issued in two weeks, and the member will have full ac-
[ Page 4776 ]
cess to that report — or at whatever point. I mean, I heard two weeks in question period today, as well, so I'll accept that that's the time frame. I don't know that. But when that report is issued, I'm sure that all the information that was sent in will be available.

The Chair: Member, I remind you that we're talking about Vote 34. You may not like some of the answers, but the questions are becoming repetitive, so if you could move on to a new line of questioning.

K. Corrigan: Well, I think I will…. Perhaps if the Chair would listen to what my next question is and then decide whether it's appropriate or not. I'm wondering how much is planned for hosting guests for Olympic events in 2010-2011 and how much that compares with what was spent in 2009-2010.

Hon. P. Bell: In '09-10 there will be information released. I think the member asked if there is going to be a difference in the amount of money in the budget that is planned to be used for hosting purposes for the 2010 Winter Olympics — if there's a difference in the budget between '09-10 and '10-11. Of course, the Olympics occurred in '09-10, so one would presume that there would no longer be any funds available.

But that information…. I think we're well beyond (a) the scope of the Ministry of Forests and Range and (b) the scope of this discussion. I know there will be lots of information available to the member within a couple of weeks, and I think I've already answered the questions in terms of my activities and hosting that I participated in, in the games. I don't remember the score of the hockey game or the curling game, but we could go into details like that if the member wanted to.

K. Corrigan: Well, many ministers have responded to those questions. We did have a ruling previously that said that what has happened in the previous year can be relevant if you wanted to look at what the comparison is between the two years. But given that we do have assurances from the Minister of State for the Olympics that all this information is going to be in the report that we receive, then I will not press that question any further.

I would like to ask about a different program. I'm wondering if the minister would be kind enough to tell me how many paid employees this ministry loaned to the employee loan program, to VANOC, and how much the cost associated with that was, including benefits.

[1650]

Hon. P. Bell: The answer to the question is one. I apologize; I don't know the salary level that that person was at. I'm not sure that that would be something we'd disclose, but there was one individual from the Ministry of Forests and Range that was provided on loan.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if I could ask the minister to bring that information back — perhaps next week when estimates are on again.

Hon. P. Bell: If it was multiple staff, it wouldn't be a problem, I think, because then you're not identifying a specific salary with a specific individual. Unfortunately, it's one individual, so we would be disclosing their salary. I honestly don't know whether we are allowed to do that or not, but we will check tomorrow.

If we are able to provide that level of information legally, then we will. If we're not, though, then I wouldn't be in a position. I have no objection to releasing it. I just don't know whether we're allowed to or not. We'll find that out for the member opposite.

K. Corrigan: I would certainly not be opposed to receiving the dollar amount. I'm not concerned about whether or not we know the name of who that individual is or what the position of that individual was. If there was even concern about saying how many hours that individual worked — that that might then somehow identify that individual — I don't really care about getting that information either.

The thing that I'm most concerned about is the dollar amount that was associated with that individual, so if not telling us the number of hours worked makes it more anonymous, that would be fine with me as well — including benefits.

Hon. P. Bell: The challenge that I have…. I honestly don't know if this is a problem, and we'll find whether it is or not, but I just want to flag that there is only one individual from the Ministry of Forests and Range that was on loan.

If we disclose a dollar amount, then it doesn't take long to put one and one together to figure out what's going on. But that may not be an issue, and I don't know that it is. We'll have to check with — whatever he's called — the confidentiality guy.

K. Corrigan: There was also a program called the volunteer leave matching program, wherein government would contribute an equal number of hours of paid leave to the number of hours the employee contributes of their own leave to volunteer for the 2010 Olympic Games. I'm wondering if there were people involved in the volunteer leave matching program. If there were, what was the amount of time, dollars, associated with those individuals?

[1655]

Hon. P. Bell: I'm advised that altogether, not just the Ministry of Forests and Range but across government, 369 public servants volunteered at the games. The ministry breakdown levels are not something that we track,
[ Page 4777 ]
but I'm told that altogether across government it was 369.

K. Corrigan: I believe that some ministries had that information. But this is not something that this ministry would be aware of? I'm a little surprised, if people took part in that program, that the ministry wouldn't have known about it.

Hon. P. Bell: We don't have that level of information here today, but this is the first day of our estimates period. If the member wants to check back on Monday, we could see if we have that available.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if there were individuals that work in the ministry that were seconded, essentially, to work entirely on the Olympics or substantially on the Olympics either prior to or during the Olympic period.

I fully understand that there were people in various ministries that put some amount of energy and that it probably wasn't tracked, but I am interested in whether or not there were individuals that were essentially dedicated to working on the Olympics for some amount of time. If so, what was the value of that time spent?

Hon. P. Bell: I think that was the one individual that I referred to in my earlier comments, when the member had asked a question earlier on. There was one individual from the Ministry of Forests and Range that was seconded.

K. Corrigan: Sorry to be so picky about this, but when we say "seconded," would that be for the employee loan program, that were seconded to VANOC, then, which is what the employee loan program was about?

Hon. P. Bell: Again, we're kind of treading in dangerous territory here, because I'm not entirely sure. I'm hoping I'm giving the member opposite the correct answers, but I think that's correct.

K. Corrigan: Just finally, I'm wondering if there were other Olympic costs associated with this ministry that I may not have captured in the categories that I've asked about now. I'm wondering if the minister could just let me know if there were.

Hon. P. Bell: The member may know that we hosted a forestry day during the Olympics and had various displays of aircraft and things like that. My understanding is that all that information has been provided to the Olympic Secretariat and will be included in the report.

K. Corrigan: With that, I have no more questions, so I'll turn it back to my colleague.

M. Sather: I wanted to engage the minister in a little discussion about, I think, a very interesting piece of work that's been done by Dr. Jim Pojar. He did a report for a number of environmental organizations in British Columbia.

It's an involved paper, and it's fairly complex, so I'm going to try my best to simplify and make some sense and get some comments from the minister. The thesis of it is basically about conserving biodiversity as it relates to fighting climate change. I'll say a few words to try to get into the subject and then turn to the minister for some questions.

[1700]

Climate change is expected to happen faster and be more pronounced in B.C. than the global average, with mean annual temperatures warming by 3 to 5 degrees Celsius over the next 70 to 100 years. Dr. Pojar says we can expect a general shift of the province's biogeoclimatic zones. For example, the mountain hemlock zone is a biogeoclimatic zone; there are a number of them in the province.

We can expect a shift from the southern half to the northern half of B.C., and we can expect further diebacks of tree species such as we have experienced, of course, with the beetle kill. We can expect expansion of dry forests in the south and central Interior and moister, warmer forests farther north. He says that the ability of species to adjust to these shifts will take decades, if not centuries.

These events will increase "summer droughts, spring frosts, fierce storms and floods," and we're seeing some of that now, of course. Greater genetic diversity — and this is a subject that he dwells on a fair bit — leads to greater adaptability to change. Those with insufficient genetic variability may not be able to adapt to climate change. Landscapes that lose natural biodiversity become less productive, less stable, less resistant to environmental disturbances and thus less resilient.

Of course I want to focus his discussion around forests, because this is the Ministry of Forests and Range that we're discussing. Forests are important for maintaining the diversity of all organisms. Natural forests have more diversity in terms of "genes, species, ecosystems, structure, function and interactions" than do "industrially managed forests," he says.

"Climate change will erode the genetic diversity, contemporary ranges and current degree of protection of…species and ecosystems." It will draw down the province's natural capital and ecosystem services. The term "ecosystem services" certainly may not be familiar with everyone. He defines them as "services provided by ecosystems that benefit humans and are necessary for a healthy planet, like oxygen production, carbon sequestration, water purification, pollination, soil formation and nutrient recycling" — all things, of course, that are very essential to us.
[ Page 4778 ]

Here, for this discussion, I want to focus most on carbon sequestration — which, for those that may be listening in, simply means the fact of the matter that forests store carbon. They're made of carbon, and they store carbon. That's where it becomes, of course, the issue around fighting climate change, because it's the release of carbon, as we all know, that's the major issue with climate change. Protected areas, Dr. Pojar says, are "the pillars of biodiversity conservation," but protected areas planning in the province "has not incorporated large-scale climate change" to this point.

Can the minister comment on any of this, but particularly with regard to protected areas planning and incorporation of large-scale climate change?

[1705]

Hon. P. Bell: The member went into a fair bit of detail there, and it's kind of hard for me to respond to all the individual points, but I think that one of the key themes of the question that the member opposite is asking is: is the province contemplating Dr. Pojar's work? And what is the province doing to consider the possibility that we may see a significant change in our climate? I think those were kind of two of the key themes. The answer to the first question is yes. We're familiar with Dr. Pojar's work, and we do contemplate his work as we consider what we need to do.

The real key question, though, that I think the member is asking is: is the province or is the Ministry of Forests and Range contemplating the issues of resilience and adaptation in the light of the potential that Dr. Pojar has indicated? The answer to that is very much yes, that we have had a reasonably aggressive program for a number of years now, looking at the issue of adaptation.

As we plan our silviculture activities, we are very careful planting the appropriate species. Not just for what we think the weather patterns or the climate will be like today, but also we try and plant species that will adapt to a new climate that we may encounter in 50 or 70 or 100 years or further on, depending on the nature of what it is that we're trying to accomplish.

We do that by using different types of seed that are categorized by geoclimatic zone. We have tree trials running all the way from California to Alaska, covering off the complete kind of climate zonations that we might expect sometime in the future.

We have excellent research. We have a number of research facilities, but certainly the research facility at Kalamalka is one that I'd recommend that the member opposite do a tour of next time he's in the Okanagan. I think he'd be very surprised at the work that's gone on in the region and how far B.C. has advanced in this particular area.

M. Sather: I may have a chance to respond to what the minister said about planting. That's interesting. It's good to hear that the ministry is considering this body of work as they move forward with the important job of protecting our forests and promoting our forests.

In terms of the protection of biodiversity, parks come into the question. Dr. Pojar says that B.C. parks will not protect all of B.C.'s biodiversity. The physical and biological diversity of the province is still not represented. Most of the parks are too small and isolated to withstand human impacts, let alone climate change. The system is also skewed toward high elevations and less productive ecosystems.

He poses the question: "What is needed to protect biodiversity in a changing world beyond the incompletely representative 14 percent of the land base that is currently in protected areas? In other words, how much is enough?"

He goes on to talk about meta-analysis. I don't want to get into that. I'm not even that familiar with it. "Meta-analyses of land use planning for conservation" — but notwithstanding, it's comprehensive analysis — "have found that the protected proportion of a region's land base necessary to meet these conservation objectives lies between 25 and 75 percent," the median recommendation being 50 percent.

In essence, what Dr. Pojar is saying is that we have 15 percent or 14 percent conservation now. In order to maintain the biodiversity in our ecosystems, it's necessary that we have the resilience — the minister mentioned that word as well — to fight climate change, and that we would need to move to a figure of about 50 percent conservation. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on that perspective that Dr. Pojar has put forward.

[1710]

Hon. P. Bell: Although the member mentioned the number 14 percent a few times in terms of the parks, that does not even begin to represent the amount of protection of the landscape that exists in the province.

Just starting out though, there are roughly 95 million hectares in the province. Of that — I used to say 25 million — I'm now advised it's 23 million hectares of actively managed timber-harvesting land base. So roughly 25 percent of the province is used for timber harvesting. The remaining 75 percent doesn't have timber harvesting on it.

I would also point to the fact that while only 14 percent of the province is technically in park, there are many other forms of protection like old-growth management areas, wildlife management areas, riparian management areas — all those sort of things that preclude any form of development on them.

When you add all of those together, I am advised that it represents about 30 percent of the province. Those are obviously all timbered areas. While I think 75 percent would be, perhaps, a laudable goal, I do think that we
[ Page 4779 ]
are well advanced. In fact, when you compare British Columbia to jurisdictions around the world, you're hard pressed to find any that have the level of protection that we have in British Columbia.

The other key element I want to add for the member opposite…. I often turn my mind to the work that was done in the Great Bear rain forest. I think that was a great example of a collaborative model that provided significant incremental protection — roughly 2.2 million hectares, a little over a third of the total landscape under protection in one form or another — and ecosystem-based management, a very light footprint form of harvesting on the remainder of the landscape.

That area continues to receive the endorsation of organizations like ForestEthics and Greenpeace and has recently received Forest Stewardship Council certification as well. So I don't think it is as simple as to say that you need a Class A park to have a representative ecosystem. We have a very, very high standard in this province. I think that is something that all of us, as well as our children and our grandchildren, can be very proud of.

M. Sather: Certainly, Dr. Pojar wasn't saying 50 percent. It was 50 percent…. He chose that number as sort of the median between the 25 and the 75. He wasn't saying that they need to all be Class A parks.

He also says that we don't have accurate information about which ecosystems remain in a degraded state. Degraded — I want to clarify — from his point of view, he's talking about the loss of biodiversity and the loss of carbon, not the fact that…. I mean, they may be harvested. It's not a pejorative word, but it's a descriptive word of an ecologist.

He says that we need to address that knowledge gap. So with regard then to the ecosystems that would remain in a degraded state, as Dr. Pojar puts it — and I think staff are fairly familiar, as the minister has indicated, with his work — is the ministry doing anything to address that gap then?

[1715]

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite referred to Dr. Pojar's work around degraded ecosystems, and I just have to point out that the objective that we have, and continue to maintain in the province, is representation of ecosystems. It doesn't necessarily mean that you would have every piece of a specific ecotype in every area maintained at that level but that there would be representation of that ecotype available in a healthy state.

That is the mandate that we have and the objective that we pursue. It may be one that the member opposite disagrees with. I'm not sure.

The other thing I would refer to is that we do issue a report annually, the state of the forest report, that does look at representation and the quality of various ecosystems. If we were to find that there was a lack of adequate representation….

A good example for the member opposite would be CDF — the coastal Douglas fir ecotype. It's very challenging to find a model that allows us to protect that. It's only a very small portion of the CDF that is located on Crown lands. The majority of it is on private lands. So we're working very hard to have adequate representation of the CDF ecosystem available and protected. We've done lots of work around that recently, as I think the member knows.

The goal is not necessarily to have every single ecosystem in every location protected. It is to have adequate representation. That's why you have parks and protected areas and all those other sorts of things.

M. Sather: Well, I can see I'm going to run short of time to ask a lot of the questions I wanted to ask the minister. I'll move on, I think, at this point and perhaps come back to some of the other questions if I have time.

One of the things that Dr. Pojar endorses is carbon offsets. I know that that's a very contentious issue. A lot of people are not convinced — or some people are not — that that is a mechanism that is worthy, I guess you could say, and that it has a lot of downsides to it.

He's talking about conservation as a carbon offset. In other words, if we're maintaining carbon in our forests by not harvesting them, for example, then should we have a carbon offset for that? I wonder what the minister's thinking, what the government's thinking, is on that — if they're going that way or what kind of deliberations they've had around that question.

Hon. P. Bell: That work is being done by the Pacific Carbon Trust and by the Western Climate Initiative, both of which…. Well, the Pacific Carbon Trust, I guess, we have some role in. The Western Climate Initiative we have significant representation on.

I will probably ask the member opposite to ask those questions under the estimates of the Minister of State for Climate Action. He is closer to this file than I am.

I will say that I think, generally, the Ministry of Forests and Range believes that you need to have a scientifically quantifiable demonstration that carbon is truly being incrementally sequestered and stored in order to qualify for carbon offsets.

The Pacific Carbon Trust recently released a call for carbon offsets. There were three different qualifying offsets. The one that was not called for was conservation.

One of the challenges that is out there in the public being debated right now is the issue of leakage. I think the member's nodding, so he probably understands that.

For those at home that might be watching us and probably bored — and we always apologize for that if
[ Page 4780 ]
we bore you — leakage is where although a forest is protected in one area and the timber that was planned to be harvested in that area was not harvested, there has to be clear demonstration that that simply hasn't meant a shift of harvesting to another location. Otherwise, that would not be justifiable as a stored offset.

Again, the member's nodding, and I'm assuming he agrees with me.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Bell: The boring part he agrees with me.

[1720]

That is one of the very challenging aspects of this debate and discussion. I find it a stimulating and interesting one because it's not often that we as legislators have the opportunity to engage in this level of discussion. It is something that's never been done. No one's ever talked about the idea of how you establish appropriate offsets. How do you measure them? It will change the way that forest-based activities function in decades to come, and it will change the way we all live in decades to come.

I think it's a very interesting time to be involved. For those of you that are really bored at home, I would encourage you to go and look at the Western Climate Initiative website and get some information on this topic, because it is a very, very important topic and a very important discussion. That's only if we're really boring you at home, you can go do that. Otherwise, stay and watch us.

M. Sather: I have a couple of specific questions about specific areas that I wanted to ask the minister about. The coastal Douglas fir zone, which he referred to earlier, located primarily on southeastern Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast, is an ecosystem so endangered that the province's own Environment Ministry, in this case, suggests it could face extinction. Only one-half of 1 percent of low coastal plain is covered by relatively undisturbed old forest — far below what scientists consider to be a minimum required for the ecosystem's continued survival.

The Ministry of Forests and Range is considering protection for Crown parcels of forest land on Vancouver Island in Bowser, Little Qualicum, Nanoose and Linley Valley and one on the Sunshine Coast. Other coastal fir forests on Crown land are at imminent risk of being logged. One such forest is located near Nanoose Bay and is known in the B.C. Forest Service as DL 33.

Public support for preserving this parcel is widespread, with many questioning the logic of logging in a known endangered ecosystem, including the regional district of Nanaimo, which has called for a moratorium on all logging in such parcels.

My question is: will the Minister of Forests take steps to ensure that DL 33 is not logged, and will he ban the logging of the few remaining stands of older coastal Douglas fir forests remaining on Crown lands as so many have called for? This is a question that has been put to me to ask the minister.

[1725]

Hon. P. Bell: Backing up here to coastal CDF. That actually is being done through the integrated land management bureau side of the ministry. That's because of their responsibility for planning and making those sorts of decisions. Unfortunately, I just have Forest Service staff with me right now, so we're relying on my memory. It's a very dangerous thing when we do that, as opposed to the corporate memory that I would normally be surrounded with.

We did announce a commitment to move forward on a significant amount of protection around CDF. As I mentioned earlier, it's a very small component that's actually publicly held. That's a challenge for us, because a good bulk of CDF is privately held lands. We have been working with private land owners to try and get voluntary compliance. We've got some good success in that area as well. So we do move forward on that.

If the member wants some specific details, we can provide that to him in this format on Monday, or if the member would like a briefing from staff, I'd be happy to do that. Whatever the member finds the most acceptable method of communicating that.

Specific to the Nanoose parcel, I think the member opposite knows this is a First Nations licence. I was asked the question about this licence about a week or ten days ago by the media. The response I gave them at the time was that there'd been no…. Although it was a part of a forest development plan, there has not been a permit applied for on the particular site for harvesting.

Coincidentally, apparently the day after I had told the media that, there was actually an application that came for a cutting permit. That is under review at this point. I don't want to predetermine what the outcome of that review is. I think we have to understand what the outcome is. The statutory decision-maker in this case, clearly, will have a look at the ecotype and see if it's appropriate to harvest in that zone.

I will point out, though, one thing I found interesting. I saw an aerial photograph of this site the other day. It's very interesting, because this one particular area is still forested, but everything around it has been developed. It's not a large parcel of land, so the aerial photo that I saw of it was quite interesting, in that everything else has been developed in the region. For some reason, this one parcel still exists.

What I found very interesting was that it wasn't private. It clearly is squared off and in a shape that would indicate that it was privately held land. Perhaps it was at one point and reverted to the Crown. If the mem-
[ Page 4781 ]
ber would like more information, I'm happy to get that either in this format on Monday if he chooses or in a briefing to him — either-or.

M. Sather: I'm going poof here in about two minutes. I have to disappear. I'm going to read another question quickly, and I'll read the minister's response in Hansard. The Ministries of Environment and Forests have been working together to designate as spotted owl habitat 295,000 hectares of forests on provincial Crown and provincial parklands. These lands have been — and in some cases, soon will be — put off-limits to logging in order to protect the owls' habitat so the species can recover in its Canadian range.

Over the past century the owl has declined because of logging in its habitat, from an estimated 500 pairs to only two known pairs today. All in all, only six individuals are known to still survive. The province has undertaken a captive-breeding program, and the stated goal is to bring the population back up to 250 owls.

The biggest problem is that the spotted owl habitat outside of the designated areas is still being logged under Ministry of Forests permits, due to the government's maximum 1 percent cap on lowering the annual allowable cut for protecting habitat for species at risk, such as the spotted owl.

The question that has been put to me is: will the minister abolish the cap on forest protection so that all remaining habitat of the spotted owl can be fully protected and that this and other species at risk can be brought back from the brink?

Hon. P. Bell: I know something about this file, because I used to be responsible for the species-at-risk coordination office in my previous role as Minister of Agriculture and Lands. That office now resides with the Ministry of Environment, and that question would be better put to the Minister of Environment during his estimates process.

[1730]

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to see the minister and his staff here today, and I'm delighted to take to my feet and ask him a few questions in the time we have remaining.

The first series are sensitive and difficult. I don't know if the minister has the appropriate staff here, but I want to get some questions on the record with respect to the Rutherford Creek Bridge blowout from 2003. I know we're going back, hon. Chair, and I hope you'll indulge me. I know the minister will want to get some comments on the record.

There's been a release of information through the Freedom of Information Act to Western Canada Wilderness Committee. That information has been made public. There have been media stories as recently as Sunday touching on this issue. The questions that are causing me concern and that I want to raise here for the minister to contemplate and reflect upon….

If he can't get back to me today, I certainly understand that. But this is an opportunity to get these questions on the record, so I would like to proceed, with your indulgence.

The first series of questions would have to do with the violations of the forest practices act that were identified by ministry staff in advance of the bridge failure, to the point of a stop-work order being issued at the site on October 17, 2003.

Can the minister advise this House if the ministry completed an investigation with respect to the violations of the Forest Practices Code that were identified and brought to the attention of the company, and did they have any bearing on the blowout of the bridge the following day?

Hon. P. Bell: First of all, I definitely want to pass on all our thoughts and prayers to the families of the victims — a terrible accident that took place there a number of years ago.

I think the member is probably in receipt of the bulk of the information that I have here. There had been, as the member points out, a stop-work order put in place by a Forest Service staff member. There has subsequently been a fine levied on the work that had been done, which was deemed to be inappropriate. There was a thorough investigation, and the investigation was completed, which did result in the fine of Kiewit construction.

Also, there was a coroner's report completed, as I'm sure the member opposite knows. The coroner's report — and I am paraphrasing here — I believe found that the nature of the blowout of that bridge was a direct result of a one-in-100-years — my recollection of the exact wording of the document — rainfall. While there may have been some contribution as a result of some of the work that went on, it did not result in the blowout.

The cause of the bridge washout was the inability of the ground to soak up the water that fell. It fell so quickly that it then resulted in an overflow into Rutherford Creek, which resulted in the bridge washout. Again, I am only paraphrasing. I have read a briefing note on the matter. I've not read the coroner's report, but that is the advice that I've received.

Again, anytime you have a number of individuals lose their lives in something like this is, of course a very, very sad time, and our thought and prayers go out to the family of those victims.

J. Horgan: I do realize that these are old facts and sensitive issues certainly for the families — the five lives that were lost that tragic night on a rainy highway. I appreciate that the fact pattern is the responsibility of the coroner in this situation.
[ Page 4782 ]

One of the challenges — to those who are flipping from Oprah to our proceedings here — is that the Freedom of Information Act is a refined tool, but quite often it appears to be a blunt instrument. You know you've got a 1,000-piece puzzle box, but you don't know if the 650 pieces that are in the box in the package that arrives in your mailbox are all pieces that go into that 1,000-piece puzzle.

It's a convoluted analogy, but the point is that we the receiving public — whether they be non-governmental organizations, the media or the opposition — don't know if we've asked the right questions to get ministry staff to provide the right information.

[1735]

So I want to be specific about my question, and it is: if there was an investigation that was completed by ministry staff that linked in any way the construction practices at the independent power project with the eventual blowout of the bridge. The ministry may well have downed tools on their preliminary investigation that made reference to…. I don't want to cite the individual's name, but a staff member of the minister on October 18 wrote: "The bridge has been blown out. This may be related to Kiewit's work. I will be starting a major investigation file."

That's the end of the information that I have available to me, but that then poses the question: did the ministry complete that investigation, or did they, in light of the loss of life, pass on information that they had available to them to the coroner? Did they hold that information? Did they assume that the investigation that was done by other parties was sufficient and then focused only on the violations of the Forest Practices Code?

Hon. P. Bell: I do understand the question. It is beyond my ability to answer that with the staff I have here, but we've noted it, and we will respond back to the member on Monday or Tuesday through the estimates period because it's very specific in nature.

As I understand it, the member is asking with regards to the Forest Service staff person's comments that he would be engaging in a major investigation — in fact, was that done, was that completed or not, and the nature of the outcome. I am tempted to answer yes to that. It is a question that I think we just need to do a little research on and make sure we're giving the correct answer to them.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that, and I do appreciate that…. I know how the estimates process works. There are televisions all over the ministry now and staff people furiously going through files and looking for the answers to get into this room in the time we have available, and I don't want to…. My message to them, if they're watching back at ministry headquarters: Monday is absolutely fine, later in the week even better — even better, to the deputy.

The challenge, though…. Again, I go back to incomplete information to the public. Had this not appeared in the newspaper, I don't believe I'd be standing here asking these questions. It's not that it's time-sensitive, but it does pose some questions — I think serious questions — about enforcement by ministry staff on power projects and other activities, industrial activities on the land base.

I'm wondering if the minister could advise: based on the experiences at Rutherford Creek, is there any effort to increase enforcement on projects that are not traditionally part of the ministry's core mandate, whether that be gravel extraction that may involve licences, forest licences, or whether it be independent power projects? The minister gets where I'm going with this. Have we increased the eyes and ears on the ground, or are we decreasing the eyes and ears on the ground?

Hon. P. Bell: Actually, we have shifted to a new program of compliance enforcement which we think will help support particularly some of these non-traditional projects where the level of activity is different than we would normally have just simply in a harvesting operation.

That's really what we're calling the regional management coordination project, where we bring together all of the compliance enforcement teams from the different ministries — the Ministry of Forests and Range, Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Ministry of Environment and the integrated land management bureau.

Each of those individuals are cross-trained to all of the other individuals' responsibilities. So when an individual inspector goes out on an IPP site, they are capable of not just verifying the appropriate levels of compliance for forest-based activities, but they can look at the road permits. They can look at water permits. They can look at mining permits. So we think it's a far better model. Rather than having four or five different individuals from government going out to inspect a site, it allows us to go to that site with a single individual and do a much more effective level of inspection.

[1740]

Instead of tripping over each other on a given site, we can do more diverse inspections and get to sites more frequently. It's a model that we started in the Terrace area about a year and a half ago. It's proven very successful, and we continue to grow that across the province.

J. Horgan: I appreciate that improved compliance and enforcement would be the objective of any responsible government.

I'm wondering if the minister can advise how the dispersement of FTEs is arranged. I know there have been recent layoffs in your ministry, and there have
[ Page 4783 ]
been recent layoffs in the Ministry of Energy and Mines. I've heard from a colleague, who's not here now, about conservation officers and other Ministry of Environment staff that are no longer in place who were there before.

I'm hopeful that the minister will be able to tell me that the reductions are not a consolidation to find efficiencies in terms of oversight but, in fact, that we're finding better people, we're training them more effectively and they're doing a better job.

Hon. P. Bell: RMCP was not designed to reduce staff. It was just intended to have a more appropriate, better model of compliance and enforcement. Each individual remains in their hosted ministry.

So even though someone from Energy and Mines may go out and do an inspection — and that would include something to do with forestry, something to do with water, something to do with gravel extraction — that individual is still hosted by Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. The Forest Service compliance and inspection officers are hosted inside the Ministry of Forests and Range.

I know they want us to wrap up, but I'm just not sure I answered the question, so I'll sit down and see if there's one, quick.

J. Horgan: I'm going to ask another question, and we can wrap up after that. We have just a minute or two left, and this is my last shot.

I'm now taking you to Vancouver Island — the timber licence formerly called tree farm licence 25. What management regime is currently in place on those lands? Who has access to those lands for harvesting? Has that changed at all since 2007?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm going to answer the member's question, but I'm not sure that he asked the question he wanted to ask, so we may have to come back on Monday.

The answer to the question in terms of the management regime around TFLs is exactly the same as it's always been. But I suspect the member is thinking about the private lands, not the Crown lands.

J. Horgan: Actually, I'm thinking about the Crown lands.

Hon. P. Bell: Oh, okay.

J. Horgan: Do they still have exclusive access?

Hon. P. Bell: No, there is no…. This is going to be a long answer, so we should probably try and do it…. Or even, we can just chat about it. I'm happy to do that.

The management regime on TFLs continues to be what it was. There has been very little change. It's not exclusive access. There are requirements around what they can do. But I am happy to talk to the member, and we'll just get a better understanding of what he was looking for.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress — significant progress, I will add — and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:44 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2010: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175