2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 6

[ Page 6051 ]

TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 2010

The House met at 1:37 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: I have two special guests. I had a chance to have lunch with them today. One is Mohsin Abbas. He's the senior editor of Jang Canada, which is one of the largest Urdu newspapers in Pakistan and also outside Pakistan. As well, he's a special correspondent reporter for Hajj news, a television program, and BBC World. And also his partner, Jiesu Luo. Would the House please make them very, very welcome.

Tributes

G.W. GRAHam

J. Les: With regret, I advise the House today of the passing of one of my constituents, Mr. G.W. Graham, at the age of 103. Mr. Graham was born in Greenwood, B.C., in 1907. He moved to Chilliwack in 1909.

When he finished his schooling, he took one year of teacher training and then proceeded to teach at Atchelitz Elementary, followed by Robertson Elementary and Sardis Elementary, during which time he got his bachelor's degree and became vice-principal and then principal of Chilliwack high school, now known as Chilliwack Secondary. He left a lasting imprint on his students and on our community.

In 1950 Mr. Graham was appointed school inspector for the provincial government and later became the superintendent of administration for the province's school boards.

In 2005 the Chilliwack school district named its newest middle secondary school after him, known today as G.W. Graham Middle Secondary School.

In 2008 the University of the Fraser Valley presented him with an honorary doctorate degree for his decades of educational leadership.

One of his former students said this: "There are very few people in this world that you will encounter who will have a lifetime effect on you, and he was one of those people. He gave his students a profound sense that we could do anything we wanted to do."

As I said, Mr. Graham left a tremendous mark on this province and on our community, and he will be sorely missed.

Introductions by Members

E. Foster: Joining us in the House today are two friends of mine, important people in the Vernon area. We have His Worship Mayor Wayne Lippert and the chief executive officer for the city of Vernon, Leon Gous. They're here to speak to some ministers. I would like the House to make them welcome.

Hon. M. Stilwell: I rise today to introduce some important friends and visitors from my riding of Vancouver-Langara who are in the House today. Rabbi Infeld from Beth Israel Synagogue and his son Avishai are here in Victoria and visiting the Legislature building.

As well, there is a group of 30 grade 5 students and 15 adults from St. Anthony of Padua School. I would like the House to please make them all very welcome.

[1340]

L. Popham: Today I had the pleasure of lunching with four lovely ladies: Elsie McMurphy, Sue Geddis, Linda Black and Ruth Howland. Please join me in making them feel welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill M208 — Manufactured Home Park
Tenancy Amendment Act, 2010

S. Simpson presented a bill intituled Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2010.

S. Simpson: I move introduction of the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2010.

Motion approved.

S. Simpson: The Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2010, looks to protect the most vulnerable sector of our society, the owners of mobile homes. Currently tenants renting pads or land in home parks have little protection against eviction for the purposes of development. This group of people faces unique obstacles and barriers when they face an eviction. Their homes are, in most instances, permanent structures and not movable. If they can be moved, the costs are prohibitive for moving a manufactured home, if you can find another location at all.

By amending sections 42 and 44 of the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act, this bill will accomplish the following: require that a park owner provide 12 months' notice of eviction when redeveloping land under any form of tenancy agreement, require that a park owner at the time of eviction pays a tenant's relocation expenses up to $25,000 and require a park owner to pay those tenants who are unable to relocate their manufactured homes because of local building standards an amount equal to the fair market value of the manufactured home as compensation.
[ Page 6052 ]

Mr. Speaker, manufactured home owners are frequently older British Columbians who have chosen this as their retirement option. They have worked hard all their lives, they pay their rent, and they keep their homes and surroundings in good repair. These British Columbians believed they had an arrangement that would allow them some longer-term security for their later years.

The Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act will help to ensure that this is the case and, when it is not, will guarantee that they are at least treated with some fairness in terms of their costs and the protection of their asset.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M208, Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2010, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M209 — Long Term Tenants
Protection Act, 2010

S. Chandra Herbert presented a bill intituled Long Term Tenants Protection Act, 2010.

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise to move that this bill be read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise today to ask each and every member of this House for their support for the Long Term Tenants Protection Act, 2010.

This is a bill for Lynn Stevens, an 82-year-old constituent of mine who has fought ovarian cancer and now has had to fight Hollyburn Properties to stay in the only home she has known for the last 41 years — an unfair eviction. This is a bill for the Seafield, which 93- and 82-year-old Mary and Rolly McFall have called home for decades. They're now standing up to their landlord's attempt to jack up rents 73 percent through the geographic area increase clause.

This bill says no to massively jacking up rents of long-term tenants over and above the yearly rent increases they pay year in, year out. This bill puts into law what is there in spirit. It says no to big landlord companies who try to evict long-term tenants under the pretext that it's for use by a caretaker when there are actually other suites available for that use. This bill says yes to the vast majority of renters and landlords who do follow the rules and maintain long-term relationships based on trust, a home based on peace and quiet enjoyment, and steady income for the property owner.

As members will know, there are a number of other changes needed to balance the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants, but this bill is a good first step. The Long Term Tenants Protection Act could be passed into law this week to immediately protect long-term tenants who are currently living under threat of mass eviction or massive rent hikes because of an unbalanced and unfair Residential Tenancy Act.

I hope members of this House will think of Lynn, Mary and Rolly and unite to pass this bill this week. I move this bill be placed on the orders of the day for reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M209, Long Term Tenants Protection 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.

[1345]

Bill M210 — Residential Tenancy
Amendment Act, 2010

D. Thorne presented a bill intituled Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2010.

D. Thorne: I move that this bill be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

D. Thorne: I'm asking today for support for this bill, which amends the Residential Tenancy Act to provide more protection for tenants. It increases the amount of notice that a landlord must give a tenant in the event of renovations that require the tenant to vacate their residence and of conversion to strata title, and it increases the compensation payable to tenants under those circumstances.

It allows the tenant the right of first refusal, giving them the option of continuing residence following the renovation or conversion, and prohibits the landlord from raising the rent any more than otherwise would be lawful. Finally, it allows the tenant increased time to pay overdue rent or dispute an eviction notice and increased time before eviction due to the non-payment of rent.

This act is an acknowledgment of the imbalance of power that exists between landlords and tenants, particularly with regards to the many avenues available for landlords to eject tenants with very little notice or compensation. With this act, British Columbia recognizes and protects the rights and interests of tenants in a way that is fair and reasonable to landlords.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading after today.

Bill M210, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2010, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 6053 ]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

TOUR DE DELTA BICYCLE RACES

V. Huntington: Delta South is known for nail-biting races that come right down to the wire. Today I would like to talk about one that has been called "fast and furious" and "a wild, colourful, exciting pursuit to the finish with competitors at the top of their game competing all-out for the grand prize." It's the Tour de Delta, and the grand prize is the race jersey.

The Tour de Delta, the brainchild of the member for Delta North, is a fabulous weekend of bike racing that will be celebrating its tenth anniversary two weeks hence. Over 5,000 spectators will watch three rousing events in both men's and women's categories. Athletes from around the world will come to Delta to compete for what has become the richest cycling prize in Canada.

North Delta stages the first event on Friday evening. The prologue is the Race of Truth, and cyclists compete against the clock on special time-trial bikes designed, they say, for speed not comfort. On Saturday morning families from North Delta, Tsawwassen and Ladner bike to east Ladner for the mayor's race and to watch BMX competition.

That evening the Criterium begins with the Kid's Crit and ends with professional riders and a chase described as NASCAR on two wheels. The Criterium core circles the village streets of historic Ladner. The final event is the road race, which begins on Sunday in North Delta, runs through the agricultural lands and ends with a gruelling uphill battle on the streets of Tsawwassen.

Staging the Tour de Delta takes enormous effort, and special thanks are due all the sponsors, organizers, volunteers and billets throughout Delta who make this weekend such a success. My thanks to them all, and my best wishes to all the competitors for a weekend of leg-burning fun.

CLEARWATER COMMUNITY EVENTS
AND INFRASTRUCTURE

T. Lake: On Saturday, May 22, I had the pleasure of spending the day in the beautiful North Thompson community of Clearwater, gateway to Wells Gray Provincial Park, to celebrate May Days and a number of remarkable achievements. The day began with that staple of rural B.C. life, a delicious pancake breakfast served up by the Clearwater Elks Club, followed by a visit to the farmers market where home-grown herbs and handmade jewelry were hits with my wife, Lisa. Although the weather was rainy, the smiles and hospitality were, as always, very warm.

The next stop was an event that, while it might not seem popular to most, is always exciting for those of us who serve the public — the official opening of the new Clearwater sewage lagoon. The Towns for Tomorrow program has enabled the district of Clearwater to add aeration to the lagoon through a system powered by solar energy, greatly reducing the odour from the plant. The only ones more excited about the project than the politicians were the neighbouring residents, who can now enjoy their back yards whichever way the wind is blowing.

[1350]

The skies parted just in time for the May Day parade in which hundreds of residents lined up to watch colourful floats and antique vehicles make their way through the town, while children reached out for the delicious treats thrown by the participants of the parade. The highlight of the day was the opening of the Clearwater skateboard park and tennis courts, and the crowd was treated to a professional skateboarding demonstration.

The community of Clearwater, while facing the many challenges of a rural resource-dependent community, is full of optimistic and resilient people who celebrate their way of life and will continue to build a bright and prosperous future.

youth suicide prevention

B. Simpson: The accidental death of a young person is difficult for all of us to accept, partly because of our innate sense of the unrealized potential of that loss. When a young person makes a choice to end their own life, there is an associated guilt and inevitable questions of how family, friends and the broader society failed that person so deeply that they chose to not face another day.

That's why programs like yellow ribbon suicide prevention are so critical. The goals of this program are to promote awareness that suicide is our collective problem and is preventable; develop broad-based support for suicide prevention and intervention; develop and promote a program to reduce the stigma associated with suicide, which prevents individuals and families from seeking help; and increase media knowledge about youth suicide in proactive ways to prevent it.

For five years now, a group of young people in Quesnel have exemplified an energetic, upbeat and community-based approach to youth suicide prevention. Called Youth Entertaining for Service or the YES group, these young people have raised enough money each year to enable Barb Lamoureux, the Canadian representative of the yellow ribbon campaign, to come to Quesnel to engage their peers in a proactive suicide prevention program.

The YES group are talented musicians, singers, dancers and true entertainers in every sense. They dedicate months of their lives to the preparation of a themed variety show that enthrals audiences for two-plus hours
[ Page 6054 ]
each night, with many people coming back again and again to enjoy their energy, talent and absolute professionalism. Their show titles reflect the range of their talents and their appeal to all audiences. They started with Fabulous Fifties, then Swing the Mood, followed by Feeling Groovy and last year's Gone Country. This year they're busy preparing Rock On.

I ask the members of this House to join me in recognizing this talented group of young people and thank them for the sacrifices they make each year to provide support to young people in their community.

north shore technology companies

R. Sultan: I'd like to talk about some outstanding North Shore entrepreneurs. ClearVision Technologies is growing fast, solving a chronic problem in packaging. Are those flaps on the box glued down right? A production line can glue eight boxes a second. ClearVision's camera photographs each box as it flashes by, decides whether the glue is right and tags rejects with ultraviolet. Every order is defect-free. In the world of packaged goods marketing, that's a breakthrough.

CEO Stephen Robinson was a big hit at the Chicago packaging conference. Augurex Life Sciences Corp. led by Norma Biln, whose resumé runs from Pfizer to Aspreva, has developed a protein biomarker for arthritis. Biomarkers give more accurate diagnoses, allowing medical treatment customized to each patient. It's a growth market. Biomarkers are a $5 billion business growing about 40 percent a year.

Inproheat was founded by an Austrian immigrant who invented submerged combustion, which saves energy in industrial heating. Today it's the ultimate in greenhouse gas reduction. Inproheat works in Chile, Mexico, the United States, Europe and elsewhere. CEO Steve Panz informs me they converted this very Parliament Building to heating by natural gas, but he also observed there seems to be no lack of hot air in the building to start with.

Why is the North Shore fertile ground for such entrepreneurs? Well, for some others, coaching by such mentors as Mike Volker and Ralph Turfus also helps. Thank you, and thanks to them.

youth in philanthropy

R. Fleming: Greater Victoria high school students recently celebrated the culmination of a year of giving back to our local charitable sector. Student-led groups from seven local high schools demonstrated their support for a broad range of causes, community projects and organizations in the form of grants made through the Victoria Foundation's Youth in Philanthropy program.

[1355]

Participating schools this year include Belmont Secondary, Frances Kelsey Secondary, Victoria High School, St. Michael's University, Reynolds Secondary, Oak Bay High and Stelly's.

Originally launched in Victoria in November 2003, the Youth in Philanthropy program is designed to engage young people in proactive, values-led grant making. Students gain important, lifelong leadership skills as they carry out the process of making thoughtful grants to benefit our communities.

Each year the foundation provides grants of $3,000 for each school, $500 of which is retained to add to an established endowment in the school's name. Using Victoria's Vital Signs as a tool, the students learn about critical issues that exist in their community. Students then research the potential charities. They conduct interviews. They conduct on-site visits. Each student member provides input, and then the group as a whole decides on how to allocate the grant-making funds. The written recommendations are then approved by Victoria Foundation's board of directors.

This year the student philanthropists granted a total of $17,500 to 14 different charities in my community, including the Land Conservancy, Victoria Women's Transition House, Passion for Tango, Surrounded by Cedar, Island Wildlife Natural Care Centre, Beacon Community Services, BCSPCA, Victoria Youth Empowerment Society, James Bay Health and Community Services, Victoria Single Parent Resource Centre, Victoria Riding for the Disabled, Extreme Outreach Society, Boys and Girls Club and Victoria Cool Aid Society.

Since 2003 local student grant-makers taking part in this program have made over 100 grants totalling more than $100,000. I wish all of us in the House to pass on our thanks to them for giving their time so freely this year and for making the program such a success.

CHILDREN'S PLAY VILLAGE
AT QUALICUM BEACH SCHOOL

R. Cantelon: "We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto." Dorothy might have said those very words had she landed on the school grounds on Sunday afternoon at Qualicum Beach Elementary School, because created that day on the grounds of the school was a storybook village of children-sized, munchkin-sized buildings to inspire a child's imagination.

It all began early Sunday morning with a team of builders, a pile of lumber and supplies in one place and teams of eager builders, without plans, to build these ten child-sized buildings. They included a general store, a hospital, fire hall, bank, post office, theatre, schoolhouse, library and gas station — all built to inspire children's imaginations in an interactive environment.

Around the safety circle a child-sized roadway was built, where children can ride their trikes or pedal cars and learn about the rules of the road with stop and yield signs, visit the various buildings and enjoy some interactive and learning play.
[ Page 6055 ]

It was built in a day — miraculously, as I say. I pounded nails with the Oceanside Development and Construction Association, so I had good help. It rose from the ground from nothing up to an entire village.

Next to the village is an alphabet garden, which features, of course — as you might expect — 26 planters, each in the shape of the letters of the alphabet. These will be tended by volunteer groups in the community who apply to tend and grow vegetables and flowers in the garden, which will be made available to the community.

The entire thing creates a great learning experience and environment for seniors, grandparents, parents and teens to enjoy their imaginations with these interactive buildings. It's all part of the concept of Building Learning Together, which is a coalition of community partners that have joined together to support early learning for children zero to six and their families.

Since 1999 they've grown to represent over a hundred businesses, service clubs and schools, 20 agencies, ministries, as well as over 200 individuals who participate in this interactive development of childhood learning.

Let's congratulate their efforts and congratulate all those who ably built the buildings.

Oral Questions

PACIFIC COAST UNIVERSITY
CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND
HARMONIZED SALES TAX

C. James: In Port Alberni plans are underway to build the Pacific Coast University campus, which will house an internationally acclaimed disabled management program. But thanks to the HST, the cost of construction has just gone up by $70,000. So my question is to the Premier. Why is he hitting the Pacific Coast University with the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: I am familiar with the news reports about the concerns around this institution in Port Alberni. Certainly, I am familiar with the good work that has been done by the National Institute of Disability Management and Research going back well over ten years.

[1400]

I am curious as to how they would arrive at that number. Certainly, we are prepared to work with them to show them exactly how the rebate system would work. When we announced that the university sector in British Columbia would be eligible for a 75 percent rebate of the HST, I know that the university sector was very pleased with that because that, in fact, offsets the incremental cost of HST for any typical university.

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

C. James: I'd like to inform the minister that the university obviously did a lot more planning than the government did. This is $70,000 after the partial rebate, which is an additional cost to this university and their construction.

This is an award-winning program. It helps people with disabilities get back to work. It's precisely the kind of program that we should be supporting for our economy and for people with disabilities so they can lead an independent lifestyle. But the Premier and this government are moving ahead with the HST — $70,000 additional cost on this project.

Again, my question is to the Premier. The HST is hurting British Columbians every step of the way. Why won't he just say no to the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: The Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences has not contacted us. We would certainly be pleased to work with them in terms of the calculations they've done.

When you look at the incremental cost of a construction project that would result from the introduction of the harmonized sales tax and the elimination of the provincial sales tax, we believe that for any typical construction of this nature, the rebate should totally offset any incremental cost. But we are prepared to work with them and look at the calculations that they've undertaken.

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

IMPLEMENTATION OF
HARMONIZED SALES TAX

C. James: In a September 2009 bulletin the member for Parksville-Qualicum said that the Premier himself had given his unequivocal endorsement to this university.

Now this same Premier and this government are hitting them with the HST, and it's not simply the Pacific Coast University that's going to be hurt by the HST. There are similar programs and similar projects all across this province. As we all know, the government's HST betrayal will hit British Columbians in every aspect of their life.

Again, my question is to the Premier. The public has spoken loud and clear. Will he get rid of the HST now?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's that kind of blatant misrepresentation of the facts that I think has actually resulted in a lot of people's concerns about the harmonized sales tax. As I have said on numerous occasions, about 20 percent of goods and services will be more expensive after the harmonized sales tax. But we also know there are embedded production costs that will actually come
[ Page 6056 ]
out, resulting in prices being lower than they otherwise would be.

Let's actually just talk for a minute about the ability of a typical British Columbia family to afford those little incremental costs that are going to happen to some things. I've mentioned the HST credit that's going to be there for 1.1 million British Columbians. I have mentioned the reduction in personal income tax that we brought in specifically to offset the HST implications.

[1405]

But let's actually just compare what an individual earning $60,000 a year of income would pay today in personal income tax compared to what they would pay in the last year of the NDP government. In 2001 that individual earning $60,000 a year would pay $5,401 a year in personal income tax alone. This year, after our B.C. Liberal budget, that same individual would be paying $2,969. That's over $2,500 less.

PACIFIC COAST UNIVERSITY
CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND
HARMONIZED SALES TAX

S. Fraser: I don't believe anyone in British Columbia believes the minister when he's coming up with these numbers.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat for a second.

Continue, Member.

S. Fraser: Wolfgang Zimmermann is the head of the National Institute of Disability Management and Research. As the key force behind this non-profit university, he has put together a business plan. He did his due diligence, and he is committed to helping people with disabilities.

The construction of this campus is underway. Imagine his shock when he learned that the HST will penalize his project — $70,000 that was not factored into the project, $70,000 more than he was prepared for. To the minister: will he stop punishing initiatives that support British Columbians hurt in the workplace? Will he scrap the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: Let's be clear what Wolfgang Zimmermann is paying today under the PST system on the construction of this facility. He is paying 7 percent provincial sales tax on every single nail, on every barrel of concrete, on every piece of wood, on every bit of wiring, on every bit of plumbing that goes into that facility. He is paying 7 percent PST.

Well, guess what. After July 1 he will be paying 7 percent provincial HST on all of his wood, on all of the material, and yes, on the labour component as well, but guess what. He actually gets 75 percent of that HST rebated as a result of the rebate system that we've put in place for universities.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: I wonder if that's the same kind of math that led to a $500 million cost overrun on the B.C. Place convention centre.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member.

S. Fraser: Okay. I'll try, hon. Speaker.

The minister's pretty dismissive of $70,000. That's a huge hit for a project like this. It's a major setback for managers running a tight plan — like Wolfgang Zimmermann — and who want to deliver on budget. So will the minister stop this misleading rhetoric? Will he do what he said he'd do before the election and cancel the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I mentioned, the university sector — and I'm assuming that this facility qualifies as part of the university sector — will be entitled to 75 percent of all of the HST that they pay in the form of rebate. That, given the typical university in Canada, will offset all of the incremental costs that they would be facing.

[1410]

But going back to the member's initial comment about how our understandings may not be the same as his, I can tell you what the understandings are on this side of the House.

It's our understanding of the economy in British Columbia that has meant British Columbia now has a triple-A credit rating in this province. It's our understanding of the economy on this side of the House that has actually led to dramatic reductions in provincial income tax for British Columbians; dramatic reductions in the small business tax rate for small businesses in British Columbia; and the elimination of the corporate capital tax, which was strangling the economy in British Columbia.

British Columbia is coming out of the recession faster than any other jurisdiction, and it is because of the economic policies on this side of the House.

N. Macdonald: With the Pacific Coast University, just let's be clear here. The minister says one thing, lays out one scenario, and Mr. Zimmermann lays out completely another. So who to believe? Is it the B.C. Liberals, who
[ Page 6057 ]
promised not to bring in the HST but did bring it in and now routinely trivialize any view on the HST that does not correspond with the 2 percent of British Columbians that agree with the HST?

Is it him? Or is it Wolfgang Zimmermann, just awarded Citizen of the Year in his community, just awarded or co-winner of Volunteer of the Year in his community, recipient of the Order of British Columbia, executive director of the disability fund for forestry workers of B.C., intimately involved in budgeting for the construction of Pacific Coast University?

Who are British Columbians supposed to believe — Wolfgang Zimmermann or this discredited government?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: As someone who was born in Port Alberni…. I think the first time I had learned of the work of Wolfgang Zimmermann was in the mid-1990s, shortly after I was elected, during a time when I was the opposition Labour critic. Certainly, he has done a tremendous job in leading the National Institute of Disability Management and Research. His work now in putting together the Pacific Coast University of Workplace Health Sciences is to be commended and, I think, one of the reasons why everybody in this House, by unanimous vote, actually approved the private bill for the establishment of the Pacific Coast University.

As I said earlier, he has not contacted us, but we would certainly be prepared to work with him, to look at his numbers. Quite frankly, I would be very surprised if the HST results in any incremental costs for the construction of that facility, but we're quite prepared to look at that.

RELEASE OF INFORMATION ON
FISH FARM DISEASE OUTBREAKS

V. Huntington: We've learned through an astonishing four-year-long freedom-of-information request that for almost two decades the Agriculture Ministry has failed to protect wild salmon from the lethal IHN virus and actually fought to keep that information from the public. In spite of an order from the Information and Privacy Commissioner, fish farmers are threatening to keep disease outbreaks secret if the minister releases the reports.

These foreign companies are conducting business in our public waters and are threatening our wild salmon. What are they hiding from us? Did the Minister of Agriculture cave in, as usual, to the salmon farmers? Or has he released the details of the lethal pathogen outbreaks?

Hon. S. Thomson: I can confirm that, in response to the recommendation as a result of the order from the freedom-of-information process, we have released that information and provided it on April 12, within the timeline that was required.

[1415]

As you know, the legislation requires freedom of information but also respects privacy concerns, and we take that very seriously. That process was worked through, but when the decision was made that the information was to be released, we provided that information.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
CLOSED-CONTAINMENT FISH FARMING

V. Huntington: I am pleased to hear that the information has been released, and I hope it's as publicly available as we would wish. But these fish farm operations are breeding IHN and sea lice, in spite of what members opposite have been told. They have destroyed wild salmon runs in Scotland, in Ireland, in much of Norway and in Chile. They are well on their way to destroying them in British Columbia.

The government protects these corporate bullies who have no right at all to tell us what they will and will not report.

When is the Minister of Agriculture going to protect our wild salmon and move these fish farms off migration routes and into closed containment?

Hon. S. Thomson: Our approach to closed containment is consistent with the recommendations of the Pacific Salmon Forum. This was the most comprehensive report that was undertaken. It made recommendations that said there should not be substantial public investment in closed containment until the business case and the economics were proved.

This is emerging technology. Work continues in this area. There is progress being made. Our staff continue to work with organizations such as the Save Our Salmon society and Tides Canada in looking at this technology. We continue to support it. We will continue to work with those organizations.

Also, as you know, we're in the process of negotiating the transfer of regulation of the finfish and the shellfish aquaculture industry to the federal government. The recommendations of the Pacific Salmon Forum are informing those negotiations. We will continue to do that.

We have the most comprehensive environmental regulation in place for this industry, and we'll make sure that we continue to do that as we transition the regulation of this industry to the federal government.
[ Page 6058 ]

GOVERNMENT USE OF ICBC REVENUES

M. Farnworth: The government has shown that they're more than happy to reach into the pockets of ICBC ratepayers to help cover their budget deception. In this year's budget alone they've raided $778 million from ICBC coffers. Now we've learned that the government has passed an order-in-council that gives them the ability to take money from ICBC's basic insurance rate coffers.

My question to the minister responsible for ICBC is: will he ensure that if there are excess moneys, it is drivers who will benefit and not this government?

Hon. M. de Jong: That's precisely what lies at the root of the document to which the member refers. The corporation, as the member knows, goes to the Utilities Commission for consideration of rate matters. The objective is to maintain stability, where possible, ensure that drivers in B.C. continue to enjoy the lowest rates in North America and, where possible, even reduce those rates.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Well, the problem with the government is that we've seen that they took the $778 million from ICBC coffers. When they decided to give some back to drivers, it was in the form of $1 for the driver, $19 for the government — $1 for the driver, $19 for the government.

What we want and what drivers in this province want is a commitment that if there are any excess funds, revenues, in the basic insurance coffers, that it goes back to the drivers and not to this government — every single penny. Will the minister commit to that and ensure that B.C. drivers don't get hosed at the expense of this government trying to cover up its budget deceptions?

[1420]

Hon. M. de Jong: Happily for the member's sake and members of the assembly, the answer to that question lies in the OIC itself, which is designed to ensure that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has the tools it requires going forward to make submissions to the Utilities Commission around rates that will ensure stability and that British Columbians continue to enjoy the lowest rates in North America.

HIGH SCHOOL CHILD CARE PROGRAM
FOR STUDENT PARENTS

M. Karagianis: The Options Child and Family Centre provides integrated day care services so that young moms can finish high school. But last month the Minister of Children and Families cut the funding.

Heather Kay from Options has written to the minister, pleading for the reinstatement of their funding. The minister has categorized the cuts as only affecting teaching around feeding and diapering and basic parenting. Well, the letter from Options says: "When you have a baby, your whole relationship revolves around feeding and diapering. How you hold your baby, how you look at her and respond to her cues are the beginning of the attachment process."

Every mother knows how important this is, and I do not understand why the minister is so dismissive of the importance of this program. So I'm asking today: will she reinstate the funding fully before this organization is forced to close their doors this month?

Hon. M. Polak: As we've canvassed in this House before, there have been no reductions to funding for day care spaces in British Columbia — not one dollar. In fact, our funding for child care subsidies this year is increasing to provide subsidies to more and more children and their families. This year alone we will spend $300 million on child care and a billion dollars across government on child care, early childhood development and services for children and youth with special needs.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Almost $50,000 was cut from Options. The result, as the minister very well knows, is that they are going to be closing their doors. The letter here states: "Babies have been kept from going into foster care. Mothers have gained confidence and skills to enable them to become better parents."

It goes on to say: "Without this funding, the moms would not be able to continue their education, and for many, dropping out of school would be a downward spiral in their lives."

It's very clear. Will the minister commit today to reinstate this funding so these young moms can finish their high school and get a better start in their lives on a program that has been around for 21 years and will shut its door if this minister does not do the right thing?

Hon. M. Polak: When it comes to funding for the child care spaces, it is still there. When it comes to funding for the subsidies, it is still there. There is no reason for child care spaces to be closing. The funding remains. The funding the member talks about is a small amount to provide for a basic parenting training program — programs that are provided by other community services.

Again, we have seen nothing but increases to what we've been spending and investing in early childhood development and in child care in this province.

M. Elmore: This is a program for at-risk teenage mothers, usually with a difficult history. The letter points out that rarely does a girl enter the program with an intact family and a stable social safety net. Often this program
[ Page 6059 ]
is the only support they have in their goal to fulfil and complete their education. The moms at Options are vulnerable and at a considerable disadvantage, and this minister defends a cut of 43 percent that will kill the program and take away vital day care spaces.

Will the minister finally just do the right thing and guarantee funding for Options so they can stay open next year?

Hon. M. Polak: The member is wrong. This funding does not….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

[1425]

Hon. M. Polak: The member is wrong. The funding remains in place for the child care operating funding. The funding remains in place for the subsidy. In fact, we recognize the increased vulnerability of these young women, and that is why women in those circumstances qualify for an enhanced child subsidy that amounts to approximately $100 more than an average child would receive.

GOVERNMENT ACTION
ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

M. Mungall: Today the domestic violence death review panel released its report. It shows that 12 percent of homicides in British Columbia are due to domestic violence, and it offers recommendations to prevent such deaths in the future.

My question is to today's Solicitor General. Will this government fully implement the recommendations of this report?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's a good report. I think, in analyzing the 11 incidents that took place between 1995 and this year, the civilian members of the panel had an opportunity to examine the tragic circumstances and make some very thoughtful recommendations. We don't have time here to canvass each one of them, but each one of them appears to me, at first instance, to have merit.

We'll take until the end of June, as provided in the report, to provide a formal response from various departments of government, but I hope the member will take some comfort from the fact that I think, and the government believes, it's a very good report.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Mungall: Well, I'm glad the government thinks that the report is good. But I think that people wouldn't be surprised that the domestic violence death review panel report cites the Langley pilot project as a model of how agencies can work together to protect survivors of domestic violence from danger. However, people would be surprised that instead of being rolled out across the province, this government cut the Langley pilot project.

My question again is to the Solicitor General. Why did this government cut this program instead of applying it across the province?

Hon. M. de Jong: In the report the authors refer to and emphasize the importance of collaboration, coordination, standardization and ensuring that whether people are involved in the investigative, prosecutorial or preventative side, they have the training necessary to identify and, hopefully, prevent domestic violence.

Some of that work is already ongoing. The domestic violence action plan that launched earlier this year speaks to some of those very themes. There is additional work to be done, and the government is going to capitalize on the good work of this report in moving forward to address the scourge of domestic violence in our society.

K. Corrigan: Well, the minister has said that this is a good report. This government can show their commitment to protecting survivors of domestic violence by acting now to restore the Langley pilot project and begin unrolling similar programs in other communities across the province.

Will the Solicitor General show good faith by committing to fully restoring the Langley pilot project today?

Hon. M. de Jong: I actually think — and I wouldn't profess to have committed the entire report to memory — the report goes beyond that. I think the report and the authors speak to the importance of coordinating efforts between divisions of government, coordinating efforts between investigative authorities and prosecutorial authorities and the agencies that exist at the community level to prevent and counsel families who are victims of domestic violence.

Whilst I appreciate and accept the importance that the member attaches to the single program, I think the value of the report that we're dealing with today is that it speaks to a much larger effort that the government is committed to moving forward on in the future as part of the domestic violence action plan.

[1430]

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

B. Ralston: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the first session of the 39th parliament.
[ Page 6060 ]

I move the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

B. Ralston: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

B. Ralston: I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

S. Hammell: I rise to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

S. Hammell: I'm presenting a petition calling on the British Columbia provincial government to cover the cost of the annual PSA test for prostate cancer screening for all men aged 40 and older.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply, I call the continued estimates of the Office of the Premier, and in this chamber, continued committee stage debate on Bill 20.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 20 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act (No. 3), 2010

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 20; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

On section 37 (continued).

S. Chandra Herbert: Before the lunch hour the minister and myself, as well as a number of the other members, were engaged in a discussion about UBC and the wider property there — who's in charge, who should decide around property development there. The response I got from the minister was that he seemed to suggest that we were suggesting that a gridlock continue at Metro Vancouver and between UBC and so on.

[1435]

Well, the minister is correct that there was concern between Metro Vancouver and UBC about who had the right to develop property, who had to do the consulting — all those kinds of issues. With UBC being the developer, wanting to proceed with major developments there on the campus and in that surrounding area there…. We've certainly seen those with Pacific Spirit Park and the concerns around the beaches, as well as, of course, the farm.

UBC is the developer. Metro Vancouver was trying to push for stronger land use planning there. They would be the regulator, I guess. But instead of dealing with the gridlock by pulling the two parties together, what we've got here is that the government has decided to put the role of regulator into the role of developer. Now we have UBC, an unelected board, largely in charge as a regulator of the property development as well as the developer.

I guess my question to the minister is: is there any concern that this could be a conflict of interest, could lead to decisions — in terms of the development side of things — being torqued because of the desire to develop by that board?

Hon. B. Bennett: No, there is no concern about that. The UBC board doesn't have the final authority to make the decisions around land use; the minister does. The minister determines whether there has been an appropriate amount of consultation done with the people who live on the UBC lands, and whether or not the land use bylaw is in conformance with the legislation that we are discussing here today.

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess the question is: why wasn't there a process that brought the two parties together and got them to decide, as Metro Vancouver suggested, rather than this heavy-handed manner where now the minister is basically in charge of the future development for all of that area, and the residents there have little to no say?

Hon. B. Bennett: Hon. Chair, I'm not sure what sort of a process the member has in mind. I can tell the member that a couple of years ago there was an attempt to do a form of mediation between UBC and Metro, and that was not successful. That is, in fact, why Metro and UBC metaphorically threw their hands in the air and said: "You have to do something to help us."

Maybe I don't understand the member's question properly, but if he's suggesting that there was no process of bringing people together here, that would be incorrect. There was a process. It wasn't a flashy, public process. It was a process that involved our staff working together with Metro Vancouver and with UBC to try and find a solution — and the solution exists in this proposed legislation — that would work on an interim basis for UBC and Metro Vancouver.
[ Page 6061 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: I don't know that people have said, "Throw your hands in the air," and I know earlier the minister made the suggestion that Metro Vancouver wanted this to happen, that this was a plan that they were calling for, basically.

Well, at least from my reading of Metro Vancouver councillors and board members, I guess, they've talked about this. They talked of "dictatorship." They talked about, "They hit the panic button, and the crisis does not exist" — that they wanted to be involved in this, as they had been trying to do. But instead of being involved, the minister, through this bill, is becoming the boss, basically, of all the residents for that area, without appropriate democratic principles in place.

I don't think residents of that area are calling out for a flashy kind of a thing. I think they're calling out for what we all have in other communities, which is the right to elect decision-makers who affect the development of their neighbourhoods. That's not what we're getting with this bill. What we're getting is the minister as boss, and a largely handpicked board of directors at UBC who are not elected by many of the residents in that area, many of them being staff.

[1440]

I understand the concerns UBC has, as well, with the lands that they control. And I think, instead of appointing oneself boss, one would think that, maybe, a facilitated discussion where there was a timeline laid down to pull the parties together so that we could actually increase the democracy on the campus, as opposed to, instead, where we're at here. They are no further ahead from what I can tell, in terms of democracy for those residents.

The minister has suggested that there has been much call from Metro Vancouver for this kind of thing. Would the minister share his file of communications from Metro Vancouver directors and residents calling for himself to be appointed boss of the area and for the unelected board of directors to control development, both being a regulator as well as a developer? I'd be very curious if the minister has those communications.

Hon. B. Bennett: I can see it's going to be a challenge for me to convince the member and perhaps all the members on the other side that Metro did in fact express publicly on several occasions its desire that the province actually step in and do something. It was virtually impossible for Metro to deal with land use planning issues on UBC lands.

I can tell the member this much. This is a quotation from a mayor who sits on the Metro board. "It's getting more and more difficult to be the government for them" — UBC — "because we're not there." The same mayor said a bit later: "Let me put it in clear terms. We're not prepared to continue with the status quo." Both those quotations were from the mayor of Burnaby.

Another quotation from the same mayor publicly: "We decided clearly that one of two things happens: either we govern, or we don't govern. No more in between." Clearly, there was lots and lots of evidence that Metro was in need of some assistance in this matter, and so was UBC.

Despite what members on the other side might like to suggest — and I'm not saying they haven't had their own private discussions with certain members of the Metro board; I'm sure they have — when our professional staff dealt with their professional staff and with some of their elected folks, they said: "We need you to step in. We need you to help with land use planning on an interim basis and work long term towards more independent government for UBC." That's precisely what government is doing through this legislation.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, to quote the mayor from Burnaby, as the minister did…. This is what the mayor of Burnaby, Derek Corrigan, told the newspaper about what the government decided to do here. The mayor is quoted as saying:

"It's the typical attitude of the province. It's the arrogance that makes it so difficult for us to be able to deal with them, because in essence, UBC was able to persuade them to really remain with the status quo instead of doing something that we think is necessary, and that is to end up with a local government that's democratically elected and responsible to the people who live in the UBC area."

That's the mayor of Burnaby that the minister quoted in support of what has happened here, when very clearly, from his quotations, he is not supportive of the action the government has taken here, instead calling for a locally elected body to represent the area, as opposed to the minister as boss. That's the concern that the minister needs to take into consideration here with this.

I guess the next question is just around appropriate consultation. According to the bill, there's a suggestion that there could be one consultation meeting about a proposed land use plan, or more if they want. I guess the concern that I've got is that when you don't have an elected body, when the minister is in charge but is not in the area, does not get elected by those local folks, you could have one consultation meeting and ram the thing through. The board signs off on it, and then: "Here you go."

The minister, busy with many of his other files in many other communities, probably not wanting to be, in a sense, the mayor and council for that area…. That doesn't appropriately reflect the widespread community use of that area, as opposed to just the use of the university.

Does the minister suggest or feel that it's appropriate just to have one consultation meeting in this situation, as suggested in the bill?

[1445]

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the member is referring to section 40 within the MEVA, entitled: "Consultation and public hearing." That is the minimum that will have to be done by UBCM in the land use planning process when they want to bring forward a land use planning bylaw.

For the member's interest, and in the interests of the House, that is the same routine, the same practice that is established for municipalities. It's precisely the same thing. What's better about this particular process that's encompassed by this legislation is that, in fact, the minister, in this case, has a capacity or opportunity to order as much consultation as the minister thinks is necessary, over and above this minimum that is described in the legislation.

In fact, there's actually greater potential for more consultation to take place in this situation with land use planning at UBC than there would ordinarily be in a municipality.

In fact, it is the opposite from what the members are suggesting, with all due respect to them. It's not going to be less democratic, and it's not going to have less consultation. In fact, there's a very good chance that there will be more consultation here than there normally is.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I guess the other difference, of course — and the minister spoke of one difference — is that the board of directors is making that decision that will affect all the residents, a number who are not affiliated with the university. If they don't like the decision, they don't have a vote to be able to tell the board of directors, "Well, we're not voting for you next time because you've decided to do something," which isn't in, in their view, the best interests of that community.

That's the same for everybody else who uses the Pacific Spirit Park area, the beaches, the many public spaces and facilities there — that they don't have a vote to determine…. Instead, what you have is a board of directors who very much want this development. I've seen some of the proposals. Some of them are quite exciting, and some of them are quite concerning.

I guess the concern here is that we're going to have a situation where the minister can order as many consultations as he likes — and I would encourage him to order more, if this bill passes, than what's contemplated in the bill — but even with all of the consultations in the world, if a board or a government, as we've seen here with the HST and other things, decides they want to do something, no matter what the public says, they can do it.

However, in this place we all have consequences when we do one thing. We have the chance of the voters telling us in the next election that they do not appreciate that, and they can vote us out.

I've laid out my concerns around this legislation, and I think it's a concern shared by many. I don't have further questions, because I understand we're going to get very similar answers. I don't think the answers can come that would say actually that it's the local people who will get to democratically elect the people that will be making that decision, because it's not in this bill, unfortunately. I'll close there.

L. Krog: The minister may well be aware that Wreck Beach is a pretty prominent part of Vancouver's park community. The Wreck Beach Preservation Society has raised a number of concerns around the proposed legislation. They've got two very serious concerns.

The first is that they are of the view that the real estate development at UBC should be regulated and restricted so as to prevent adverse impacts on Pacific Spirit Regional Park.

I'm just wondering if the minister has any comment about his view about Pacific Spirit Regional Park and, in particular, around the use of buffer zones and requiring UBC to develop a decent stormwater management system as well.

[1450]

Hon. B. Bennett: In the existing OCP that continues to apply as a result of this legislation, there is a requirement that the land use planning take into account the park that the member mentions, Pacific Spirit Regional Park. As I say, that OCP will continue on.

The transfer of land use planning authority to the minister, with the planning process going to UBCM, in fact does not include the parkland. So just to be clear, UBC will not have the right to do land use planning over the actual park.

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's response, and I understand the point he's making. But the concern that the society raises is quite a legitimate one. It's one thing to have a park and a boundary in that sacrosanct property. It's another thing when you deal with the lands immediately adjacent that abut against that park.

The concern here is that they would like to see some guarantee around buffer zones, instituting reasonable setbacks, height restrictions, design requirements on lands adjacent to the park, etc. In other words, you're not going to have a wall of condominiums up against Pacific Spirit Park. That's a dramatic example, and I'm not suggesting that's going to happen. But what they are looking for is some kind of guaranteed buffer zone, and I wonder if the minister has some comment on that.

Hon. B. Bennett: I think it would be helpful to the member if I was to just read a short paragraph out of the actual OCP that deals with green areas and specifically with the park. There's a lot of protective language in this particular section of the OCP, but this is what this particular paragraph says. It says: "The planning and
[ Page 6063 ]
development of areas adjacent to Pacific Spirit Regional Park will only be done in a manner that protects the park values contained in the Pacific Spirit Regional Park Management Plan."

That's the OCP that's in place today, so it would certainly be the government's position that there is protection for the park and park values under the current OCP. Certainly, the ministry would not support removing that kind of protection at any time in the future.

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's comments. The member for Alberni–Pacific Rim has wisely pointed out to me, though, of course, that an official community plan really has no enforceability process to it. If I'm wrong, I'm sure the minister's going to tell me, but essentially it's a plan.

It's an official community plan. It's a statement of desire, but it doesn't mean, nor does it actually stop, the development taking place in that area. Now the minister, I'm sure, will provide me with his comments in response to that.

Hon. B. Bennett: I hope that I'm responding specifically to the member's question. He'll let me know, I guess, if I'm not. UBC, in their land use planning and their efforts to pass land use planning bylaws, would not be able to pass some sort of a bylaw that's inconsistent with the existing OCP. So that language that I just read out — that does give protection to the park, to the perimeter of the park and the values of the park internally — would have to guide whatever land use planning UBC is doing.

L. Krog: Another point that the group has raised is a concern around UBC apparently not having an effective, state-of-the-art stormwater management regime to avoid polluting the foreshore area, which, as we all know — all of us who had the opportunity to attend the campus or be on the site — is a significant portion. So I wonder if the minister has any comment on that and whether this issue has been raised to him by UBC, Metro Vancouver or others.

[1455]

Hon. B. Bennett: I might need a bit more detail from the member to fully understand what he's asking me. Maybe this will help. I can say that UBC will be involved, and already is involved, in managing stormwater. But as the member knows, the university lands are, for the most part, up fairly high, and the foreshore is down below the cliff.

They actually don't have management responsibilities for the foreshore, that I'm aware of, other than that they have to manage the water that flows from their land to the foreshore, obviously. I don't know if that captures what the member is after or not.

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's comments, because obviously, the issue of stormwater management on the site is a concern, particularly of the Wreck Beach Preservation Society, naturally. The cliffs are certainly subject to significant erosion. There is the issue of pollution. I want to raise this as an issue for the minister to understand and be concerned about.

The second thing is…. This is important, because essentially, what this legislation does…. I understand that the minister will say that right now he is the final authority with respect to what happens in municipal government in the province anyway, but the reality is that very rarely, if ever, does the minister disagree with what the city of Nanaimo, the city of Vancouver or the city of Cranbrook does.

In this particular case, there is no elected body, the way we understand it, that will be electing officials who will be making these decisions, passing bylaws, etc. In this circumstance, the minister's view, with great respect, of what happens at UBC is extremely important to this legislation.

The decisions that will be made will be advanced by an unelected board, largely. The minister does talk about their election, but the reality is that you've got the chancellor, the president, 11 persons appointed by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and eight elected persons — three students, three faculty members and two employees.

The reality is that the majority are appointed by the provincial government. The minister is the person ultimately responsible. So I'd like to hear from the minister today: what is his view of development at UBC in a general way? I'm looking for a statement of philosophy and his viewpoint, because clearly his viewpoint is going to have a significant impact on how these sections are actually implemented.

Hon. B. Bennett: Hon. Chair, I think there are two parts to my answer. The first part deals with the first part of the member's question. Just to set the record straight, the minister in this ministry actually does not sign off on or approve bylaws for municipalities. Regional district bylaws do come to this ministry.

You know, I think the member describes that process fairly. The minister is certainly not obligated to sign off on these bylaws. But typically, by the time they get through staff who look at these things and send them back, often, until they're done properly in terms of their formalities…. By the time they do get to the minister, they usually are signed off. But that's not the process that we're setting up through this legislation. The minister will actually have more authority in this situation than, typically, the minister would have in a regional district situation.

[1500]

To the second part of the member's question, there is an existing OCP there that provides…. From everything
[ Page 6064 ]
that I have been told, all of my advice would indicate that the existing OCP is a reasonably good one and that it addresses issues of sustainability. Of course, UBC is known around the world for its grasp of sustainability principles and how it implements them there at the campus.

So in terms of the minister's role here, the minister would be guided by the existing OCP but also by the legislation. When the member has a look at the legislation that's proposed here, he will see, for example, that any changes are supposed to be consistent with a regional growth strategy. There are actually a number of restrictions on what UBC can do to change the existing OCP.

As I said before lunch, this is probably going to be about a two-year process, at least, where we'll be dealing with the existing OCP. For whoever happens to be minister in this ministry, their job will be to make sure that any changes, any bylaws, are consistent with the legislation and with the existing OCP.

L. Krog: Given, as I understand it, that this is an interim measure in a sense, what's the minister's long-term view of how this issue — and I will try and state it objectively — between Metro Vancouver and UBC is going to be resolved? In other words, what's in the minister's contemplation on this? Are we doing this strictly as a stopgap with a view to creating a municipality? Are we going to get something in place, throw it back and let them settle it on their own at some future date? What's the minister's thinking behind this?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the member has been around here long enough. I suspect he has a pretty good appreciation of the complexities of these kinds of negotiations between these entities — an entity like UBC and an entity like Metro. Any time you do any sort of a local government amalgamation or boundary change or anything like that — service sharing, anything like that — it takes time and effort.

To answer the member's question, what I would foresee is that we get started, after this legislation is passed — assuming that it's passed — and take our time to make sure that everyone understands what their roles are. Over a period of time….

We do agree with Metro and with UBC that there is a need for more representative local government there on the Point Grey peninsula. There's significant population growth estimated there, and we think there will be some benefit to moving towards some form of municipal governance.

We do not know what that will be, and this is not unusual. From the year that I've been in the ministry, I can tell the member that we often get into discussions…. I've got discussions happening all over the province on a myriad of different local government issues where we don't know what the result's going to be.

The culture, frankly, in this ministry is one that I think is almost unique in government, and it's that we don't go with necessarily preconceived notions about what the result will be. We want to work with our local government partners and have them help us determine what the result will be, and that's precisely what will happen in this case.

Section 37 approved.

On section 38.

L. Krog: If the minister could explain the effect of section 38.

[1505]

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the narrow purpose of the particular section the member asks about is to ensure that the director of finance must, in a report to council, set out objectives and policies for each year in relation to the use of tax exemptions for eligible not-for-profit properties under this new section 396F. More generally, what we're doing with this legislation is that we are amending the Vancouver Charter to allow the city of Vancouver to provide permissive tax exemptions on part or all of the land and improvements owned or held by local charitable, philanthropic or other not-for-profit organizations such as legions.

Sections 38 to 40 inclusive approved.

On section 41.

N. Macdonald: This is a reorganization. The minister and I had a discussion on it. Essentially, this is, as I understand it, the forest renewal money. It's being reallocated into a form that is going to broaden the scope of the funds that were still in forest renewal.

The question I have for the minister, just to put it on record, the amount of money that we're talking about here, if this is the appropriate section, and the changes, the necessity for the changes…. There's quite a lot in here, but if the minister could characterize those changes and the amount of money that we're talking about and the purpose for the reorganization of these funds.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the amount of money is approximately $14 million, and as the member and I discussed the other day, that amount varies to some extent because we're talking about loan proceeds. We're talking about money that was loaned out under the Forest Renewal B.C. program and has been out there, and that is being repaid. So the amount does fluctuate to some extent. My advice is that it's approximately $14 million now that is sitting idle, essentially because of lower uptake on these loans than what Community Futures expected.
[ Page 6065 ]

I think the member wanted me just to give a little bit of context for why we're doing this and what we're doing. Essentially, what we're doing is we're transferring the responsibility for the administration of the — and this is a term of art — forest community business loans program, that portfolio, to this ministry, the Ministry of Community and Rural Development.

This legislation will authorize the ministry to expand the program's lending terms beyond the forest sector to a wider range of sectors, and that includes aquaculture, clean and renewable energy, innovative development and use of technology, manufacturing and tourism.

These loans will still be available to the forest sector in the same communities that they are available today. I think there are something like 33 Community Futures Development Corp. offices involved here and six aboriginal development corporations that have responsibility for disbursing these loans.

So they will have more latitude in terms of where the money is loaned out. Otherwise, our concern is, based on the evidence, that that money is going to sit there and not be able to get out and help our rural communities. So that's the basis of the legislation.

N. Macdonald: Just one final question then, just to paraphrase what the minister has expressed here. People on the ground that would be going for these loans would not notice an administrative difference. All that they would notice is that the types of loans that will be offered have been broadened. But in terms of how they would apply, all of those processes would remain very familiar to people. If that's correct, then I think that will be the end of the questions on this section.

[1510]

Hon. B. Bennett: To answer the member's question, the only thing that will change with this legislation is the terms of reference for what kinds of enterprises will be successful in getting loan funds. Now, under the current legislation, it's limited to forestry-based or forestry-related enterprises. That scope will expand so that the Community Futures offices and the aboriginal offices, the development corporations, will be able to choose — for example, in the member's riding, tourism enterprises, tourism projects as opposed to simply forestry projects.

I will tell the member that although this is not in the legislation, I am advised by staff that the loan amounts will also be able to be higher than they have been in the past. I think the limit right now is $75,000. The proposal will be to the lenders that they go as high as $150,000 — again, thinking that that's going to enable more economic development, more job creation, in rural B.C.

Section 41 approved.

On section 42.

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister can just confirm that presently, the use of video cameras in the school system in the province…. If she could just comment on it. How extensive is it? Does she have any knowledge of it? Is it permitted, presumably, under the statute already?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: First, I'd like to say that with me today from the Ministry of Education are Sherri Mohoruk, superintendent, liaison division; and Mary Shaw, who is the manager of governance and legislation and also registrar of student appeals in the student appeals branch.

[1515]

We missed the last few words of what the member said, but I'll answer the part that I did hear. Then if I've missed part of his question, he could let us know. All three of us missed it, unfortunately — the last few words.

But with respect to the… Prior to the legislation we're aware that…. We actually surveyed the school districts. We did not hear back from all the districts, but of those that we had replies from, 36 of the districts have policies in place regarding video surveillance, but in fact 26 of the districts have video surveillance cameras in operation in some of their schools at this time.

L. Krog: I'm sure the member for Skeena will be able to tell me the number of school districts in the province of British Columbia.

So approximately half of the school districts in the province of British Columbia have cameras already installed now. Is the minister satisfied that the use of those cameras is, in fact, presently permissible under the School Act, or is that the reason for this statutory change?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The current use of video surveillance cameras is governed under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. It would continue to be governed under that after the legislation, should the legislation pass.

L. Krog: Given that we've got half of the districts using video surveillance cameras and half not using them, was this legislative amendment a request through the B.C. School Trustees? Was it a request from the school districts? I mean, where does this come from? I must say to the minister that on our side of the House we're not aware of any public outcry or demand from any sources for this legislative amendment.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This was an election platform commitment. We had heard from parents that they would like to have the option to have video surveillance equipment installed in schools if they believed it would add to the safety of their children.
[ Page 6066 ]

L. Krog: I want to thank the minister for her answer. As I recall, it was a campaign commitment in writing that the Liberal government wouldn't institute the HST, and that campaign commitment seemed to go by the wayside and meet with what I think can be fairly described as a significant public opposition to that position.

Is the minister telling this House that the real reason — indeed, it appears to be the only reason — that this legislative amendment is before the House is because in some obscure part of the Liberal platform a commitment was made to basically give government sanction to the installation of video surveillance cameras across the B.C. school system?

[1520]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We previously had a situation where school boards were making the decision about video surveillance cameras in isolation, and we heard from parents that they would like the option to have input.

Further, through the use of school planning councils, it will not only be parents that will have a voice, but it will also be the principal, teachers and, in the case of secondary schools, students, as well, that will have a voice.

We certainly do support parents. We think that parents are an integral part of the school community and that it is important for them to have a voice where they wish to.

L. Krog: This amendment falls into the section of the School Act that's defined as division 2, "Powers and Duties."

The concept that a board, with the approval of a school planning council, which may or may not be functioning very well, is in a position to have cameras installed in the school facility means, as I see no restriction on this, that in theory — and I'm asking the minister to comment on this — in our wonderful democratic system, as we can elect anyone…. A school board could in theory install cameras in a grade 1 classroom.

The way I read this legislation, it literally gives the authority to a school board to install video surveillance cameras in a grade 1 classroom.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The current status is that a school board is governed by current legislation, by freedom-of-information and privacy legislation. The change here is that if a board was contemplating video surveillance cameras or if a school planning council requested it, the consultation has to take place.

There are clear indications for when these surveillance cameras could be installed. A board may install and operate a camera in a school facility or on school land for the purposes of protecting the safety of individuals in a school facility, an individual's belongings or school property.

So there are specifics in the legislation that talk about the circumstances under which a surveillance camera…. But the main difference between the current state and the legislation is that the school planning council now must be consulted with.

L. Krog: I think I heard the minister in a somewhat lengthy way give a yes to my last question. She talked and referred to the purposes of protecting, and she's quite right. The legislation is specific. It said you may install them "for the purposes of protecting (a) the safety of individuals in a school facility or on school land."

If there's regular bullying and beating going on behind the backstop at the school, we'd want to stop that. But this section, with great respect to the minister, I would suggest…. When we get to section (b), it says: "an individual's belongings in a school facility or on school land." It means, quite literally, that if Jane is stealing Dick's lunch, you get to install a camera.

That, I would respectfully suggest to the minister, is the literal and appropriate legal interpretation of this section. If there is a mass of stealing lunches in grade 2…. In the law you always try and look at the most extreme cases. That's why law is drawn narrowly. That's literally what that section says. Does the minister agree or disagree?

[1525]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Although he does not seem to be taking this matter very seriously, I believe that the boards of education involved as well as the school planning councils would, in fact, take the video surveillance camera issue very seriously and would contemplate carefully the use of these cameras and would do it wisely. There's no indication that they're doing other than that at present.

Although, as I've said, he seems to be trivializing it, I'm very doubtful that either the boards of education or the school planning councils, both of whom would be involved in the decision-making, would take this anything other than seriously.

L. Krog: I'm somewhat disappointed that the minister would suggest that the protection of privacy in our society is trivializing — the government's view of this legislation, as it's proposed. There is a time to use a sledgehammer, and there is a time to use a fly swatter. What this legislation is giving is the power to school boards, if a school planning council consents to it, for the installation of cameras in literally every room in a school.

Now, I'm not going to suggest for a moment that you're going to have school boards across this province or school planning councils in every district doing that. But the fact is that when you open up the door in this way and, with great respect to the minister, for what is the most trivial of excuses that I've heard for legislation, which is simply that it was in the campaign platform and some parent advisory councils and school planning councils requested it….
[ Page 6067 ]

With the greatest respect to the minister, why are we doing this? What great mischief is going to be remedied by the passage of this section?

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Can the minister tell me: has the B.C. School Trustees Association, the governing body of the school districts of this province…? Does she have a letter she can produce in this House today that says they approve of and request and want this legislation, or a letter even remotely resembling any of the things I suggested might be in such a letter?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: From the president of the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils. She stated that people seem to think that this is something new, but in fact, it isn't. She stated: "I think it's better than what we had, and I would prefer that parents have at least some input, which we did not have before."

The president of the B.C. School Trustees Association, Connie Denesiuk, stated that Bill 20 is not going to lead to more cameras in schools. Instead, it adds another step to the process by giving input to school planning councils.

The BCSTA general counsel, Judith Clark, stated:

"The amendments are helpful to boards that decide to establish video surveillance systems in schools in that they specifically authorize boards to collect information about students in this way, for the stated purpose of protecting individuals' safety, personal belongings and school property, in schools and on school grounds. The amendments also limit the authority of boards and principals by requiring approval of the school planning council before cameras can be installed in a school or on school property."

L. Krog: I don't think I heard a letter from the School Trustees Association saying that they thought this was a good idea or requesting it. So I come back to this.

[1530]

Apart from the fact that you have some school planning councils who have some interest in this…. We know that the school planning councils aren't working that well. Indeed, there are schools that don't have them. We know that teachers aren't participating.

Given all those circumstances, did the minister, before this was prepared for approval by cabinet, consult widely with school districts, with the BCTF, with the school planning councils, with educators generally? Did she engage in some kind of process apart from the insertion of something to this effect in the B.C. Liberal Party platform?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: What this legislation does is actually put into place consultation that wasn't previously there. It allows for consultation. In fact, it mandates consultation with the school planning council that previously wasn't there.

Previously boards of education could and have put video surveillance cameras in place without any consultation. They've made the decisions on their own.

In terms of the survey that we did of the districts that currently do use video surveillance cameras…. As members pointed out, it's nearly half of school districts that are currently using them. The response to us from the districts in terms of what they viewed as to be the effectiveness of the cameras was overwhelmingly positive, with many school districts noticing less damage and vandalism. We did not have any negative feedback from the districts.

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's response, but my question was about consultation before this amendment was in fact introduced. I take it from the minister's answer — which focuses on the process now, because you'll have to consult the school planning council — that there wasn't really any significant public consultation prior to the introduction of this legislation.

[1535]

I do note the minister, along with every other member of this assembly, received a letter yesterday from the Victoria Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils expressing significant concerns, setting out the policy that Victoria has adopted and asking for guiding principles.

These include ensuring that consultation processes used are thorough, adequate and appropriate in the circumstances; ensuring that there is a compelling reason for each deployment; ensuring that video surveillance is only used after all other reasonable and less invasive alternatives have been considered; ensuring that deployment is for a time frame realistically tied to the problem that led to the deployment; ensuring that video surveillance records are secure and that access is severely restricted; and ensuring that reporting procedures are designed to build empirical evidence.

I'm just wondering — as I have no doubt that the minister read that letter before today: does she have any comment on the principles that have been suggested by the parent advisory councils? If so, why not consider ensuring that those in fact are the principles, assuming this legislation passes?

V. Huntington: I seek leave to make an introduction, Madam Chair.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

V. Huntington: I have great pleasure in introducing 27 grade 5 students from Hawthorne Elementary in my riding. They are here with Miss Grace Yan, their school teacher, and seven of their parents. I hope that the House makes them welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I have not received that letter, I have not seen that letter, and the colleagues that are with
[ Page 6068 ]
me today have not seen the letter. But from what I could understand of what the member articulated, many of the principles that he has read from the letter are in fact embodied in many of the school district policies. Certainly they are in the legislation, the freedom-of-information and privacy-protection legislation, which already was in place to guide the use of these video surveillance cameras prior to this legislation being brought forward.

What this legislation does is to allow a school planning council to actually have a voice so that if they are opposed when a board comes forward proposing a new use of a video surveillance camera, they actually can block the use of those cameras. It's adding an extra layer of consultation and an extra step.

L. Krog: I'm somewhat surprised that the minister hasn't seen it. I thought the public affairs bureau would be working overtime — or some MLA's office. It was sent to every member of the assembly. It was sent at 9:22 a.m. yesterday.

With respect to the minister's comments, the way I understand it is that this was supposedly more consultation, more consideration. The minister would surely acknowledge, then…. If you don't have a school planning council, then, is the minister suggesting — and correct me if I'm wrong — that this legislation means: unless you have a school planning council, the board cannot install video surveillance cameras?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: That is the case. If there's not a school planning council that's up and running, then one will have to be formed, because a board would have to put that matter forward to a school planning council.

L. Krog: My reading of the legislation — and I'm not skipping ahead to section 43 yet — is that it indicates that the principles, which involve the purposes of protection that are referred to in the act, mean that if you've got cameras installed already, then those are grandfathered, so to speak. In other words, existing cameras will remain in place across the province.

[1540]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The legislation does provide for so-called grandfathering for existing cameras, but it also states that these would be subject to annual review.

Section 42 approved on division.

On section 43.

L. Krog: I'm not trying to check up on the minister's correspondence section here, but I presume she did receive the submission of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association with respect to this amendment? That's a joint submission. Has the minister received that?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Yes, I did.

L. Krog: I want to quote from paragraph 2, and this is from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the British Columbia Freedom of Information and Privacy Association:

"The BCCLA and the BCFIPA urge the Legislative Assembly not to pass the school surveillance amendments. We submit that the amendments are not needed, that they lower the standard for justification of video surveillance in schools and that the facilitation of increased video surveillance in schools undermines the democratic values that public schools should exemplify."

They go on to say in paragraph 4, and I think it quite appropriate:

"The BCCLA and the BCFIPA are concerned that this steep downgrading of the need for justification for introducing video surveillance in schools — from a demonstration of necessity to the mere ostensible aim of providing safety or property protection — is (a) part of the creeping repeal of FOIPPA that is undermining the citizens' privacy protections in a range of areas, and (b) apt to facilitate an unwarranted and harmful increase in video surveillance in schools."

I wonder if the minister can advise the House: was any reaction sought from the Information and Privacy Commissioner's office?

[1545]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We certainly know that districts have worked with the Privacy Commissioner in the past in assessing the implications of using video surveillance, and we have no reason to think that they will do other than that in the future.

The intent of this section is not to replace the previous procedures from boards but rather to add a new level of accountability. The head of the B.C. School Trustees Association, the president, has certainly stated her view that Bill 20 will not lead to more cameras in schools but rather adds another step in the process by giving input and, in fact, a veto to school planning councils.

L. Krog: Of course, the school planning councils are hardly what one would call democratic. In a high school they're made up of the school principal, three parent volunteers, one teacher representative and one student representative. In elementary schools, I believe, you don't even have the student representative. That's the democratic forum that will be able to make the request to the board to install the video surveillance camera in the grade 1 classroom to ensure that Sally doesn't steal Dick's lunch.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association has argued — and I'd be interested in hearing the minister's comments, as I'm sure she sought legal advice in this matter — that the potential effect of this is to indeed lower the standard that exists under FOIPPA now, that it provides a specific statutory provision, and that as long as a board in its wisdom decides that an individual's belongings have to be protected, you can install these and therefore bypass the existing legislation and protection under the information and privacy act.
[ Page 6069 ]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: With respect to the composition of the school planning council, in fact, they are democratically elected. The parents are elected by the parent advisory committee. Every parent of a child in the school is able to have a vote, if they wish to, for who will represent them on the school planning council.

With respect to what will govern the use of the video surveillance cameras, they will continue to be governed under the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation that's currently in effect. It will continue to be in effect.

L. Krog: I just want to hear it again from the minister, just to make sure. What she's saying to the House is that, notwithstanding the specific provisions in sections 42 and 43 of this bill, FOIPPA will still govern and that this will not provide a reduction in the standard, which is exactly the point of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association's fairly lengthy and, I might say, cogent presentation.

[1550]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Yes, the Freedom of Information Act still applies. In terms of what this legislation does, it actually provides some limits for boards, because there most likely will be cases where school planning councils will say that they do not wish to have video surveillance cameras in cases where the board is considering it.

The Chair: Would members please take their seats so the division members can be counted.

[1555]

Section 43 approved on the following division:

On section 44.

The Chair: We'll wait a moment until the chamber is empty.

[1600]

L. Krog: This section applies specifically to the Francophone Education Authority. I'm just wondering: were they specifically consulted on this, and did they provide their position to the minister?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: What this section does is make the previous legislation actually apply to the CSF. As mentioned previously, what the legislation does is add a consultative process through the school planning council that wasn't previously present.

L. Krog: I hope it's not the soft voice, but my question was, quite specifically: did the minister or the ministry consult with the Francophone Education Authority with respect to this section? In other words, did they request that these surveillance provisions apply to them as well?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Again, what the legislation does is make…. For the francophone parents, they will have the same ability for consultation as the anglophone parents through school planning councils. That's the point of this section of the legislation.

[1605]

As we did with the other school districts, we did survey the CSF and found that they were currently installing video surveillance cameras in two of their schools. That's underway at present.

L. Krog: I take it from the minister that there was a survey done, but what I'm asking is: was the Francophone Education Authority asked specifically if they approved of or supported this legislation?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: As I've said, this legislation was developed based on our election platform. The specific promise that we made there was with respect to parents
[ Page 6070 ]
— that we'd heard from parents that they would like to have a voice with respect to the video surveillance.

We certainly believe that parents are an integral part of the school community and that they should be able to have a say. That is what is additionally added for both francophone and anglophone parents.

Specifically, to the member opposite, we did not consult with school boards when we were preparing this legislation.

L. Krog: My question was specifically with respect to the Francophone Education Authority. The minister's answer was to school boards generally. I take it that answer applies to the school boards of British Columbia. In other words, they were not consulted specifically with respect to this legislation.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: As I've said, this legislation specifically is to allow school planning councils to have a say where they previously did not, where decisions about video surveillance cameras were made by boards. The consultation process now has to include school planning councils, and we did not discuss this with the CSF.

L. Krog: With great respect to the minister, the desire to keep the information private is quite remarkable to me. I mean, this is…. Regardless of what the minister may characterize as simply being a tool or an opportunity for schools and students and parents to have a say now in the installation of video surveillance cameras, it is in fact a step down the road to further surveillance in our society, which is an increasing problem around the privacy issue.

I would have thought that rather than implement this legislation, there would have been at least some consideration given to the issues of privacy, as opposed to the concerns of parents — some parents, I might add, some PACs, some school planning councils — to the concerns that have been raised by the opposition.

I'm going to assume that given the nature of this section…. I'm not sure where it fits in the School Act. Is there at least existing provision so that regulations can be approved by cabinet, which is the last thing I generally like to see, that might in fact limit the application of this section or provide some guidelines, as discussed in my earlier line of questioning?

[1610]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The Freedom of Information Act still applies, as it did prior to this legislation. We know that boards previously worked with the Privacy Commissioner, and we expect that they will continue to do that in the case where they're considering installing new video surveillance cameras.

Section 44 approved on division.

Sections 45 and 46 approved.

The Chair: Minister, do you want to get your staff?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Yes, please.

Before we begin questioning on this portion of the bill, I would like to introduce Paul Wieringa, who is my acting ADM for oil and gas, on my right, as well as Michael Rensing, who is the manager of renewables in the ministry.

On section 47.

R. Fleming: This part of the miscellaneous bill is an opportunity for the government to get the low-carbon fuel standard right. What I mean by right is actually plausibly achieving the goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuel by 10 percent by 2020.

The government is aware of a number of reports that cast doubt on some of the flaws in the legislation. There has been a comparison in some detail between B.C.'s low-carbon fuel standard and California's. The differences come down to how carbon intensity in the fuel is measured, the source and the reporting out of suppliers.

[1615]

There are obviously very high-carbon-intensity sources of crude oil and conventional crude sources that are not as high. One of the problems in our low-carbon fuel standard is that there is not adequate accounting for that and a reconciliation in the legislation.

We have an example of better legislation in California where this is done. The fluctuations of the carbon content of certain types of oil can be as great as 40 percent. The problem with the legislation as it's drafted now is that in striving to achieve a 10 percent reduction in carbon intensity from fuels by having a biofuel additive, if the source of the crude is of a high-carbon intensity — and I'm, of course, speaking of sources from our dear neighbour here at this point in time — then the fuel standard could be completely counterproductive, and it raises the prospect of completely misrepresenting the emissions savings.

What I would like to do is propose an amendment to the definitions of this section of the renewable and low-carbon fuel requirement act by adding a new definition that reads….

The Chair: Member, this comes after section 47.

R. Fleming: Okay.

Section 47 approved.

R. Fleming: I would like to add, as subsection (1) at this portion of the bill, a new definition that reads — and I've given a copy to the minister:
[ Page 6071 ]

[Section 47:

By adding a new section numbered 47.1 that reads "Section 1 of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act S.B.C. 2008, c.16, is amended by adding a new definition that reads 'High carbon intensity crude oil' means any crude oil that has a total production and transport carbon-intensity value greater than 15.00 grams of carbon dioxide equivalence per Mega-Joule."]

I move that amendment.

On the amendment.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The amendment you've put forward is unnecessary. We actually already incorporate the oil sands. It's already calculated in our baseline number. So I think that's where the member is looking at. I'm guessing that's where he was referring. He talked about our neighbour to the east, and I think he's talking about the oil sands probably. I would let him clarify that, but it's already utilized in our calculation of our baseline number.

Amendment negatived.

On section 48.

J. Horgan: I'm wondering if the minister can explain to the House…. The changes in section 48 seem to me to push forward or bring back compliance periods previous and next. Can the minister explain how that balances out over a calendar year, or is it a fiscal year? How is that calculated?

[1620]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It is based on a calendar year, Member, and what it does is allow for…. If there was an overcompliance in one year, they could use a portion of that overcompliance the following year to meet their numbers. Likewise, if there was an undercompliance in year 1, they could actually, in year 2, achieve that by overcomplying in year 2.

J. Horgan: Did suppliers raise this issue with the ministry? Were they concerned about balancing out year over year or compliance period over compliance period, or was this amendment driven by the ministry staff?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This amendment was a result of significant consultation with the fuel suppliers themselves to talk about how we could ensure that we could meet these standards and these numbers.

J. Horgan: So the consultation that took place, initiated by the supplier or the ministry, was a result of some concern that the existing statute was less flexible than it could have been or should have been, and is that the rationale for the change?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The flexibility was built in so that the suppliers could meet their numbers, as I said. For example, there may be a global disruption in the supply for what they needed for their fuel to meet these standards at the end of one year, so they may not have met it there. The carryover to the next year would allow them to actually meet their numbers through overcompliance in the case of the way I've just explained it.

J. Horgan: I don't see, in these miscellaneous amendments, but perhaps with staff available…. Is it anticipated that suppliers can continue to miss targets year after year after year provided they're able to push that forward? Is there any…? Do you get three strikes, two strikes, one strike? How many misses do you get before you're called on the carpet?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, you can only carry forward for one year or utilize from the one year back to bring yourself into compliance.

Section 48 approved.

On section 49.

R. Fleming: Again, in the low-carbon fuel standard there is a flaw that has been discussed at length in 2008 when we debated the original legislation around land use and the carbon intensity of the biofuel additives to the blended fuel. While the legislation that British Columbia has does talk about some of the direct carbon inputs where biofuel is made — just looks at fertilizer use and some of those types of offsets associated with the production of the fuel — it does not account for indirect land use changes, where land is taken out of either the natural environment or the use of the land is switched.

[1625]

California's regulation, again, is more comprehensive, does force suppliers to report to government about that. It's a loophole that the opposition thinks should be addressed for the credibility of this legislation and for the achievement of the 10 percent reduction target by 2020.

So I would move an amendment at the appropriate time to deal with that and ask the minister for a comment at this time.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Again, rising to speak to the member and comment on the amendment he's put forward, I would, obviously, at this point speak against it, but for the reason that it's about indirect land use on this and utilizing it in…. I know he's studied California's model — significantly, I believe — but right now it is changing on a regular basis. There's still a great deal of work to be done on this.

I know California is changing as we speak here today. We aren't ruling it out, but at this time it is premature to look at that until further work is done, not just for
[ Page 6072 ]
British Columbia, but really California as well is doing a considerable amount of work, re-evaluating how they actually approach this.

R. Fleming: The minister is correct. California has gone quite far with this. I think in terms of the life-cycle costing of it, they have taken some appropriate steps. They have tagged on to what is called the Global Trade Analysis Project. They look at where these biofuels come from and source them from the very first stage of production. They have created their own peer-reviewed model, which I understand is administered and governed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the EPA in the U.S.

These are things that if we changed B.C.'s law…. These are governance models and peer-reviewed steps that we could take that would not make it difficult for each supplier. It would make the regulation clear. It would be able to account for indirect land use changes. It's likely that other provinces and parts of Canada may also be able to participate in that when they have legislation like this. The point really is to get it right. It is to have full carbon cycle accounting done for the fuel.

I'm going to stop speaking to it now and allow this section to pass and then maybe propose an amendment that can address that and strengthen our legislation.

Section 49 approved.

On section 50.

R. Fleming: I'd like to propose an amendment to the bill by adding a new section, numbered 49.1, that reads:

[Section 49:

By adding a new section numbered 49.1 that reads "Section 6 of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) is amended by adding a new subsection that reads '(6) Beginning in the second compliance period, and for subsequent compliance periods, a Part 3 fuel supplier must apply an estimate of indirect land use impacts to the determination of the carbon intensity for biodiesel fuel and ethanol.'"]

On the amendment.

[1630]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Having just spoken briefly on this and knowing the intent, I'll speak against the amendment, Member, for the simple fact that you've laid out the second compliance period. We're not sure…. As I said, there's still a great deal of work ongoing on this to make sure…. And I will go back to the member's own words. We want to make sure we get it right.

We think that this amendment may be somewhat premature. We're very cognizant of the fact of what you're referring to when it comes to indirect land use on this, but I'm not sure that your amendment meets what's going to be needed here.

For that reason, I'm going to speak against it and vote against the amendment, Member.

Amendment negatived.

R. Fleming: I'd like to propose another amendment, adding a section in 49 that reads:

[Section 49:

By adding a new section numbered 49.1 that reads "Section 6 of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) is amended by adding a new subsection that reads: '(5) Beginning in the second compliance period, and for subsequent compliance periods, a Part 3 fuel supplier must identify any high carbon intensity crude oil (HCICO) that it supplies and apply a default carbon intensity developed specifically for the HCICO for the volume of each HCICO supplied in the determination of the weighted average of carbon intensities;'"]

On the amendment.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We broached this earlier. I think under 47 we spoke briefly about it. We already have this in our default calculations, what you're recommending here. Actually, when you look at it, about 48 percent of the utilized oil here in British Columbia is from our neighbours to the east oil sands. We use that in our default calculations already, Member.

[1635]

R. Fleming: This is the concern, that it already is a high content; 48 percent of the oil that's imported comes from that source. That could grow, perhaps, to three-quarters of the market. The attempt to reduce by 10 percent our emissions intensity in this sector, from transportation fuels, by 2020 would be unachievable.

While the minister says that it is accounted for, my understanding is that crude oil is in fact treated equally. Fuel suppliers are not part of a credit and deficit system when they account for where their crude comes from, unlike in California. So while it may be referenced in the legislation, it is essentially meaningless in terms of any economic incentives or disincentives to source high-carbon-intensity crude oil.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We've taken the approach, Member, that we are actually rewarding the lower-carbon-intensity fuels in British Columbia. Higher intensity — obviously, there it's the carrot and the stick. There are penalties for the people that don't comply. We think that that's the proper way to do it. The act, I think, addresses that, and we're comfortable with that.

Again, I'm not supporting the amendment you've put forward here today.

The Chair: Through the Chair, Minister, please.

Amendment negatived.
[ Page 6073 ]

J. Horgan: Similar to the questions I had for the minister on section 48, can the minister give his assurance that the passing forward and backward of emissions compliance periods is similar — that there will be one forward, one back, and that's it?

[1640]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Section 47 dealt with part 2, which was renewable fuels. That was a one-year carry-forward, or utilizing overcompliance in the year out to meet your undercompliance in the first year. Part 3 deals with the low-carbon fuel. This one — there is no back-carrying. But what you can do, if you overcomply this year, is carry forward that overcompliance for up to three years. What you can't do is if you undercomply this year, you don't have the luxury, under part 3, as a part 3 fuel supplier, of saying: "I'll overcomply next year."

J. Horgan: Was the consultation that the minister referred to with respect to section 48 also conducted with respect to section 50? And why did the minister make the period of grace or moving forward three years — not two, not five?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We did consult, Member. This is truly a housekeeping issue. What happened before is that they couldn't carry forward their own overcompliance or credits. They didn't have that ability. They had to get rid of those. They could carry forward credits that they purchased. So this is really a housekeeping issue that allows them to carry forward their own good work, really, or overcompliance.

Section 50 approved.

On section 51.

J. Horgan: I'm reading in the explanatory note for section 51: "…requires fuel suppliers to advise purchasers of the renewable fuel content of fuel by posting labels or giving notice." I'm wondering why we didn't put that in the original renewable and low-carbon fuel requirements — why we are adding that today.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: In our discussions with industry it became clear that if we didn't enshrine this, it wouldn't be uniformly dealt with across. We think that the labelling is extremely important; thus, we've put it in the act.

J. Horgan: I agree with the minister that labelling is vitally important to this initiative, and that's why I'm curious as to how it got through the first time. Maybe it was the haste with which that legislation was passed.

With that, I'll let section 51 go by.

[1645]

Section 51 approved.

On section 52.

J. Horgan: Those who just said "Aye" clearly haven't seen section 52 because we would never….

Interjections.

J. Horgan: It's one of those moments when I wish we could use props so that members in the gallery and people watching at home could understand what it is we're doing here with section 52.

What it does is it "corrects the formula for calculating automatic administrative penalties when carbon intensity requirements for fuel are not met for a compliance period." We've just been discussing compliance periods in previous sections where some compliance can be put forward and some compliance can be brought back. That in and of itself is interesting, but nothing in my time, my five years as a legislator, has prepared me for section 52 and the mathematic formula. Or I guess it wouldn't even be a mathematic formula, would it?

It is a formula, and I don't know how to describe this. I'm looking at my colleague from Nanaimo, who suggests that rather than me explaining what we have here in section 52, why don't I just ask the minister to do that on my behalf? Could the minister advise the House how it is we came to the formula described in section 52? Mindful of the time, Minister, perhaps you could do it quickly.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I, too, wish I could use props at this point, Member.

This calculation is similar to California. The only change we're making on this one is that we're making now the EER portion of the formula, which is being added, which is the energy efficiency ratio. The energy efficiency ratio is utilized to calculate the difference between a gasoline vehicle and a vehicle powered by another source, whether that be an electric vehicle, a diesel vehicle, or so on.

J. Horgan: As there is an administrative penalty as a result of this section, and we're trying to correct the formula for calculating an automatic administrative penalty, I think, although the minister made a valiant effort there, perhaps I'll explain to those in the gallery who are now on the edge of their seats, I can see, anxious to learn more about the formula contained in section 52.

I thought it might have been the secret to the universe, but the answer is not 43. So it can't be that. For those paying attention — I know my friend from Cowichan Valley is — the formula goes as follows. The administrative penalty equals — large bracket, small bracket — actual CI minus required CI, keeping in mind that the actual CI is the weighted average of the carbon intensi-
[ Page 6074 ]
ties of the part 3 fuels supplied in the part 3 fuel supplier in the compliance period before taking into account notional emissions under section 8.

[1650]

So that's the, bracket, actual CI minus the required CI, bracket, times the sum of, bracket, EER times EC for each fuel, bracket, over one million, minus the NE credit plus the NE increase equals times PR.

I think I've done a fairly adequate job. I know I'm getting nods from the Minister of Mines, and those in the gallery now have a fuller understanding of the important work at committee stage here on a miscellaneous amendment bill.

But let me go back to the beginning of the equation, and perhaps the minister could just start there. The administrative penalty is the concern. Although I'm interested in how we arrive at it, perhaps we could just explain what we're going to do with that penalty as a result of this amendment.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The administrative penalty, as you said…. I won't go into the detail. I want to commend the member for his fine reading ability on reading that formula.

The administrative penalty is based on the actual CI — what you have, what will go out, because this is a complicated formula, in all seriousness — then what your required CI was supposed to be. Then we apply the formula that the member rightly read out, and based on the penalty rate, which is being established in regulation, it is applied. The penalties will vary based on your compliance. If your actual CI is significantly less than required, you would be impacted to a greater degree than if you were very close, for example. So the administrative penalty varies with your compliance.

J. Horgan: That's a good job, Minister. My hat is off to you.

The penalty rate, which is at the end of the equation, is set by regulation. Can the minister advise what that penalty rate is today?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We do not have that rate set today. We are working on it, but I can assure the member that once it is, obviously it will be well known. The key here is that it will be set at a significant rate that will ensure compliance. It would certainly be pointless, I think, to have a penalty that didn't ensure that.

J. Horgan: We certainly don't want to be pointless in our work here, so I agree with the minister on that. As we go through section 52, we have some definitions of what the EER, the EC, the NE and the various other acronyms are. That's well outlined.

But I want to talk about the "notional emissions increased under section 8," which is at the very end of section 52. It goes as follows: "…means the net amount in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions transferred by or to the Part 3 fuel supplier under section 8 that the Part 3 fuel supplier must apply under section 8" — and so on for the compliance period.

[1655]

I'm asking this because when we get to section 53, we determine when an administrative penalty will be issued. It's on a compliance date, and I'm confused, based on the previous sections. If we can move forward our compliance periods, then how do we set when the administrative penalty will be due?

I'm actually dealing with sections 52 and 53, I suppose, at the same time.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: There are two things, Member. As we go to section 53, I think we could explain that section a little better.

On the notional emissions increased under section 8, the issue that you're talking about, that notional transfer can only be used within the same compliance year. Section 53, and we're going to move to that, deals with should a company not supply a compliance report. But we can address that under section 53.

Section 52 approved.

On section 53.

J. Horgan: If the minister could just continue on with the answer he was about to propose for section 53, I think we can fly through the rest of these.

[1700]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What section 53 does is that if a company doesn't submit a report…. Let's just say three months passes, lapses, and then they submit their report. We find out that they're out of compliance. Previously you could only apply the penalty from that date forward. What this does is correct that and move it back to the start of compliance, based on the reporting period. So it's a correction.

Sections 53 to 61 inclusive approved.

On section 62.

J. Horgan: I thank the Minister of Energy, Mines and his staff for their time, and I welcome of Minister of State for Mining and his staff.

To a number of sections in this miscellaneous statutes amendment act that deal with the Mineral Tenure Act. My first question to the minister with respect to section 62 would be: what consultation did the minister and ministry undertake before proposing these miscellaneous amendments?
[ Page 6075 ]

Hon. R. Hawes: In order to put these amendments or these changes together, we consulted with AMEBC, Kamloops Exploration Group, Smithers Exploration Group, the Chamber of Mines of Eastern B.C. in Cranbrook, Vancouver Island Exploration Group, Boundary Mining Association and the Cariboo Mining Association.

J. Horgan: I'm sorry. If the minister said it, I missed it. Did he include the Mining Association of British Columbia?

Hon. R. Hawes: The mineral titles industry advisory group has representation from MABC.

Sections 62 to 64 inclusive approved.

On section 65.

J. Horgan: In this section the explanatory note speaks of ranking. It ranks the terms or conditions that may be imposed in respect to a mineral reserve and provides that if mineral reserves overlap each other and the terms and conditions are inconsistent with each other, those having the highest rank prevail.

Can the minister advise how staff and legislative drafters came up with that hierarchy, and the impact of section 65?

Hon. R. Hawes: In the past the ranking has always been done just as a practice, but it was never set in writing. This does establish it in writing. Clearly, for example, an absolute prohibition on mining would be the highest priority. So it's ranked in the priority that would actually occur on the land base when you're dealing with these four conditions.

J. Horgan: Again, this is a miscellaneous amendment act, and it changes and amends numerous acts in the process. When I look at the Mineral Tenure Act, section 22, and I look at section 65 of this bill, I see prohibitions, reserves being established and retroactivity.

[1705]

I'm wondering again. Perhaps the minister will take the opportunity to be a bit more fulsome in explaining why it is that this amendment is coming forward today. Who asked for it, and why is it being proposed?

Hon. R. Hawes: This is a staff request that reflects how they actually operate on the ground. This does provide some clarity to staff. It was a staff request, and it's an operational change.

J. Horgan: Was that staff request put to the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C. or the Mining Association of B.C. for their comment?

Hon. R. Hawes: No, there was not consultation on this particular change, but it is considered to be a minor amendment. It does reflect the practice that has been actually on the ground.

Sections 65 and 66 approved.

On section 67.

J. Horgan: I realize that we're pressed for time, but again, in my discussions with the mining association and AMEBC, they're concerned that amendments to section 42 have been brought forward without adequate consultation from their perspective.

I'm wondering, again. Very rarely do we see changes to the Mineral Tenure Act outside of miscellaneous amendments. The previous discussion on section 65 was a classic example of staff trying to put and codify the practice that they find on a daily basis in the field and in the office.

But in this instance the issuing of a mining lease is the issue. Those that are on the ground with dollars invested are concerned that they would of, ought of, should have been consulted on this. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on that.

Hon. R. Hawes: We had at first looked at this as a fairly minor amendment. But you're correct. The Mining Association of British Columbia weren't sure, and they wanted some time to look at it. As the member may note, there is an amendment on the order paper that would bring these sections into force by order. That would give us time to do the consultation with MABC, which we intend to do.

J. Horgan: Well, I'm looking through the order paper for the amendment that the minister's referring to. Perhaps he can help me. I see numerous efforts on behalf of the member for North Coast to strengthen and protect ferry users. I don't see anything in the name of the minister of state.

I see something in the name of the Minister of Energy and Mines with respect to the Clean Energy Act, but I see nothing on Bill 20. So perhaps if the Chair could assist.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: I thought that the amendment in the name of the Government House Leader was to do with the child representative, and I just assumed it wasn't to do with the Mineral Tenure Act.

Then could the minister explain, in his discussions with the mining association, how they've responded to this being enacted by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — or, in essence, by cabinet? Is that preferable to the Legislature?
[ Page 6076 ]

Hon. R. Hawes: In fact, even today I've had discussions with Mr. Gratton, the head of MABC, who has again expressed great satisfaction that we're moving in this direction.

[1710]

He's very pleased that now we are going to have a consultation. He does agree that this may be a minor change that doesn't really have big impact, but he does want the time to do the consultation, and he's quite pleased that we're doing it this way.

J. Horgan: Clearly, the minister has spoken to Mr. Gratton more recently than I have. Perhaps he could advise me what the extent of the consultation will be before cabinet runs this through.

Hon. R. Hawes: We will be talking to MABC about what their objections are. If their objections were very strong, of course, and if there was a compelling reason that we shouldn't proceed with this, we would consider that. But I would suggest that this would be put through when we have satisfactorily concluded our consultation. I am quite confident that it'll be concluded in a mutually satisfactory way between the government and MABC.

J. Horgan: Again, in my consultation on this section, I'm getting a different message than the minister. If I understood him correctly, hon. Chair, what he's telling the House is that he's agreed to sit down with the mining association. The minor amendments that the government refers to are significant amendments in the eyes of the mining association.

In terms of the time frame, has the minister laid out a period of time for these discussions? Has he committed to starting next week? Has he committed to this moving forward by regulation, by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, by a certain date? Or is it open-ended?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. R. Hawes: It is open-ended in terms of…. We have not set a date. I can tell you that the government meets on an extremely regular basis, sometimes daily, with MABC. We have an excellent relationship. The rapport is very, very strong. We're working on a number of issues, including their great support for the HST initiative, as the member would know.

I would suggest that perhaps my conversation with MABC is more recent than the member's and, I think, on a much more frequent basis. I'm very, very confident, given the relationship that the government has with MABC, that we will reach a very satisfactory conclusion to this.

J. Horgan: Well, I'm pleased that there's confidence in the minister's voice. When the Mining Association of B.C. talked to me, they said they'd never heard of these amendments. They didn't know what I was talking about. I had to direct them to the order paper so that they knew what the bill was all about. This daily contact clearly wasn't sufficient to bring these issues before the leadership of the mining association.

I suppose now we can take the minister at his word that he will get around to it sometime in the future. A specific question: have you set a finite date before you ram this through without consultation? Are you going to take six months, 12 months? How long is it going to take?

The Chair: Member, the use of "you" is not appropriate.

Hon. R. Hawes: First and foremost, we don't ram things through. We are on a very, very…. We have a good relationship with MABC.

MABC are taking a look at this themselves. Once they have concluded their analysis of this, they will get back to us, and that's when we will begin discussions. But MABC has not yet concluded its own internal consultation, which they are doing right now. I suspect that they will come to the same conclusion as us — that this is not a major amendment.

Sections 67 to 73 inclusive approved.

On section 74.

J. Horgan: I'm wondering if the Minister of Energy and Mines would wrap up this section so that it's got a nice bow around it. Can he give an indication as to why we've decided that this would be going to December 31 and may be made retroactive to January 1, 2010? We've got a December 31, 2010, date that may be made retroactive. Could he just give a comment on that?

[1715]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What this does is allow the retroactivity for part 2 and part 3 fuel suppliers on administrative penalties for retroactivity.

Section 74 approved.

On section 75.

L. Krog: I suspect the minister might want his staff.

Hon. J. Yap: I would like to introduce some staff who have joined me. We have Alicen Chow, Laura Lapp and Lee Thiessen from the ministry who have joined us to canvass the next sections of this act.

L. Krog: This adds the definition of a contingency account, a fairly technical amendment. I'm wondering
[ Page 6077 ]
why we have to add a definition. Was it missed in the first act? Has it been discovered that it's not going to work without it?

Hon. J. Yap: The point of this contingency account is to allow for the potential possibility of acts of God that might lead to the collapse of offsets, of projects that have been established. It's important to have a contingency account as a mechanism to provide for these potential events.

Sections 75 to 77 inclusive approved.

On section 78.

L. Krog: I would be delighted to hear the minister explain the effect of section 78 after hearing his previous explanation.

Hon. J. Yap: This establishes the mechanism through which we provide a way for government to manage the risk associated with offsets using a portfolio approach.

L. Krog: I think the explanation was shorter than the actual section. Again to the minister: how does this fit in the scheme of compliance? The explanatory section refers to that it "provides that the compliance unit tracking system may include one or more contingency accounts."

Can the minister explain how contingency accounts figure in this and what exactly this section means to the average person? Just think of me not as an opposition critic but some poor, innocent person sitting in their living room in Dawson Creek as we speak and listening to this and asking: "What does this mean?"

[1720]

Hon. J. Yap: The intent here is to allow for the addition of additional contingency units. For example, if an offset project were to provide 100 units of offset credits, we would require, say, 105 units.

Over the course of a portfolio with many such projects, 105 — with the five being the additional amount, the contingency amount…. This gives us the opportunity to be able to meet the potential should, say, an act of God happen in an offset project, such as a forestry project. If there's a fire and there's shrinkage in the amount of trees that were credited for reducing carbon, we would have this contingency account that would allow us to prepare for that.

L. Krog: I think I heard the minister say that this is the "get out of jail free" card for the government. Is that simply the way I can put it? This is the option? This gets you past the problem? This is a way to wiggle out of the actual provisions of the act so that we've got a contingency fund? Is that essentially what he's saying?

Hon. J. Yap: This is really a backstop to ensure that in the event there is some kind of catastrophe or act of God, we would have, within a contingency account, sufficient units in the contingency to cover the potential risk of such an event, should it occur. In effect, we're saying that for a hundred units — hypothetically, through this contingency — we would require 105. This ensures that we would have — over the course of a portfolio of offsets — sufficient offsets. With the offset contingency account, we'd be able to cover the risk should the need arise.

Sections 78 and 79 approved.

On section 80.

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister could explain the effect of this section and what sort of organizations we'd be talking about.

Hon. J. Yap: Organizations would include: the Standards Council of Canada, the American National Standards Institute and other members of the International Accreditation Forum.

L. Krog: This makes reference, I gather, specifically to information-sharing agreements. I guess the obvious question is: what sort of information would be shared under the terms of these kinds of agreements?

[1725]

Hon. J. Yap: This is about quality assurance to ensure that with a cap-and-trade system where we want to ensure the integrity of the information, if we have a verifier that is collecting the information and providing that assurance…. Should it come to our attention that it's somewhat lacking, we would have the ability to share this information with these accreditation organizations.

L. Krog: I'm just wondering if the minister has any concerns about this whole concept, because we're clearly considering authorizing the acceptance of verification from other jurisdictions outside of Canada. It talks about Canadian provinces and other jurisdictions outside of Canada or with an agent of any of them. So arguably speaking, it could be the equivalent to a Crown corporation for the government of Zimbabwe, and I don't think I'm far wrong in saying that.

What this provision is doing is basically saying that you can enter into agreements, and you'll then be happy to rely on the information provided by the Crown corporation in Zimbabwe that, in fact, British Petroleum, for instance, is engaging in appropriate practices to qualify for credits.

Am I understanding this section correctly? And if the minister can comment on my example.
[ Page 6078 ]

Hon. J. Yap: We are talking about emissions within British Columbia, and we are talking about jurisdictions within the Western Climate Initiative — which, as the member knows, are the 11 members, including four provinces and 11 U.S. states.

Sections 80 to 83 inclusive approved.

On section 84.

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister can just explain this particular section.

Hon. J. Yap: This section would allow the minister, through regulation, to specify the types of offsets and the descriptions regarding how to calculate the baseline for the project and project reductions and the different types of offset projects and the ongoing monitoring and risk-mitigation measures.

[1730]

L. Krog: I take it from this section — because it adds to the minister's ability, not the cabinet but the minister's ability, to make further regulations — that the minister at this point is satisfied that he doesn't have that authority under the act. Has some specific situation arisen which led to this provision being proposed?

Hon. J. Yap: This is not in the act. We're adding this, and it's absolutely needed to ensure that we have consistency in terms of projects, whether they're in British Columbia or in any other WCI jurisdiction.

Section 84 approved.

On section 85.

L. Krog: If I may, I might assist the minister in getting through this. The previous sections — 85, 86, 87 — all add significant regulatory powers to the minister's regulatory powers that exist already. So I take it that it's fair to say that what these proposals are telling the Legislature is that the act wasn't terribly well thought through. Indeed, these regulatory changes that are being proposed — are they, in fact, with respect to sections that have even been proclaimed at this point?

Hon. J. Yap: The member will recall that when this act was first brought into effect, it was really intended as a legal framework to build a carbon emissions–trading regulatory system, cap-and-trade system, with our WCI partners. Having said that, we have two sections, sections 41 and 42, that are not in force, but section 45 is in force.

L. Krog: I think I heard the minister just acknowledge in his answer in a very subtle sort of way that, in fact, we'd really created the framework, but there wasn't much substance to this. So now what we're really doing here today is actually putting some — I don't know — siding, if you will, on the house — that we really have something now which was formally just sort of a political hot-air balloon, so to speak, to solve the government's environmental problems.

[1735]

So really, what we're getting here today is an acknowledgment by these sections that the plan wasn't thought out. It hasn't really been proclaimed, and it's not terribly effective.

With those comments….

Interjection.

L. Krog: I'm delighted to hear the member for Kamloops–South Thompson entering the debate, as he always does. Whenever he enters the debate, I know I must be getting close to home, because he's the government's main defence minister, and that's delightful.

Having said that, I'm happy to see these sections, 85 through to 87, pass.

Sections 85 to 88 inclusive approved.

On section 89.

L. Krog: The minister has kindly indicated she's ready to start with the section.

The opposition is just fascinated that we have this provision amending the Tobacco Control Act before us. I assume we'll call this the…. I forget the name of the store in downtown Victoria that faced this tremendous problem.

I'm glad the government's moved on a specific revision to preserve the heritage nature of Victoria. But I must say I'm a bit surprised that given the significant concerns around smoking in the province, the minister has chosen to make this a priority, when the B.C. Cancer Society, the B.C. Healthy Living Alliance and others have all — how shall I say? — raised concerns. When we're devoted to lowering tobacco consumption, why this is a priority, as opposed to moves that would in fact limit the use of tobacco in our society….

I'd just like to know how this moved so quickly up the priorities of the ministry.

Hon. I. Chong: I know that the member will appreciate the investment that government has made with respect to dealing with the issues of tobacco use and smoking cessation. We will continue to do that.

However, currently we do have a situation whereby the Tobacco Control Act restricts the display and advertisement of tobacco and tobacco products by means of a sign or otherwise. In this particular case we have
[ Page 6079 ]
one situation, where there is the one property that the member is aware of, a heritage property. Without this amendment, it would require this business to have some considerable, I guess, renovations made to a heritage site, which is not what is desirable. It would have left the health authorities no other option, so we are bringing forward this amendment for that purpose.

I think it's fair to say that government will continue to work towards helping reduce smoking rates. That is a goal that I think all of us in this chamber would agree with.

L. Krog: Again, I'm really just wondering in terms of priorities. The groups that I've mentioned are arguing for the issues around allowing the sale of tobacco in pharmacies; subsidization of nicotine replacement therapy; provincewide bans on smoking in patios, parks, playgrounds or on provincial beaches.

Yet somehow, ahead of all those priorities which might in fact have a significant impact on the health of British Columbians, particularly non-smokers who are subject to the secondhand smoke of others…. Why are we moving this amendment and not doing something with those issues?

Hon. I. Chong: Certainly, the member is aware that we continue to work with our stakeholders and the B.C. Lung Association, the Canadian Cancer Society on a number of initiatives, as we have done in the past several years, and we will continue to do that.

In some instances, as well, there will be some changes that can be introduced by way of municipal bylaws. He mentions smoking in the playgrounds. That is a possibility that can occur as a result of local governments having authority to do so. So there are initiatives that are currently underway that can have other levels of government take on responsibilities.

[1740]

There are other issues that also required some consultation that local governments want to have more input towards, and we will continue to work with them on that.

This is a minor amendment, in the sense that it is dealing with a very specific case. There was no reason to hold this up any further. It was creating some concern within the business community, the heritage community, as well as with the health authorities, which had no other alternative but to enforce what was at that time available in legislation.

It is dealing with the one specific case that we're aware of, and it was, as I say, a miscellaneous item that we felt could be advanced at this time. But we will continue to work with our other stakeholders to ensure that we deal with reducing smoking rates wherever possible.

Section 89 approved.

On section 90.

L. Krog: As I understand it, the effect of this section, and these sections generally, is to move horse racing out of the control of the Lottery Corporation. I'm just wondering: what's the point of doing this?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I'll introduce my staff — Derek Sturko, who is the assistant deputy minister of the gaming policy and enforcement branch.

The question is pretty general, and maybe we could just work through the sections, because there are about three different issues that are being dealt with in these amendments. The first one actually deals with certificates of affiliation and gaming event licences, and it goes on to each section being a bit different.

The general question the member asked isn't properly canvassed by each section. If we could deal with the sections, maybe we could do it that way.

L. Krog: Noting the time here, I'm going to try and speed this up. I'm happy to see section 90 go, and then we go into section 91. I think that may lead to the area where the minister is going to answer my question.

Sections 90 and 91 approved.

On section 92.

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister is now prepared to talk about why we are moving control of horse racing out of the Lottery Corporation.

[1745]

Section 92 approved.

On section 93.

L. Krog: I was just waiting for the minister's answer.

Hon. R. Coleman: The only regulatory function that doesn't take place with the gaming policy and enforcement branch — and it's been this way for some time and needed to be corrected — is the collection of the horse-racing betting fee, which is today collected by BCLC. Then they give the funds to government.

Basically, it's the only regulatory function that isn't at the gaming policy enforcement branch. What we're doing is moving that regulatory function and the management of that fee to where it belongs in GPEB.

Section 93 approved.

On section 94.

L. Krog: This section makes reference to the betting fees that will be payable to government instead of the Lottery Corporation and provides for the application of the revenue.
[ Page 6080 ]

I just wonder if the minister can confirm that this is going to be divided, as it notes in this section, "firstly, by paying into the consolidated revenue fund an amount equal," etc., blah, blah, and, "secondly, by dividing between or among prescribed organizations, that the minister may recommend, in prescribed proportions, that may differ for different organizations, any balance of collected fees."

What are the organizations the minister is contemplating? With great respect, this section reserves a power unto the minister which I thought we'd taken from King John at Runnymede, which was absolute authority to take in the money and distribute it unequally to the organizations that the minister may choose or not choose.

I think the minister, in fairness, will acknowledge that this is a pretty broad discretion. What are we contemplating by this section?

Hon. R. Coleman: In moving this, they're the exact same powers that exist now. There's no change in the powers.

Basically, for the member's information, the people that would be receiving the betting fee…. The government actually doesn't make money on horse racing. It all goes back to the two breeds. It's the standardbreds; it's the thoroughbreds. There's also a small part of the industry that still operates in some of the Interior racecourses, but it's a very small piece of the amount.

Obviously, the dollars that are required to operate the tracks are part of that total package, as well, with regards to how the money is managed. It's all managed by GPEB in relationship with those organizations.

L. Krog: Just so I can understand. These organizations — are they not-for-profits? Are they for-profit organizations? Do they have shares? Do they have members? How do they operate?

Hon. R. Coleman: They're non-profit organizations that represent the two breeds particularly. There's the HBPA, which is the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association, I think it's called, which represents the thoroughbreds. There's another organization, which is the Standardbred Association and represents the standardbreds, which are the sulkies. They basically run the relationship between their breeds and government. But the purse pool and all that is managed by government, not in the hands of those organizations, so that horse racing can have some fiscal idea as to how their business can be run.

[1750]

Sections 94 to 109 inclusive approved.

On section 110.

L. Krog: This section disentitles participants in a voluntary self-exclusion program to any monetary prize or winnings. This issue was raised, actually, by a constituent of mine.

What that means is that if I've entered into the arrangement that I'm not to gamble, and I go in and gamble and I win, then I don't get the prize. That's my understanding of the effect of this section. The next question, obviously, is: who gets the money?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll just spend a second on this one. This basically specifies that a person must leave a gaming facility if requested to do so by BCLC or the service provider and must not enter the game if they have been served with written notice as per a section of the act where they've entered into the self-exclusion program.

This adds a provision to that section that disentitles the participants in a voluntary self-exclusion program to any monetary prize or winnings if they participate in gaming in a gaming facility contrary to written notice delivered to them under the section.

The reason is that basically, it is to act as a part of the deterrent to the entire self-exclusion program with regards to people going back into our facilities after they've agreed not to go in. Any moneys they would win would be held back and have to be spent only on problem gambling research.

Sections 110 to 120 inclusive approved.

On section 121.

V. Huntington: Section 121 of the amendments to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act allows regulations to exempt certain classes of licences or licensed establishments from requirements to consult with local governments. Could the minister please tell me precisely what those requirements are and what classes are and how he and his staff intend this to operate?

[1755]

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I've got with me Karen Ayers, who is the general manager of liquor policy and liquor licensing and everything else in British Columbia — she is the statutory authority, which means she makes the decisions and nobody can tell her what to do — and Barry Bieller, the director of policy, planning and communication.

This is really for prescribed categories of licence. It's really a regulatory-making power that we're giving to the general manager once we do the regulation. Basically, it's to provide some flexibility to have different processes for different types of licences prescribed by categories of licence.

We've been asked by a number of municipalities over the last number of years to do this. For instance, today
[ Page 6081 ]
if a golf cart that serves liquor on a golf course would be considered to be a liquor primary, we'd have to go through exactly the same lengthy process to approve that golf cart for its operation on a golf course as, for instance, it would be if you had a large cabaret or bar opening up in a community.

So this is to allow for the discretion. We will actually prescribe the types of licences in regulation that wouldn't require as high a process, because frankly, they're low-risk licences that do not really need to have the same level of scrutiny as other licences do.

V. Huntington: Can the minister confirm, then, that those regulations, as you develop the list, will be discussed with local governments prior to their adoption?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, they will be.

Sections 121 to 137 inclusive approved.

On section 138.

V. Huntington: I should have said earlier to the minister…. I'm sorry. I didn't forewarn him about my interest in some of these sections. I am learning.

Section 138 is curious. The section itself suggests it's a restrictive power, and yet when you look at the explanatory note, the section is allowing "inducements for the sale of liquor subject to regulations."

I prefer the sense of the section itself, where the general manager may specify that a licensee must not offer, accept or receive — or agree to accept or receive — money, gifts or remuneration for promoting or inducing the sale of liquor.

I wonder if perhaps you could explain this a little further. I am concerned that you are opening up a situation where inducements will, in fact, be possible.

Hon. R. Coleman: This is really removing something that is somewhat arcane in our ability to enforce and manage the operation of liquor in British Columbia. The section actually prohibits a liquor manufacturer from offering or giving a licensee, for asking or accepting inducements to favour the product of that manufacturer….

[1800]

Today we've modernized to the point where we're not going in and saying that you can't give somebody a T-shirt from a beer operator that one of your staff might want to wear or some gifts you might want to put up for door prizes or whatever for people in your establishment — or even coasters. We have actually gotten past that, yet we still have some rules on the books that would legally, theoretically, prohibit that.

This is to modernize, frankly, the trade practices relationship between licensees and liquor suppliers. When these rules were put in place…. There were only a few liquor suppliers in the entire marketplace decades ago.

It was all about tied houses and things like that, where people would come in and offer: "You become a specific beer for the whole operation, and we'll do this, this and this for you." That would be called a tied house, and there was concern about those breweries coming in and owning the brewery as well as owning the retail.

The reality is that today the consumer has a number of choices that they want when they go into a licensed establishment, and so they do that.

The historical reasons for the policy are no longer very applicable. The rules don't help us protect public safety, and experience has shown us that the rules are widely ignored and virtually impossible to enforce because of….

What we really want our people concentrating on is four things. We want them concentrating on four public safety issues with regards to enforcement of liquor. These are overservice to people, serving of people under-age, overcrowding in liquor establishments and the sale of illegal liquor. Those are the four priorities we want our people to be concentrating on.

We've always felt that as we modernize and we learned, prior to the Olympics and going through the Olympics, how we could handle these things with regards to the operation of liquor establishments, we can take this next step in modernization and still protect the public safety.

V. Huntington: I can certainly understand that explanation and appreciate it. It's very helpful. I'm really concerned about abuse, though, and I'm wondering if you can describe how the regulations will be developed and who they will be discussed with. And will they prescribe certain types of inducements that are permissible and others that are not?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, certainly in our work leading up to this, I and the branch have had extensive discussions with the entire industry, but we didn't know when we would get this to the House. So the next step would then be to go into the next level of consultation with industry particularly, which this has the most effect on with regards to how trade practices will change and how they will be able to do their business a bit differently.

Some will embrace it; others won't. But that describes the entire liquor file. Some embrace it. Some don't, no matter what change or whatever we do on the file. There's always one piece of the industry pushing and pulling against the other. It's just the nature of the beast, I guess you could say.

Having had the liquor file for four years, from 2001 to 2005, and now having it back again for two years, I do believe that we've actually matured to the point where we can handle this properly.

Sections 138 to 173 inclusive approved.
[ Page 6082 ]

On section 174.

L. Krog: To the minister: I think I may be able to save him some time today if he's prepared to answer a couple of general questions at the start. I'm sure that would please him.

The amendments, as I understand it, to the Civil Forfeiture Act that are proposed are essentially to ensure that the province doesn't get sued if in fact someone makes a claim arising out of seizure of assets that were deemed to be the proceeds of unlawful activity.

[1805]

Hon. M. de Jong: I have Rob Kroeker with me, for the benefit of the House, from the civil forfeiture section.

I don't think, in this case, that the summary that the hon. member offered would be applicable to section 174. Section 174 relates to a specific issue around allowing the proceeds of a sale of an asset to stand in the place of that asset, but I may have misunderstood the general supposition that was being offered.

L. Krog: My understanding of the thrust of this is that these amendments will provide the government with additional indemnity for the province when selling assets that were acquired from civil forfeiture.

There's a risk that…. Perhaps you've bought a house that was a grow op, and there's a mould issue. So the purchaser goes ahead and sues the provincial government. My understanding is that that may in fact be the impact of some of these sections. I'm trying to save the minister's time here. If that's the case, I just want to know it, and if it's not, he'll tell me.

Hon. M. de Jong: That is the case with respect to one of the sections. I believe section 180 affords that protection.

Sections 174 to 205 inclusive approved.

On section 206.

G. Coons: I'm just thinking that the minister is having some staff come in, but I'll just start and look at section 206, where there are some definitions. I also know that the competitive service and the drop-trailer service in the definitions tie into section 219 also. So I'll ask a few questions about the drop-trailer service and just ask the minister: what were her concerns about the drop-trailer service that B.C. Ferries was offering?

Hon. S. Bond: I think it's apparent that our concern was to ensure that there was a level and competitive playing field. In fact, our concern was that there may be an unfair advantage. So Bill 20 was in response — in fact, the member opposite would be well aware — to the comptroller general's recommendations about ensuring that there is a competitive and equitable playing field.

G. Coons: I'm sure, through the comptroller general's report that sort of brought this out and the expenditures that the comptroller general saw…. I'm just wondering: what were the expenditures that B.C. Ferries spent on its drop-trailer service?

Hon. S. Bond: I just want to recognize the fact that I have Peter Milburn, my deputy minister, and Frank Blasetti, the ADM of partnerships with me this afternoon.

[1810]

We don't have specific information about the drop-trailer numbers. B.C. Ferries operates as an independent company, but the comptroller general pointed out that there may well be perception or in fact reality that there are assets B.C. Ferries has that could be advantageous to it in creating drop-trailer service.

G. Coons: I imagine the concern, as 219 states, about the tax exemption, the subsidies…. I'll get down to the "qualified Authority candidate" and the qualified B.C. Ferry Services candidate.

It's pretty straightforward for the authority candidate, because we know in legislation and in the authority annual report that there are specific numbers for the authority. But as far as the B.C. Ferry Services candidates, how are they chosen?

Hon. S. Bond: They are selected by the authority, and the criteria are actually laid out clearly. There are certain criteria in terms of expectations for those selections, and they're laid out in the bill.

G. Coons: The comptroller general said, as far as the directors for the B.C. Ferry Services: "We suggest the province strongly encourage B.C. Ferries to amend its articles to reduce the maximum number of directors from 20 to a number more consistent…." I'm just wondering: in the B.C. Ferries articles, is there a description of how the directors are chosen? Does the minister have a copy of the B.C. Ferries articles?

Hon. S. Bond: We don't have a copy of B.C. Ferries articles with us. We'd have to bring the entire half the office if we brought every document. I'm sure the member recognizes that.

The comptroller general, obviously, is providing suggested advice, and those articles would actually be amended by the Ferry Authority. In fact, we would assume that they would contemplate that, but we did not make that recommendation in the bill that's contained here.
[ Page 6083 ]

G. Coons: Yes, I just find it interesting that the articles…. We don't have access to the articles either, because, I guess, freedom of information does not apply. The comptroller general refers to it, and the minister hasn't got them.

So I'm just wondering. As far as the authority works right now, there's a labour representative on the B.C. Ferry Authority. That comes from the authority requirements, I guess. Will there still be a labour representative on the B.C. Ferries board of directors?

Hon. S. Bond: Nothing in terms of that composition changes.

G. Coons: My last question: is it possible to get a copy of B.C. Ferry Services articles?

Hon. S. Bond: We're not certain, but we believe it may well be on their website. But it is certainly available under the Company Act.

G. Coons: Just a concluding remark on that. It's not on their website. I've never heard of them, and I've been on the file for about five years.

Section 206 approved.

On section 207.

G. Coons: Section 207 looks at the purpose of the authority and "adds, as a purpose of the Authority, oversight" of B.C. Ferry Services. I see it's "in accordance with Division 2.1," which is coming up in section 215, I believe.

[1815]

I'm just wondering: how will the authority oversee B.C. Ferry Services? Right now the purpose of the authority basically is to — and this is from the Coastal Ferry Act — "hold, administer and sell a voting share in British Columbia Ferry Corporation" after it's been converted into a company.

The section we're coming into will look at the appointment of director remuneration, of directors and executives and the limits of remuneration. I'm just wondering: what other oversights will the authority have besides just selling the share and remuneration of the executive and the directors?

Hon. S. Bond: They look after the articles of the corporation and remuneration and appointment of the board. Those are the general powers.

G. Coons: Again, when I refer back to the Auditor General's report in 2006, they saw that the authority — being either a Crown corporation or a private sector company — is answerable to no one owner or shareholder and that there's basically no person or agency that controls B.C. Ferries.

Again, when we look at the oversight, it seems like the oversight of the authority is somewhat lacking. I'm just wondering whether the minister agrees with that and, with section 207, whether the minister contemplated that there'd be greater oversight than in the past.

Hon. S. Bond: I do disagree with the member opposite. In fact, the bill reflects the recommendations of the comptroller general, who made it clear that there was an important role to be played in terms of the shareholder and in terms of oversight. So in fact, the authority is appointed from a variety of places, as the member opposite pointed out, and it will have oversight of the professional board. These recommendations were provided by the comptroller general and are now contained in this bill.

Sections 207 to 214 inclusive approved.

On section 215.

G. Coons: This is a pretty significant section here, I believe, where it looks at the remuneration of directors and the B.C. Ferries executive compensation plan. I believe, and I think most British Columbians believe, that one of the key determiners of us collectively in this Legislature getting some changes to the Coastal Ferry Act was the shocking and outrageous finding out of David Hahn, the million-dollar man at B.C. Ferries. This section, I believe, covers it.

When we go back to what we just looked at as far as the oversight of the authority, what's included in here is this section. So it's a pretty significant section.

I do have an amendment for this section. It's been included on the order papers, and I'm sure the minister and their staff have seen it.

[1820]

I move the following amendment to section 215:

[SECTION 215, in Part 12 – Transportation and Infrastructure Amendments, in s. 215, under s. 21.4 (1) (a), adding the following underlined text:

21.4 (1) The Authority must take all necessary actions to ensure that the articles of BCFS include a requirement that BCFS not

(a) set or change the remuneration, except current performance incentives, for an individual who is an executive, whether or not that person is assuming a different role as an executive, or]

On the amendment.

G. Coons: I would think at this point in time, when we look at the outrageous compensation for the executives at B.C. Ferries…. The comptroller general acknowledged that the CEO and president of B.C. Ferries made more than double of public sector organizations.
[ Page 6084 ]
She compared them to B.C. Hydro, ICBC, B.C. Lottery, and WorkSafe as far as their presidents and CEOs, and it was more than double. If we look at the vice-presidents, their compensation packages, it again was more than 75 percent of the vice-presidents of these comparative monopolies, public sector organizations.

The bonus schedule for the CEO is a 55 percent short-term performance bonus and a 55 percent long-term performance bonus, so the CEO and president of B.C. Ferries is getting a 110 percent performance bonus on his base salary of $494,000. Even if these are looked at by the board of directors and for some reason they are eliminated, it would probably put the president and CEO in a pretty good stance. He would still be 30 percent over the presidents and vice-presidents of B.C. Hydro, ICBC, B.C. Lottery and WorkSafe, including his salary and his pension.

I think that has a good feel for an amendment. Also, recently there was a study done that basically said: "Time to banish the bonuses of contention." That's the basic recommendation by three Ontario academics who basically said that paying target-based performance bonuses don't work: "Paying people bonuses is the most common compensation scheme in the corporate world because organizations think that offering a lump sum will push employees to excel. However, we've found this strategy is actually pushing people to cheat."

Again, recently there's been documentation that having performance bonuses would not cause the end result that we would expect. Also, I would continue this with the comptroller general, who saw that the performance bonuses that were given to the B.C. Ferries executives…. They had concerns with them. Most of the bonuses that we saw for the executives and for the vice-presidents would be commonly considered a normal requirement of their position. Basically, they were set too low to be challenging.

On that, I would hope that the minister and her staff have gone through the amendment, which has been on the order paper this week, and that it would be considered as an appropriate amendment that I think British Columbians would agree with. It would be fair, as the minister said. It would be fair to the executives of B.C. Ferries not to go after their base salary and their pensions but to look at the questionable performance or incentive bonuses that they've been paid over the years — you know, 110 percent for the CEO and 70 percent for the vice-presidents.

Amendment negatived on division.

Sections 215 and 216 approved.

G. Coons: Noting the time, I move the committee rise and report progress and seek leave to meet again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:25 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

On Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $9,711,000 (continued).

The Chair: I call Committee A back to order. We're doing the budget estimates on the Office of the Premier of the province of British Columbia.

C. James: I want to go back to just conclude the topic that we finished with this morning. We were having a discussion around the Premier and the cabinet committee's rejection of the children's representative's ability to access documents.

The Premier, in our concluding question this morning, said there had been no change in the government treatment of the Representative for Children and Youth. I have to say that I think the public is asking themselves and others: if there had been no change, then why was the government actually looking at bringing in legislation to restrict access to the representative?

I think it's also clear from the discussion we heard this morning that if the representative had not taken the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the
[ Page 6085 ]
Premier's office to court, it was more than apparent that the government, in fact, would have simply denied her the documents.

It really was the court process that pushed this issue back. The judge in the case, as I said, ruled in favour of the representative and also ruled and awarded the representative costs. It was very clear that, in fact, it was the government in pushing this issue that took scarce resources and used them on a court case rather than using them on supporting children.

[1440]

Just a question to conclude this section, if I could ask the Premier: does he regret that the disagreement between his government and the representative actually escalated to such a degree that it had to go to court and took resources away from vulnerable children? And will the Premier commit today to supporting the work of the representative?

Hon. G. Campbell: I do think this is an important matter, and I think it's critical to be clear about what actually took place.

We have always agreed that the representative should have access to necessary documents. We felt that it was critical that we protect cabinet confidentiality. Cabinet operations felt that was something that was longstanding in terms of the government. We were willing to negotiate an agreement of protocol that would assure that access. It would protect cabinet confidentiality, and that's in fact what we have managed to arrive at.

This was the first time it had come up with the Representative for Children and Youth. It is unfortunate, certainly, that we weren't able to arrive at an agreement with regard to the protocol. We have an agreement with regard to the protocol.

I am pleased and grateful for the offices of the hon. Ted Hughes with regard to that, and as I said this morning, the representative, the cabinet and Mr. Hughes all feel that this is a protocol that provides for the access as necessary while protecting cabinet confidentiality. That's what we were trying to do from the outset, and that's what we have managed to accomplish.

C. James: As I said at the start of this, I'm glad the protocol is in place. I'm glad that an agreement was reached. I just think it's unfortunate that this government has to be dragged kicking and screaming every single time to actually do the right thing, something that should have been done in the first place. I think that's an unfortunate reality. It had to go through court, and it had to get to that statement to be able to address this.

I want to move on now to, of course, the issue that, as I said at the start of my opening remarks, is the most critical issue facing the public right now and, certainly, one that has engaged the public in a way that we haven't seen in British Columbia for a very long period of time. That's the issue of the HST.

In last year's estimates discussion we canvassed the issue of the HST with the Premier, and the Premier said that this session would be the appropriate time to ask any future questions and further questions that we have. Here was the quote from the Premier in last year's estimates: "In fact, it's going to be a future tax policy. It's something that I would suggest would be appropriate to discuss in next year's activities with regard to what we're trying to do."

With that in mind, I'd like to ask the Premier about a chain of events that led him to break his promise on the HST and to announce it. Starting with last November, the Finance Minister made the following statement to the House: "The very first indication that anyone in the federal government would have had that British Columbia was reconsidering its previous opposition to the HST was a comment I made to the federal Finance Minister during a break in deliberations at the Finance ministers' meeting held in Meech Lake at the end of May."

We now know, thanks to an access-to-information request that was made by the Canadian Press to the federal government, that, in fact, top federal Finance officials were actually contacted by the B.C. government on May 15, well ahead of the Meech Lake meeting.

My question is to the Premier. Why would the Finance Minister make such an emphatic statement? Why would he categorically say that the very first indication of the HST reversal only came at the end of May?

[1445]

Hon. G. Campbell: This is a matter that has been canvassed, but the inquiry was presented by a member of our staff to the federal government with regard to the transition benefits — meaning our staff, a Finance official, had done that. It was done unbeknownst to us. It not asked for by us. It was something that was done in the ongoing operations with regard to what the Finance official felt was important to do in terms of carrying out his duties.

C. James: As the Premier says, it's clear now, because of the access-to-information document, that on May 15 the executive director of tax policy for the government e-mailed the federal assistant of the deputy minister in charge of tax policy about the HST, so in fact there was an inquiry about the HST to the federal government.

So wouldn't the Premier agree that that actually contradicts the Finance Minister's claim when he said that the very first indication anyone in the federal government had about the HST was at the end of May?

Hon. G. Campbell: There is no way that anyone in the federal government would have thought or imagined that we were reconsidering our position with regard to HST until the end of May, either officially or from the political minister who was involved directly.
[ Page 6086 ]

As I mentioned, this was part of a Finance official making a decision to follow up on what the transition benefits had been. It was not something that was directed either by the minister or by cabinet at all. In fact, the first time the federal government would have been aware of the fact that we were even thinking of reconsidering that would have been at the end of May of 2009.

C. James: I have to say, that certainly stretches any kind of credibility the public would buy. The executive director of tax policy of B.C. contacts the federal government to talk about the HST. That certainly sounds to me like the federal government was notified on the 15th that British Columbia wanted to talk about the HST.

This e-mail that we have from the tax official was on May 15, as I said, three days after the election. On May 14 — and this was something that we canvassed that the Premier said had happened — the Premier had a meeting with the Finance Minister and the deputy Finance Minister at the time about the tanking revenue numbers and ballooning budget deficits. This is a meeting that the Premier said had occurred on May 14. Did the communication from the B.C. official with the federal government about the HST flow from that meeting?

Hon. G. Campbell: The answer is no.

C. James: Just so I'm clear, we go back again to what the Premier said at that meeting. This was the meeting where our understanding is that the Premier told the Finance deputy, Graham Whitmarsh at the time, to "go and find out how we're going to meet the budget target of $495 million." Is that correct?

[1450]

Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned in the last estimates last fall, we actually…. There was a meeting that was scheduled between the Finance Minister and his deputy. I was invited to attend it. It was the first chance that they had had a chance to go through the detailed review that took place. That detailed review took place on May 12.

There were higher-than-expected reductions in revenues that were in place, and I did challenge the Finance Minister and the deputy to go and find ways that we could actually meet the targets that we had set in February of 2009.

C. James: This is the meeting that the Premier, as he said, asked about policy decisions. He mentioned that in his estimates in the fall. But is the Premier saying that there was no political direction and no discussion of the HST at that meeting when he talked about policy options to deal with the deficit?

Hon. G. Campbell: The answer is yes.

C. James: Can the Premier, then, tell these estimates whose direction the official was acting on, then, when they went to talk to the federal government about the HST?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I said in the last estimates, there was a meeting scheduled for Finance Ministry officials. The Minister of Finance did have a discussion with regard to the transition funds that were available. When they had left the meeting on the 14th, as I understand it now, the Deputy Minister of Finance did say: "What are the options?"

There were significant dollars that had been provided to Ontario as part of the transition, and the first time that he actually had the opportunity to meet and suggest or ask questions of the federal Minister of Finance was at the meeting at the end of May. I believe it was May 25, but I'm not certain of that date.

C. James: The Premier meets with the Finance Minister. The Premier meets with the deputy Finance Minister on May 14, just a couple of days after the election. He gets the new numbers and finds out that his deficit number is blown and then informs them to explore policy decisions. Yet he doesn't have any discussion about the HST.

Does the Premier expect us to believe that it was actually a coincidence that the very next day, the tax official phones the federal government to inquire about the HST?

[1455]

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, let me reiterate that the meeting that took place on the 14th of May was a time when we received the benefit of the results of the review that was done and launched on the 12th of May and ready to go on the 14th of May. At that time I said: "Look at the options that are available to deal with this." I set the goal of looking at the option and coming back and meeting the February budget, which is what I had been told, and I had told the public, to expect.

So the Finance officials would naturally go back — as, frankly, senior officials do across government…. Whether it's Finance, Attorney General, Health, Education, Children and Families, Housing or Transportation, there are a whole range of activities where senior officials from the provincial and federal level are communicating to help develop recommendations on how the government can respond and what the options are in terms of reaching the goals we've got.

That's what happened on the 14th. The Minister of Finance was back at a ministry meeting at the end of May — I can be specific about the date — and met with the Minister of Finance and asked him questions with regard to transition funding that was available, etc.
[ Page 6087 ]

C. James: So the Premier is saying, as I've heard his Finance Minister say in other questions, that the Finance official was simply asking in a routine way about tax policy and what kinds of questions there were around tax policy.

Let's just take a look at what's occurred in this timeline. If we take a look at the January '09 federal budget, it specifically mentioned British Columbia's position as not moving to HST. We were actually specifically mentioned in that document as one of the five holdout provinces when it came to the HST.

We also know that Ontario announced its position in January of that same year — that it was moving to the HST. The McGuinty government announced its tax harmonization again in March, when they signed the memorandum.

So wouldn't the Premier agree that if it was simply a routine inquiry, which officials do on a regular basis around tax policy…? Wouldn't the Premier agree that it would have been routine for Finance officials to ask those kind of questions in January, when the federal government mentioned British Columbia as a holdout, when Ontario moved to the HST and then again in March, when Ontario moved to the HST?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think the member has actually outlined the fact that Ontario didn't make theirs until March 26, literally a couple weeks before we launched the election.

No one has suggested that the HST wasn't recommended as a potential action for government over a number of years, going back at least into the 1990s in some cases. Our Finance Committee has been going around the province. It was not unusual to have people recommend the elimination of the PST. The challenges that the PST created for small businesses across the province particularly…. It's one of the reasons the chamber of commerce recommended that we eliminate the PST and move to the HST.

We did not feel it was something that we wanted to do. That was considered earlier on. It had been considered by a previous Finance Minister.

[1500]

It was not something that was on our agenda. It wasn't part of our economic plan for the future. We were concerned about flexibility, about the province's ability to set its own rates, about the federal ability to have impact without any suggested recourse to the province. All of those things were concerns that were highlighted in the past.

It was not something that was part of what our 2009 budget decision-making process or framework was about. It was recommended to the Finance Committee in a number of cases. The Finance Committee said we should look at it. We actually had previously looked at it and decided it was not an appropriate course of action for us to follow in British Columbia at that time.

C. James: I just want to go through the summary of this section, because I think it really points to why you see such a huge outcry from the public, why they feel so betrayed by this government when it comes to the HST and the story around the HST. There is such a woven web of stories from the Finance Minister and the Premier that it's not surprising that the public feels they just can't accept the kinds of stories that they're being told.

Just in this little time period we've heard from the Premier that he wants the public to believe, wants all of us to believe, that two days after the election he had a meeting with the Finance Minister. He had a meeting with the Deputy Minister of Finance. He gave instructions at that meeting to the officials that they were supposed to start looking at all options that were available to reduce the deficit.

He also wants us to believe that he, the Premier, didn't mention the HST, that the Finance Minister didn't mention the HST, that the Deputy Minister of Finance didn't mention the HST. But lo and behold, all of a sudden the next day — as a coincidence, I suppose — the tax official from British Columbia actually made B.C.'s first inquiry on e-mail about the HST to the federal government — the day after this meeting when the Premier gave direction to start exploring.

I have to ask the Premier: can he understand why British Columbians believe that this stretches anyone's credibility when it comes to the belief around the HST?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, the member is correct. May 14 we had a meeting, and as I mentioned earlier, the HST was not discussed at that time. On May 15 there was an exchange of e-mails from a senior Finance official, done without any knowledge of the Minister of Finance and certainly without any knowledge of myself. That was part of what would be ongoing communication between Finance officials and federal officials.

There is no question. On the 14th I gave explicit directions that our Finance officials and our Minister of Finance should go back and canvass the options we had to meet our objectives that we'd set for ourselves in the February budget.

Let me answer the question quite clearly with regard to: do I understand why people feel the way they do? My answer is yes, I do.

This did come, actually, very quickly. The question then is: if it came very quickly, why would we have made this decision?

We made the decision because of new facts that were before us. We made the decision because we believe it is the best thing we could do for the economy. We made the decision because it provides for additional flexibility for British Columbia. We made the decision because it provides for real consultation between Ottawa and British
[ Page 6088 ]
Columbia. We made the decision because it gives British Columbia the opportunity to set its own tax rates.

[1505]

We made the decision because there was $1.6 billion of federal financing that was available to help protect vital services at a time when we were watching our revenues dissipate. And we made the decision because this government has always striven to ensure that we had a competitive tax regime that would encourage investment and encourage jobs.

Frankly, as economist after economist — every credible economist in the country — has said, this is the best decision that we could make to strengthen our economy, to increase the number of jobs across the province, in literally every region of this province.

Did we make the decision because we thought that it was going to be great politics? No. Did we make it because we thought it was good finance policy, because we thought it was good public policy and because we thought that British Columbians in every corner of this province would benefit? Yes. That's why the decision was made, and that's why I think that it's important that we carried this on.

We did act quickly, and I certainly have no trouble understanding the public's frustration — in many cases, anger — with regard to this. I also think that it's important that we actually do the things that we believe are right for the economy in the long term, not just for ourselves and the services the economy supports but for our children and for our grandchildren.

C. James: We will get to those pieces around the Premier's arguments for the HST. We'll get to the impacts. We'll get to discussing the issue about jobs as well.

But I have to say, on behalf of the public — because it's probably one of the comments I've heard most often — that if the Premier thought this was so terrific for British Columbia, why didn't he bring it up before the election? I think that's a very valid comment from the public.

The Premier mentioned, again, that at the May 14 meeting he gave direction to finance officials to investigate a range of policy options to deal with the deficit target. As we know, the government took HST as the policy option to bring forward. Could the Premier tell us what other policy options were looked at and rejected?

Hon. G. Campbell: First the question. I think it is a fair question, you know: why on earth wasn't this dealt with before? It had been dealt with for years before, and as I mentioned — and I want to be clear about this — there were a number of things that we found that caused us concern.

The first was, for example, that all HSTs across the country would be the same. We did not want to do that. We thought that was not an appropriate response, and we had rejected that previously.

The reason that we had the chambers of commerce talking about harmonizing sales tax for some time and other presentations to the Finance Committee, the all-party Finance Committee of this Legislature, is because they felt that there was duplication. There was overlap. There were additional costs.

In fact, we see that the compliance costs are on the order of $150 million across the province. The savings to government are on the order of $30 million in terms of having one system as opposed to two systems. The complications that were run into with regard to the provincial sales tax, which many businesses in British Columbia had complained about — we had heard those.

We felt that the negatives with regard to a nationally imposed HST outweighed those. We felt it was not appropriate. We did not want to have a taxation regime that was set outside without any consultation whatsoever. Those were some of the issues that had been dealt with in the past by the government.

Because those issues had been dealt with in the past, they were not part of the 2009 discussion that was taking place. I think we had been clear with regard to that. They were not part of that discussion that was taking place.

You know, when we have people saying that no government could ever act that quickly, I can certainly understand why people might think that no government can. I can tell you honestly that this government did act that quickly.

What are the choices that you face? There really are some pretty fundamental choices you face when you're watching a dramatic reduction in revenues that are coming into the provincial coffers.

I would suggest that through no fault of our own — the opposition may suggest something else — in 2008-09 there was a substantial change in terms of what was taking place in the global economy. From July of 2008 — when the governor of the Bank of Canada told us that there would be no impact or virtually no impact on British Columbia and that we'd have economic growth of plus 1 percent — to July 2009, we know that there was a substantial change in those circumstances. We know that as we went through June of 2009, there was even greater change.

[1510]

I think that one of the issues for us is: what do you do? "What are the options?" the member asks. Well, you could decide to go for more debt. We were concerned about the debt position that we had. We were concerned even going into a deficit position, as we said in February when we announced that we had to. We had been working very hard, and we are again working very hard to reduce the debt load that we impose on our children and our grandchildren, which actually takes away from their ability to provide for critical services.

You can reduce spending. You can dramatically reduce spending. In this case, we felt it was important.
[ Page 6089 ]
We'd gone through the budget in February, and we had outlined how we were going to approach that spending. We looked at $1.9 billion of discretionary-spending savings that we would find so that we could support health care and education and protect the long-term position of those that followed us.

Or, finally, we could decide to raise taxes. We did not feel that raising taxes would be something that would be positive in terms of the economy. So we outlined a program of how we could move ahead. When we discovered what had taken place on May 14, we said to our finance officials: "Look at all the options and come back with some recommendations." That's what they did.

One of the options, clearly, would have been $1.6 billion more in debt. I believe that that was not the appropriate option. Another option would have been $1.6 billion in cuts in critical services that we have in British Columbia. I believe that was not an appropriate option.

What we decided to do was exactly what was laid out and what the government has done, which we announced in July. I grant you and I grant the member opposite that it was announced in July and it had not been considered until that time. The public would have been, I think, surely surprised by that. The reason we announced it in July, as was mentioned at the time, is that we had to go in lockstep with the Ontario initiatives, with the federal government, or we were likely to lose opportunities.

The competition that was created by Ontario actually adapting the HST, which we discovered after the election, and the competitive disadvantages that would have put British Columbia in were such that we felt, when you take that into consideration and you take into consideration our ability to be more flexible — our ability to set our own rate, which is why we have the lowest HST in the country; our ability to actually open up opportunities for a 40 percent reduction in the marginal tax rate for new investments….

All of those things suggested that this was the right thing to do in terms of jobs for British Columbians in virtually every sector of the economy.

C. James: I think the Premier mentioned some of the concerns that he had heard when the issue of the HST had come up before — concerns about losing control as a province, handing over responsibility to the federal government, the inability to be able to manage that, the lack of consultation that had occurred. Well, in fact, that's exactly what the government walked into with the HST — exactly those concerns that had come up before.

The Premier mentioned the issue of the move by Ontario and the federal government, so I just want to talk a little bit about that now and the timing and the information that was out there, because I think it's important. It goes, again, to why the public is so skeptical of this government's argument that they didn't have the HST on their radar until after the election.

As we know, the Premier has a close relationship with the Prime Minister. I think the Premier would say that intergovernmental relations and federal-provincial collaboration were areas of importance to this Premier. Last January we saw that the Premier even took the unusual step for a B.C. Premier and went to Ottawa to attend the federal budget. When the Premier did that, did the Premier know that the Conservative government was going to push provinces to harmonize their sales tax?

Hon. G. Campbell: I was aware of the fact, obviously, as I went. If I was asked the question…. The federal Finance Ministers, the economists, the business interests, investors had called for a harmonization of the HST for some time. In fact, they had pushed for the harmonization of the HST with the Atlantic provinces, which is why we have some evidence of what happens when you harmonize it, from the Atlantic provinces. That was done.

I never talked with the Prime Minister with regard to the harmonization of the federal and provincial sales tax — the elimination of the PST and the harmonization with the federal tax. The discussion never came up between the Prime Minister and myself.

C. James: It's interesting. If you take a look at that federal budget, one of the key items that was discussed, under the topic of federal-provincial territorial collaboration — an area that the Premier himself said he's interested in — was how British Columbia and four other provinces should overhaul their "outdated and inefficient provincial sales tax regimes."

[1515]

So my question is to the Premier. When he flew to Ottawa, did he know that the Prime Minister's budget was going to specifically single out provinces, including British Columbia, that hadn't moved on the HST and call on them to move?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me go back to the budget — I think the January budget of 2009. The Prime Minister had called a Premiers meeting, a first ministers meeting, for Ottawa in the fall of 2008.

We had launched a number of initiatives from British Columbia. We had advocated as Premiers — and frankly, the Prime Minister agreed with this — that we should launch a major initiative where we were investing in productive capital across the country to increase our competitiveness, to keep as many people at work as we could through investments of the public sector into a number of projects.

Those were things that I knew in broad terms. I think it is very important that I be explicit about this. I had no idea what would be in the federal budget before I at-
[ Page 6090 ]
tended the federal budget. It would be inappropriate for a minister to tell me what was in the federal budget, and it would be inappropriate for me to ask. So I had no idea what was in place.

Having said that, at least as I have been…. As a Premier in British Columbia for British Columbia, I have tried to build constructive relationships with Prime Ministers of whatever party, and I think it's important for British Columbia to have a positive relationship with the federal government. When we do work with the federal government, I think British Columbians benefit. But at no time did I have discussions with regard to the harmonized sales tax, as I mentioned earlier.

Federal ministries and federal governments, Liberal and Conservative alike, have called for a harmonization and called for provinces to consider harmonization. Did I know that was going to be in the federal budget of 2009? No, I did not. Was I surprised when I heard it? No, I was not. Was it something we were considering in British Columbia? No, it was not.

C. James: Who made the request for the Premier to fly to Ottawa for the federal budget? Was it at the Prime Minister's request or the Premier's decision?

[1520]

Hon. G. Campbell: I decided that I wanted to go to the federal budget, and I wanted to go for specific reasons. I felt it was a time where all governments should be working together. I thought that it was a time where we should be encouraging the federal government to build partnerships with us. I was certainly very pleased with the partnership arrangement that the federal government did come forth with. We have managed to take advantage of those opportunities in every region of the province. I think there are over 850 projects that are involved.

I decided that it was in British Columbia's interest to be there. You know, I think that one of the things that you notice when you are part of federal-provincial relations is that Ottawa is right next door to Toronto. It's right next door to Montreal. It's a long way away from British Columbia, and I thought that it was important for British Columbia to have a voice there, for British Columbia to have the opportunity to comment on the budget on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

I was pleased to have the opportunity not just to see, to listen, but the opportunity to comment on the positive things that were taking place, which really was a way of dealing with what I think people in Canada expected us to deal with, which is to get rid of the jurisdictional infighting and get on with creating opportunities for people to get to work. Certainly, in British Columbia we have seen those opportunities come forth in every region of the province, large projects and small — as I mentioned, over 850 projects.

It was my decision to go back for the federal budget. I think that it was the right decision to make. I would recommend it on an ongoing basis — not necessarily every budget, but I think it's good for British Columbia to have a spokesperson there, be it a Minister of Finance or a Premier.

C. James: I think similarly to the public — disbelief of the arguments that the government has put forward around not discussing the HST before the election and all of a sudden coming up with the idea at the end of May. Similarly with the federal budget, I think the public is scratching their head. The Premier heads off to a federal budget in January. The budget names British Columbia as one of those provinces that has not moved to an HST. The Premier is telling the public today that he had no conversations with the Prime Minister.

The Premier made comments on the budget. He had discussions afterwards. I'm certain he had a meeting or a discussion with the Prime Minister, and he continues to say that the HST wasn't discussed at that, even though, as I said, it was identified in the federal budget. I think this just continues to have the public scratching their heads at the lengths this government will go to try and explain away their broken promise around the HST.

I now want to move on and talk a little bit about the government's main arguments and the Premier's main arguments for moving to the HST. We've heard, and the Premier mentioned it again today, that he thinks the HST is the single best thing we could do for the economy. The Premier has claimed that the federal government offered new flexibility on the HST. The Premier also said that the move by Ontario put pressure on B.C. to do so as well.

I'll go through each of those arguments this afternoon, but I want to start off with the first argument around the HST. The Premier, as I said…. "The single biggest thing that we can do to improve B.C.'s economy is bring in the HST."

So my question would be to the Premier. Why, if that is his belief — that it's the single biggest thing we can do — did the Premier not mention it during the election campaign? Why did the Premier not bring it up until after the election?

[1525]

Hon. G. Campbell: First, I do want to reiterate, because…. The member opposite can restate this however she wants, but the fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister and I had no discussions with regard to the HST — none whatsoever.

I think it's important also to note that the federal budget…. If you go back and you look at the commentary on the federal budget from 2009, the commentary was broadly about the new federal partnership for, frankly, massive investments, billions of dollars of in-
[ Page 6091 ]
vestment in what they called their economic action plan. That billions of dollars of investment was about a partnership with provincial governments and with local governments. That's what things focused on.

I said at the time that we would do everything we could to ensure that every single dollar that was available to the people of British Columbia would be available to keep people at work through developing broad and productive infrastructure that would increase our productivity and keep people at work in every region of this province.

There is no question that following the election, when a full review was done, there were some clear changes in circumstances that had taken place. Those changes in circumstances included increased flexibility. They included transition funds that were available to help in terms of taking care of that transition. They included the changes that had taken place in the economic fortunes not just of British Columbia but of Canada. All those things were changed conditions that we had to confront.

Why would we do it? Well, a short and a brief answer is that there's a 40 percent reduction in tax on new business investments. It makes us one of the most competitive tax regimes in the world. It gave us the opportunity, with the new flexibility where British Columbians can set their own tax rate, where we didn't have to go to the 13 percent HST that they have in Ontario or other jurisdictions. In the Atlantic provinces some jurisdictions have a higher level of HST.

We didn't have to go to that 13 percent. We could have the lowest HST in the country. We felt that that was important, but we also felt it was important to listen to various sectors of the economy who said that this was important.

For example, in the agriculture sector: "Harmonization will have a significant and positive impact on the agriculture overall and is consistent with what our members had been calling for." That's from the chair of the B.C. Agriculture Council. The executive director of the B.C. Agriculture Council said: "The HST will actually be a very positive impact. We estimate it will have a $15 million to $20 million positive impact on reducing farm input costs."

The chamber of commerce: "This measure saves businesses money and reduces government expenditure while providing protection for those of low income. In addition to these savings, the consumer will also be a winner, as businesses will pass on savings they make, such as the $150 million in annual compliance costs alone."

Business organization after business organization, whether it was agriculture or whether it was general business organizations — the communications industry, the digital media industry, the construction industry, the transportation industry, the mining industry, the forest industry — all told us that this was a critically important component in increasing their competitiveness, in reducing their costs and in allowing them to keep the economy growing.

As the member opposite knows, we actually funded a specific review of what would take place with regard to British Columbia, and the estimate from the economist from the University of Calgary, Jack Mintz, is that it will create 113,000 additional jobs in the province between 2010 and 2020. It's $11.5 billion of additional investment. It improves our core industries. It improves our small business environment.

[1530]

It makes us one of the most competitive tax regimes in the world. That is part of the reason why we decided to make this decision, as difficult as it was to make, in July of 2009.

C. James: I want to touch first on the comment that the Premier made that it was a large federal budget, that there was lots of information in there, that there wasn't a focus on the HST. In fact, one of the lead items in that federal budget was called provincial sales tax modernization. It said: "Provincial retail sales taxes are outdated and inefficient. Modernizing these harmful taxes by implementing a value-added tax structure harmonized with the GST is the single most important step that provinces with RSTs could take to stimulate business investment, create jobs and improve Canada's overall tax competitiveness."

Right there in the budget, when the Premier says he wasn't paying attention, he didn't see it, and it wasn't a major portion of the federal budget…. In fact, here's the press statement, a news story that came out afterwards on the federal budget, which states: "Prime Minister Stephen Harper's budget book took a swipe at provinces that levy retail sales taxes on business input."

Again, it stretches anybody's credibility to believe that the Premier says that, oh, the HST wasn't discussed as part of the federal budget — right there in the document and in the press stories as well.

Then I want to come to the argument that the Premier just put forward around why he thinks it was the best thing to do for the economy and why he didn't put it to the people in the election campaign. I heard nothing from the Premier that prevented the Premier or anyone else from raising the issue during the election. The Premier says that they had to take into consideration the views of people around the economy. Well, the Premier did not in fact have a consultation process around the HST. That's why the public is so angry. The government didn't consult the public.

The Premier says that he had to listen to those people, like industry, like other businesses that supported the HST. Well, is the Premier actually telling us today that he only listened to folks who agreed with his position, that he didn't go out and do a public consultation because he only wanted to hear from people who actually
[ Page 6092 ]
agreed with his government's position to move to the HST?

As I said, I've heard absolutely no argument whatsoever around why the Premier couldn't put this issue to the voters during the election. I think it just proves the point around the public anger that's out there.

Could the Premier tell me when he was convinced that this was the best thing that could be done for the British Columbia economy?

Hon. G. Campbell: First I want to go back and correct one of the things that the member opposite mentioned. I am not suggesting that her reading that there was federal concern with regard to a harmonization of the provincial sales tax was not mentioned in the 2009 budget…. I can tell the member opposite this. I was not asked about that once during the federal budget discussion. It is certainly not my recollection that it was one of the big issues.

[1535]

It wasn't a big news item, frankly, because it is something that federal governments had been calling for, for over a decade. Both Liberal and Conservative governments had been advocating that for over a decade. It was something that previously had been considered. It was indeed considered by the Finance Committee, the all-party committee. The Finance Committee said it should be considered by the government.

We did not consider it. The reason we didn't consider it at the time, as I mentioned, was because we felt it was too rigid. It didn't allow for a made-in-B.C. tax solution. We were concerned about that. We felt that it was not appropriate to do at the given time, and that's why it wasn't a part of what we were considering in the 2009 budget.

The world did change. There's no question about it. The conditions changed. The conditions that changed had to do with flexibility, the ability for us to set our own rate, not just at the outset but throughout the agreement with the federal government. The conditions changed with regard to the transition resources that were available, and the conditions changed with regard to the province of Ontario adopting that particular harmonized sales tax.

The issue with regard to adopting the harmonized sales tax was quite clear. It put us at a competitive disadvantage between British Columbia and Ontario, and one of the things that we felt was important, as we moved out of the economic downturn, was that we did have an opportunity for people who were thinking of investing in the future not to discard British Columbia because we were at a 40 percent disadvantage to the province of Ontario but indeed to consider British Columbia because this would be a 40 percent reduction in our marginal tax rate on investments. It would make us one of the most tax-competitive regimes in the world.

It was not until July when the cabinet made the decision that I was convinced that this was the best thing for us to do. There were a number of issues that had to be canvassed, as was mentioned, I think, previously. The Minister of Finance did have a discussion with the federal Minister of Finance at the end of May in 2009. Staff did a significant amount of work through June and through May in terms of what the transition dollars would be, how the agreements would be put in place.

It wasn't until July that we felt that we had the comfort that we could move forward with this decision, which, granted, was a significant shift. But it was a significant shift that makes our industry more competitive, that encourages investments and that will create literally 100,000-plus jobs around the province of British Columbia as we go through the next decade.

C. James: I'll move on to the flexibility, the second piece of the Premier's arguments, in a moment. But the fact that the Premier says that he believes this is the single biggest thing that could be done, that he believes and cares about the HST — then I have to ask the Premier why the Premier himself didn't speak on his own piece of legislation around the HST?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm kind of surprised that the Leader of the Opposition is concerned that I'm not speaking enough on the HST. I have spoken all over the province on the HST, both in the House and out of the House. I'm glad to have the opportunity to speak on the HST here today, again.

As the Leader of the Opposition is, I'm sure, aware, there are times when both of us are called out of the House on other duties. I was out at the time that the vote was scheduled.

I do think it's important to note, however, hon. Chair, that one of the really important things with regard to the HST is how much impact it has on people's lives. In fact, there are going to be thousands and thousands of jobs that are going to be created. The member opposite may rest assured that I will be out and continuing to support the HST in the years ahead. I am confident not just in the Minister of Finance but in the government caucus to carry this argument as well.

C. James: I remind the Premier that, in fact, we debated this issue for more than a month in the Legislature, so there were many opportunities to be able to speak on the legislation.

To move on to the Premier's second argument, which was the justification for the reversal on the HST, which was the federal government's new flexibility. The Finance Minister has stated that the flexibility of the federal government didn't arise until the end of May when he had that meeting and discussion at Meech. So I'd like to ask the Premier: does he agree with the Finance Minister's comments?

[1540]

Hon. G. Campbell: It wasn't until the Finance Minister for the province of British Columbia did have an opportunity to talk to the Finance Minister from the federal government at the end of May…. It wasn't until there were detailed discussions following that, that it was clear there would be added flexibility for British Columbia in terms of not just setting rates but areas where we would provide for rebates, etc.

That was critically important in view of the fact that this government had brought forward a carbon tax, which was one of the key components of our initiatives to fight greenhouse gases. It was important that we had the flexibility that was indeed there. It wasn't until after the end of May that we were made aware of all the flexibility and the options that would be available to us as a province.

C. James: I quoted earlier from the federal budget document of 2009. I just want to read another section to the Premier, a quote from the document. "The government" — meaning the federal government — "remains committed to working with provinces that still have retail sales tax to identify and evaluate potential areas where changes to the current framework for federal-provincial harmonization could facilitate provincial movement towards the creation of a fully modernized and efficient tax system in Canada."

This talk about making changes. The Premier uses the argument that they didn't find out about flexibility until the end of May, but in fact, talk about making changes to the framework was entirely new language in this January budget. The Premier was there. He flew all the way to Ottawa to be there for that federal budget. They talk right here in the document about flexibility and the willingness to work. So I'd like to ask the Premier: doesn't that sound like a discussion on flexibility was taking place in January, well before the Premier says the discussion came up?

Hon. G. Campbell: I thought I had outlined what had taken place. There was a meeting of first ministers in October of 2008, I believe it was. At that time, there was a discussion about how we could build partnerships between one another. At no time was there any discussion about harmonizing sales tax during that meeting. At no time was there any discussion about harmonizing the sales tax during the federal budget. At no time did either I or the Minister of Finance have a discussion with regard to that.

We had been presented with the options with regard to harmonized sales tax for years and years. We had felt that it was not appropriate for us to move forward. After the May discussion that the Finance Minister had with the federal Finance Minister, and there was an opportunity to delve deeply into what was taking place with regard to Ontario versus British Columbia and what would be available to us, it was decided that we could develop a greater understanding and more flexibility and more ability to tailor the harmonized sales tax to British Columbia's situation.

It was not until July of 2009 that we decided it was appropriate, in terms of the long-term benefits for the province, to move ahead. That, obviously, was done with a clear vision to what people had been advocating for some time. In fact, the hurdles we had seen in front of us in terms of adapting a harmonized sales tax had been removed.

C. James: I have to say you certainly can't blame the public for being skeptical when you listen to this kind of story and convoluted approach to the issue. It was clear in the federal budget document in January '09 that the flexibility was there, that the opportunity was there.

The Premier now wants us to believe that he went all the way to Ottawa, and he listened to the federal budget…. I'm presuming he took staff with him to give him a briefing on the federal budget. I'm presuming that that kind of detail was given. The Premier talks about being a detail person. I expect he would have been paying attention to that.

Even though the federal government made it clear in their budget that there was flexibility for provinces, the Premier and the government apparently only discovered the flexibility was there only after the votes were counted in May. Apparently, that's when the flexibility was discovered by the government. So as I said, I can't blame the public for being skeptical on this issue.

I want to run through the Premier's comments from estimates last year just to show again the differences in stories that we've seen:

[1545]

"Let me reiterate…we had no intention of dealing with the HST….It was not on our menu of actions that we would be taking because, as I've mentioned, there was not the flexibility. At least, we were not aware of the flexibility that later came, that we later learned about. So it was not there" — yes, it wasn't there.

"Following the election, the Minister of Finance" met "with federal officials. There was a huge amount of flexibility that was built in that allowed us to do a number of things…" that would be critical. "I think flexibility is critical."

If the Premier says the HST is the most important thing to be done for the economy, if the Premier says flexibility on the part of the federal government was critical to pursue the options, then using the Premier's own standards, his own words, wasn't his government, then, negligent not to follow up on the flexibility that was offered in January by the federal government?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let's go back to January of 2009. Not just British Columbia but Canada and the rest of the world were in the middle of one of the most significantly challenging economic times that there was. I went back to the federal budget, and the member is correct. We did have members in the federal lockup. I was not one of them. I went back to the federal budget.
[ Page 6094 ]

There was a great deal of discussion about what was taking place with regard to the partnerships that were going to be available. I was very clear that British Columbia had every intention of taking every advantage of the partnerships that we could. I did not launch, did not discuss…. And I think it's important to note that neither did the staff who were there from the lockup say: "Oh, there's a real new opening with regard to HST."

As I've mentioned, it has been successive governments that suggested — two provincial governments — that they should adopt an HST. There were successive governments that had suggested that, so I guess the staff didn't feel that it was particularly new. It wasn't something that was part of our initiative that we had launched. It was not part of our agenda. It was not part of our platform. We've been clear about that.

I think that the issues that we discovered following the discussions and the in-depth discussions that took place provided us with additional flexibility. We had already launched and put in place a number of those partnership agreements with the federal government, representing literally billions of dollars of investment from the province and the federal government in partnership — in many cases in partnership with local governments.

We were very concerned about getting that done quickly. We were concerned about getting those decisions made as rapidly as possible and getting people in the workforce as quickly as possible with those construction investments, and that's where we were focusing our attention.

Following the election, there were a number of things that changed. Believe me, when the world changes that quickly, I think it is responsible for government to change with it. We became more fully aware of the flexibility options that were in place. We saw that Ontario, indeed, had decided to move forward with this. There was no decision from Ontario until the end of March, just prior to the election.

We saw there were significant transition dollars that were available not just to British Columbia but to Ontario to accomplish this nationally significant initiative that was taking place, which was not talked about in either early 2008 or early 2009.

When we discovered the flexibility that was available, when we discovered the opportunities to set our own rate were available — in other words, a 12 percent HST as opposed to a 13 percent HST — when we discovered that we could tailor the resources that we would actually exempt from the HST, all of those things made this a responsible bit of public policy.

[1550]

It was an economically sensible thing to do if you listen to people in the construction industry, the transportation industry, the forest industry, small businesses, agriculture, digital media, film — across the board. In July we felt that we had the information that was necessary for us to make that kind of recognizably significant shift, and that's exactly why we took the decision in July of 2009.

C. James: I just remind the Premier that the language that was in the federal budget was new language this time on the HST. It was not old language. In fact, the language around the willingness to work with provinces and the flexibility was new language in the federal budget. So I have to express some surprise that the Premier would say that his staff or himself didn't notice that on that issue.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Committee A will recess until after the vote.

The committee recessed from 3:51p.m. to 4:02 p.m.

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]

C. James: Before our break we were just speaking about the flexibility offered by the federal government and about the Premier using that as one of his arguments for waiting until after the election, until the end of May, to look at the HST, when in fact the federal budget itself had flexibility as part of their budget in January.

One of the other arguments that the Premier talks about is the fact that Ontario moved to take on the HST and that that was also one of the arguments for moving on the HST. But as we know and as the Premier stated himself, Ontario moved to the HST in March.

Again, I'd ask the Premier the same question as I did around the flexibility language and around his first argument. Why did the concern around Ontario and its decision on the HST only kick in after the votes had been counted in May rather than in March, when Ontario actually moved to the HST?

[1605]

Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned, there are a number of choices that I think you face when you have the situation that we faced in the spring of 2009. One is to allow your debt to rise significantly. Another one is to significantly increase taxes. Another one is to dramatically reduce services. We felt that none of those were appropriate.

What was important was that I said to the Ministry of Finance officials: "Go and look at the options that are available to us." We were not aware of the negotiations…. We were aware that Ontario had decided to do this in their budget. We were certainly not privy to negotiations that were taking place between the federal government and the provincial government in Ontario. We were not aware of the flexibility that was there. It was
[ Page 6095 ]
not part of what our plan was. It wasn't one of the things that we were working with.

I think that one of the issues that we face here is that …. You know, probably, if I had not challenged Finance officials to go and to look for all of the options that are available to them, they may have never got to HST. I'm willing to accept responsibility for that.

Having said that, I believe that what we discovered as we went through the month of June and into July was that the flexibility that was there was important, that there were transition resources available that would allow us to reduce the significant debt load that was going to be, actually, imposed on this generation and the next generation as well. That's why we took the steps that we did in July of 2009.

I can only reiterate what I have said consistently and repetitively in the committee, and that is: I did not discuss this matter with the federal officials. It was not part of either our platform or our plan for moving ahead. It was not until the end of May when we actually had the discussion to see what the negotiations between Ontario and the federal government had led to.

We saw that those negotiations may be able to be something that would be beneficial to British Columbians in terms of creation of jobs, in terms of creation of investment, in terms of protecting services and in terms of reducing debt. All of those things were important components as we looked at whether or not we should move to this position in July of 2009.

I should say that we could have made the decision to do nothing. I don't think that would have been the right decision, either. So while it may well have been, you know, politically challenging, it was definitely — in my mind, at the time, with the information I had in July, with the dramatic drop-off in revenues that we'd seen, with the challenge we were going to face in Ontario in terms of competitiveness — not just important, but it was imperative that we act in July. That's why we took the steps we did.

C. James: I'll give the Premier another option other than doing nothing. The Premier could have actually taken the issue to a vote and had a discussion with the public. There was the perfect opportunity for a discussion, which was the election campaign, and the opportunity through March and April to actually have a discussion with the public on the HST. I just want to….

The problem that the Premier has…. The Premier says he's been repetitive on this issue. The Premier has repeated it, but there are holes all over the argument from this Premier and from this government. The argument around flexibility, when we now find out that it was actually there in the January budget for the federal government….

Here's what the Premier said about Ontario: "Ontario decided to move to this and, frankly, we had to act or wait another two years. We would have lost an awful lot of opportunities, an awful lot of investment, in those two years. We did have to act."

Another quote from the Premier: "With Ontario deciding to go ahead, you know, we can put our heads in the sand and say that the world isn't changing. The world changed dramatically."

Again, to use the Premier's own words and the government's own arguments, didn't the Premier and the government put their heads in the sand by not moving on the HST in March when you actually knew that the flexibility was there, and Ontario had moved in March?

[1610]

Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned earlier in this discussion and also in the discussion in the fall, this was not part of our platform as we went into the campaign of 2009. It was not something we discussed with federal officials.

It was on May 14, I think it was, when we had the review from the Finance Committee, following the May 12 run of the projections of what was going to take place, that I directed the committee to actually look at all options. It was at that time that they, evidently, started looking at all options. It wasn't until the end of May when the Minister of Finance actually had a discussion with the federal Minister of Finance with regard to this.

I think it was important to get all of that information and to have all that information available. But I think that the member opposite should know that this is something that had been canvassed for a number of years in the province. We had made decisions with regard to that.

As I mentioned, at the federal meeting that we had — both at the federal meeting, by the way, in the fall of 2008 and the federal meeting in the winter, January of 2009 — the key focus of what was taking place was not a taxation negotiation between any provinces. It was certainly the federal government that said, yes, they're willing to look at that. I understand that.

It was not something that was mentioned to me by our Finance officials, who were in the lockup. It was not something I discussed with the Minister of Finance when I saw him in Ottawa. It wasn't something that was discussed between the Prime Minister and I. It was simply, as far as we were concerned, I suppose, another statement. It wasn't part of what the focus was.

The focus was on building a federal-provincial-municipal partnership to invest capital dollars in increasing our competitiveness and our productivity and in putting literally thousands and thousands of Canadians to work through what was called the economic action plan. At the time I said that we were going to work very hard to make sure that every dollar that was available to us was put to work in British Columbia in all of the regions of the province. That's what we were focusing on.
[ Page 6096 ]

When we came through the election, I think the platform was clear. It was not part of our consideration, the HST. When we found the challenges that were confronting us in terms of the economy, we did take steps. The Minister of Finance took steps at the end of May. We did discover the flexibility and the arrangements that were possibly available.

With all of those things — not any single given one of them, but all of them in combination — we felt that was the best decision to make in July of 2009 on behalf of British Columbians who wanted work, who wanted investment in energy, in forestry, in mining, in small business, in agriculture. We felt that was the best decision for us to make.

C. James: So the Premier repeated again that two key facts changed. He mentioned the flexibility from the federal government, and he mentioned Ontario's move to adopt the HST.

Well, we already know that the flexibility was mentioned in the federal budget in January, where the Premier attended. Ontario moved to the HST in March. The Premier is quoted as saying: "With Ontario going ahead, we can put our heads in the sand and say the world isn't changing, but the world, in fact, has changed dramatically."

If those were the Premier's arguments, how on earth could the Premier and the government miss the dramatic event — as the Premier himself called it — of Ontario moving to the HST in March? If that's a key argument the Premier uses for moving ahead on the HST, how on earth could the Premier and the government miss that in March?

[1615]

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, to reiterate, the Finance Committee had recommended this as something that the government should consider. It was not part of our budget considerations, because it had happened that we had had presentations with regard to the HST for a number of years.

I'm willing to accept the member's suggestion that this was something that was covered in the federal budget. It was not something that was mentioned either to me or to our officials with regard to…. Sorry, it wasn't mentioned to me by either our officials or by the political leaders that I had an opportunity to meet with in that January.

We entered into an election campaign in the middle of April. I believe that Ontario had made their decision with regard to the agreement they had with the federal government at the end of March. I was, frankly, not focused on the decisions that were being made in Ontario at that time.

However, I can say that there was a significant change in the information that I had available to me, that was made available to me on May 14. At that time I said to our staff: "Look at all the options that we have in front of us." The Minister of Finance met with the federal minister to say that we might be going to change a position with regard to that — to the HST, to a harmonized sales tax — that he was going to ask his officials to get fully involved in understanding exactly what was taking place in Ontario and what the opportunities were for us in terms of that.

That took place, and a decision was made in January. So we can go back and say: "Well, we should have" or "You should have known this" or "You should have known that." What I knew in January of 2009 was that it was important for us to access every dollar from the federal government that was available to put on the ground so you could have people at work in the province of British Columbia, and it was important for us to take advantage of that.

There was a significant amount of work that took place in this government to ensure that we were able to access that. In fact, I can recall the federal government being impressed by the fact that we had a whole series of projects ready to go as soon as they announced the frameworks that were available. We continued to push that.

Our campaign and our platform document reflected exactly where we were and what we knew at the time. It was not until following the election that we were in a position where we even started to gather all of the information with regard to what the negotiations had been between the federal government and the provincial government of Ontario.

I think that it's fair to say that we are not tracking what the Ontario government is doing every day, be it in any number of levels of policy. Often when you get together, you discover something from a Premier or a minister that's really worked extremely well for them, but that was not something that I was focused on in either March or April of 2009.

C. James: I have to say that's a frightening comment coming from a Premier of British Columbia. This wasn't a trivial small program that Ontario was moving to that perhaps you might find out if you talk colleague to colleague or you had a conversation minister to minister about a program that they decided to add. This is a major tax change in the country, a major shift.

The Premier seemed to think that it was important after the election. He made a number of comments about the fact that British Columbia needed to remain competitive with Ontario. That was critical. That was one of the arguments to moving to the HST. He was quoted as saying that we'd be put at a competitive and economic disadvantage in British Columbia vis-à-vis Ontario — that we shouldn't be put in a disadvantageous position.

So the Premier seemed to find after the election that it was critical to pay attention to Ontario — really im-
[ Page 6097 ]
portant to watch what Ontario was doing when it came to taxes and really important when it came to investment. This is the Premier who has talked about the importance of making sure that we remain competitive to other provinces. Yet he expects the public to believe that he wasn't paying attention to a major tax shift that happened in Ontario? That it just wasn't there? It wasn't anything that he was paying attention to until after the election?

[1620]

Unbelievable. There's no other word, I'm sorry, to describe it, but unbelievable for the public to expect that the Premier or the government or someone in government wasn't paying attention to what was going on in Ontario.

I want to move on to some comments from others about the Premier and this government's move to the HST. I think it's important to recognize the comments that have been made and the discussion that's occurred out there around the HST — discussion that should have happened before the HST was brought in, consultation that should have occurred before the HST was implemented. But as we know, this government refused to do that.

The Premier's arguments — and we've talked about them, the areas that the Premier felt were important to take on — are undermined even by his former Finance Minister, Carole Taylor. I'm sure the Premier is aware of the comments that have been made about his government's move to the HST. I think there are some comments that are worth us reviewing.

First of all, although the Premier has argued that the facts changed and that's why he reversed himself on the HST, the former Finance Minister calls it an ideological shift. I'd like to ask the Premier: does he agree with his former Finance Minister about this being an ideological shift?

Hon. G. Campbell: I believe that the initiative that has been undertaken with regard to the harmonized sales tax actually crosses all ideologies that care about building an economy and strengthening an economy so you encourage investment and jobs. That's why there are 130 countries in the OECD that have actually adopted a value-added tax. Ideology — everyone from the People's Republic of China to France to the United Kingdom, etc. Value-added taxes are part of what has typically been the case in most places, in terms of the G20, with the exception of Canada and the United States.

One of the things that's important is that as we looked at these challenges, we felt that we should look at other evidence. Whether it's the New Democratic government in Nova Scotia looking at increasing the HST, whether it's the Conservative government in Newfoundland that's dealing with an HST or whether it's the government in Ontario, which is a Liberal government, dealing with HST…. I really don't think it's an ideological question. I think it's a question of whether you think it's important for us to deal with building the economy in the province of British Columbia so that we can support critically important services or not.

I understand that there are some groups that don't feel that building the economy for the long term is one of the things we should be doing. I think it is important for us to do that. One of the things that happens with an HST when you have an increase in investment and you have an increase in jobs is that you watch as wages go up, as competitiveness increases and as productivity increases.

One of the things we were aware of was the challenges that may be faced by some low-income people with maybe 20 percent of the products they would have access to that would have an additional cost. That's why those families have a $230 HST credit. There's over a million British Columbians that will benefit from that particular credit. It's why we increased the personal tax credits that are available on our personal income tax by over $1,600 to try and make sure that we covered that off.

There were a number of other areas where we wanted to be sure that in terms of the essential items that were there for people, they were considered. We dealt with them as constructively and positively as we could.

This is really about encouraging investment and encouraging job creation in the province of British Columbia. It's why, candidly, virtually every major financial institution and every significant and credible economist in the country has suggested that the HST is a sensible way to go. It reduces duplication and overlap in terms of administration.

[1625]

The reason you had the chamber of commerce calling for it for a number of years, from 2002 on, was because of the costs that were imposed on small business. Part of that cost, I should say, is clearly the time that's involved.

Yes, it's money. It's $150 million across the economy, but there's also time. Small business people will tell us time and time again that government doesn't seem to be aware of the fact that we are eating up the time that they have in their lives and that we should look for ways to remediate that.

The TD Bank Financial Group's Don Drummond says that this is a significant step that we can take that will encourage investment and encourage jobs. David Baxter of the Urban Futures Institute says that this is a significant investment we can make that will create jobs.

The Business Council of B.C.'s Jock Finlayson has said that. The University of Calgary School of Public Policy's Jack Mintz has said that. Jonathan Kesselman of the Simon Fraser University has said that. Richard Rees of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C. and the University of British Columbia's Kevin Milligan have
[ Page 6098 ]
said it. The University of Toronto's Michael Smart has said it.

The Conference Board of Canada has said that this is important for us to do. BDO Dunwoody has said that this is an important step for us in terms of our competitiveness and our ability to compete in the changing modern world. PricewaterhouseCoopers and the B.C. Progress Board said it. The Canada West Foundation said it. The Fraser Institute has said it. Even the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has said that this is something we should do that will encourage jobs and encourage investment.

It is important, I think, that when we look at this, we look at what the fundamental…. Why would we actually undertake this? I think there's one reason, one word: jobs. It's for jobs for people in the forest industry, for people in the mining industry, for people in energy, for people in small business, for people in digital media. Literally well over a dozen, almost two dozen, business organizations representing a million workers across the province have said that those jobs are important to them and that having a competitive tax regime is important to them.

I'm the first to accept that some people do not think a competitive tax regime is important. We saw the opposition when they were in government. They clearly didn't think a competitive tax regime was important.

This side of the House does. We do have a competitive tax regime. We have eliminated the provincial sales tax, and we do have an opportunity, I think, to build our economy in the future, to strengthen our economy, to strengthen the family incomes that people have across this province in literally every region because of this initiative.

C. James: I asked the Premier, actually, about the former Finance Minister's comments. But perhaps I'll read the comments to the Premier, and then he can address them: "This particular tax takes the tax off businesses. It takes $1.8 billion off of businesses and puts it on consumers, so that shift is a shift that is ideological as well as factual."

[1630]

Could I ask the Premier, please, to comment on the former Finance Minister's comments that this is an ideological shift? I'd also ask the Premier what comments he has on the statement from his former Finance Minister that the HST shifts $1.8 billion of taxes from businesses to consumers.

Hon. G. Campbell: I think I covered off earlier the question with regard to whether this was ideological. I think that the province, the provincial government, clearly wants to strengthen our economy. We think that by strengthening and making our tax regime more competitive, we put ourselves in a position where we can create more jobs. In creating more jobs, we create more opportunities for British Columbia.

I think it's also important to note that consumers currently pay PST. One of the differences between the HST and the PST is that people don't know how much PST they're paying. If you can buy a hockey stick, you have no idea what the PST is on the production of that hockey stick as it goes through the process. The wood has got to be cut. The wood has got to be transported from wherever it's cut to wherever it's going to go. It's cut with equipment. All of those things have PST on them. As it gets to the mill, it's milled. There's PST on those things.

One of the things that's important here is that this is a far more transparent tax. Some people shy away from that transparency. I think that transparency is a positive thing. Because of the initiatives that have taken place with regard to the $230 HST tax credit, because of the changes we've got in personal income tax credits that are available to people across the province, I think that there are significant benefits, both in terms of the economy and the consumer, both in knowing what the costs are and what the HST will actually be, as opposed, frankly, to the information that's currently available, which in no way suggests all of the PST that's included in a number of products across the province.

C. James: There are actually two pieces to the quote from the former Finance Minister. One, as the Premier points out, is around an ideological shift. But the second part was around the tax shift itself — that the HST shifts $1.8 billion of taxes from businesses to consumers. Could the Premier please comment on that?

Hon. G. Campbell: Consumers pay PST that is embedded in products. I think that's important for us to note. We have said and we have recognized that there will be some products where there will be added costs.

However, we have also taken steps to mitigate those added costs. But a company that doesn't cover the cost of their PST in terms of how they're managing their resources is not going to be a company for very long, and they're not going to have products for very long.

The HST is transparent. Instead of having a desk like you're sitting at today, hon. Chair, and not having any idea of what PST is included in that, except at the final price…. There's actually PST included in that from the time that the actual tree is cut and right through that process, layer upon layer upon layer upon layer of PST, all of which are paid for by the consumer. I think it's clear that they're paid for by the consumer.

This is a situation where those inputs, in fact, will be credited to the manufacturing base, etc. — to the businesses that are involved. The consumer will see exactly what the price is, but I think it's clear to say that the consumers do not generally know how much PST goes
[ Page 6099 ]
into a product that they buy. They get one last price, but there a number of PSTs that are charged in every step of production that takes place, and they're not aware of what those costs are.

C. James: Just to ask the Premier specifically, then, about the tax shift — the $1.8 billion tax shift from businesses to consumers. Does the Premier agree with the statement that the HST shifts $1.8 billion from businesses to consumers?

[1635]

Hon. G. Campbell: The major shift that takes place, as I've tried to comment on over the last couple of questions, is that it's a shift from being a hidden to a transparent tax. I understand that there are some people that would prefer the hidden tax. I think actually transparency works. It doesn't just work in terms of the consumer; it works in terms of our competitiveness, it works in terms of our productivity, and it works in terms of generating literally thousands and thousands and thousands of additional jobs across the province.

C. James: Is the Premier denying that the HST shifts the burden onto consumers from businesses, that businesses will save in the tax system and consumers will pay more?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, I will say that consumers are paying that hidden tax now. That is one of the challenges. I'm sure neither you nor the members opposite can tell me how much provincial sales tax actually went into a desk that they may be sitting at, at their home. Yes, it does make it visible, and it is transparent. It is not hidden.

C. James: Does the Premier, then, believe that his former Finance Minister is wrong?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think everyone is entitled to their considerations and their concerns, their opinions, with regard to this. I believe, as I've said, that this is actually a way of taking a hidden tax and making it visible. I think it's a way of increasing our productivity. I think it's a way of creating literally thousands and thousands of jobs across the province.

I'm pleased there are a number of economists…. Indeed, every credible economist in the country agrees with that position. I think it's important that we engage people in discussions with regard to what's taking place, and I think that's one of the viable things with regard to this debate.

This is from the Canada West Foundation: "Within the context of the current business tax regime, there are two relatively 'simple' things that western provinces could do…to improve the taxation of business income and the competitiveness of their tax regimes…. The first is to reduce corporate income taxes. The second is to harmonize provincial sales taxes with the federal GST."

We've taken that decision. I think even Helmut Pastrick, the chief economist for Central 1 Credit Union, has said that a consumer tax, a value-added tax, is indeed the most efficient form of taxation. One of the things that's important with regard to this is that we are eliminating significant costs across the economy with regard to compliance. That elimination of those significant costs will, I'm sure, flow through to consumers.

We know already that the province has taken steps to make sure that people that are on lower income are protected from any additional changes. That is something that's different. The $230 HST credit will benefit over one million British Columbians in dealing with any of the challenges that they may face in mitigating with those challenges. The changes in provincial income tax credits for every individual over $1,600 will help mitigate any of that.

I'm not suggesting there's not a change, but I believe the fundamental change here is making a hidden tax visible.

C. James: Has the Premier discussed the HST with his former Finance Minister?

Hon. G. Campbell: Not since she was Finance Minister.

C. James: I guess the former Finance Minister is in good company with the rest of the public who haven't had the discussion about the HST with this government before they moved on it.

One of the arguments that I heard the Premier use is that businesses will pass on savings to consumers. I've heard that over and over again. I hear, again, from the public — not a person out there who believes that the experience in their daily lives is that they're going to see a savings when it comes to businesses passing it on. We certainly haven't seen anything from the government that's given anything more than words to show the public that.

[1640]

My question is to the Premier. Has he managed to get any guarantees from businesses that are supporting the HST that in fact those savings will be passed on to consumers?

Hon. G. Campbell: I do think it's important that…. Yeah, we do believe — I do believe, and the government side of the House believes — that businesses pass on savings. It's called competition.

We believe in competition, and the reason we believe in competition is because it gives consumers better value. The reason that at one time a cell phone cost $400
[ Page 6100 ]
and today it costs $9.95 is because of competition. It's because businesses have passed on savings to consumers. We want consumers to participate.

When you listen to what businesses advertise, they never advertise: "Come to us. We charge a whole lot more." They actually advertise and say: "Look, we've got the best deal in town." It doesn't matter whether that's in furniture or if it's in books — books are a bad example because they're exempt — or other areas of activity.

Actually, I believe in competition. It may be that the opposition doesn't. I do. It may be the opposition thinks that businesses don't pass on savings. I do, and there's no evidence that they won't. In fact, the evidence that we have….

There was a detailed study done by Dr. Michael Smart — I think it's the University of Toronto — who pointed out that the vast majority of savings that came in the Atlantic provinces when they adopted a harmonized sales tax were all out of the system within about 12 months, and I think our economy in British Columbia is far more competitive. It's far more active, and I think we'll see those savings passed on to consumers as quickly as possible.

If you think about the debate that's taking place, people are concerned because they're concerned that the costs are going to have to go up. Businesses that are concerned are concerned about that. Well, in fact, that suggests to me that if they can keep them lower, they're going to have them lower. We see a situation where there will be $150 million, at least, in compliance costs across the board, which will be a reduction in costs for businesses — not, as I just mentioned, in terms of actual cost but in terms of time that businesses have to do.

We see, in fact, consistently from the studies that have been done across the country, from the specific study that was done for the province of British Columbia that this will generate the most competitive tax regime in the world.

What does a competitive tax regime mean? It means it's less expensive to invest. There's more certainty to invest in the province of British Columbia than many other jurisdictions. And if there's certainty in investing in the province of British Columbia, there is more chance that we are going to have people at work. We all are trying to encourage more jobs in this province.

[1645]

When you're told that, yes, it will pass through, we think it will increase productivity. We think it will increase employment; we believe it will increase wages. We believe that will help the competitiveness of our forestry industry, our mining industry, our energy industry, our agriculture industry — across the board. We think there are huge advantages to that. Yeah, I think that they will pass on those benefits to their consumers. That's what a competitive market actually does.

C. James: The Premier mentioned that businesses are concerned with the HST about costs going up, and he takes that as an argument to say they pass on the savings. In fact, many of the businesses that I talk to aren't concerned about costs going up under the HST on their profit line or worried about passing the savings on; they're worried about the viability of their businesses. They're worried about the additional costs to their businesses with the HST.

To touch on another issue, probably the most fundamental part of the HST is the way the HST was brought in. I want to talk for a few minutes about that, because there has been lots of public commentary, understandably, on the way this government brought in the HST.

We have a quote, again, from the former Finance Minister, not simply on the ideological nature or moving the tax burden, shifting it from businesses to consumers; she also was very critical of the fact that the Premier and the B.C. Liberals weren't upfront with voters in the election. Here's the quote. "I think the bigger issue is that just before the election he promised he would not do the harmonization of the sales tax, and then right after the election decided to do it."

My question is to the Premier. Does he agree with Carole Taylor that his government was elected and was not upfront during the election with the voters?

Hon. G. Campbell: In fact, the two times that this issue was raised that I'm aware of were in questionnaires. We pointed out that this was not part of our agenda and our platform. It was not. It wasn't the subject of a great deal of discussion during the provincial election from either the opposition or from us or from members of our media or commentators, and you know, it's because it wasn't part of the agenda.

I recognize, whether it's a media commentator like Ms. Taylor or a member of the public, why they would say: "Well, how did this happen so quickly?" The answer is that it wasn't part of the agenda. I can't be any more clear than that. It wasn't part of the agenda.

I certainly understand why people are frustrated with regard to this and in some cases angry with regard to it. I think that it's important to recognize that and reflect on it. I also think it's important for us to get the information out. That's certainly what I'm trying to do here today, and I'll continue to do that.

This represents an opportunity for British Columbia to have one of the most competitive tax regimes in the world, to encourage investment, to create jobs in every region of the province. It was a difficult decision to make. It was difficult because of the politics. It wasn't difficult because it was a good financial move to make in terms of our finances. It was a good public policy decision to make, but clearly, it was always going to be a difficult political decision to make.
[ Page 6101 ]

It was made because we felt it was in the best interests of British Columbians. We made it because we thought it was important for us to keep British Columbia on the tack that would make it even stronger as we came out of the economic downturn. It was made because we were trying to encourage investment. We were trying to encourage job creation in the province. And it was made because we're thinking of the long-term future of the young people in this province, who want to have jobs, yes, but they don't want to be burdened with an onerous amount of debt either.

All of those things came into our consideration. I think it was the right decision to make. The answers, I think, speak for themselves from the questionnaires.

C. James: It wasn't simply the former Finance Minister who has been making comments and criticisms of the way the Premier brought in the HST.

In fact, we saw the former Minister of State for Mental Health and Addictions, Brenda Locke, just in the last few weeks, who now works for the Massage Therapists Association of British Columbia, one of several organizations that received assurances from the Premier and from his party that the B.C. Liberals were not going to bring in the HST. Ms. Locke has been commenting recently that the Premier's actions were "disingenuous."

[1650]

We've seen the Premier refuse to admit that bringing in the HST was a broken promise, so will he admit the statement that his party was not contemplating, as he said in one of the questionnaires, the HST was, in Ms. Locke's mild term, disingenuous?

Hon. G. Campbell: The answers that we gave during the election were correct. We were not contemplating the HST. I have said on a number of occasions that was the case. That was the case. We were not contemplating the HST.

I have outlined when we began that discussion, when that was actually launched by the Minister of Finance, with the federal Minister of Finance. I had said — and I said at the time, in July of 2009 — that this was not something that was happening in a way that was, you know, ideal from any stretch of the imagination or from any perspective. It was something that we felt was important for the economy.

As I mentioned earlier, we could have waited. We could have said: "We don't mind about losing our competitive advantage. We don't think this is something we could do." We could have done that. We felt it was important to do it in view of the flexibility that was there — that we could make a tailored-in-B.C. tax regime. We had the opportunity to change it over a period of time. We had significant resources in terms of transition funding. We recognized that we'd watched, frankly, a dramatic fall in revenues to the provincial government. We wanted to protect, as much as we could, Health and Education services.

All of those things were critically important as we made the decision in July, and I recognize that we will clearly be held to account for the decision. I think it was the right decision for the people of the province. It was the right decision for people who care about the economy.

C. James: I just remind the Premier, again, that the flexibility was talked about in January. Ontario moved to the HST in March. The Premier could have done the right thing and actually brought it forward to the public. That would have been the right thing to do. That would have been the area that the Premier could have done — take the issue for public consultation and public discussion.

As we know, Ms. Locke has been campaigning against the HST. She hasn't renewed her party membership, and she's not the only individual, as we know, that is out there speaking publicly. Just this past weekend we saw Scott Nelson, the former mayor of Williams Lake, who is speaking out, working against the HST. We know that not only regular British Columbians but in fact party members and former cabinet ministers are speaking out against the HST.

We heard another comment from another former member of the cabinet, Christy Clark, who made the comment that the way the Premier brought in the HST was "sneaky" — using her words, Madam Chair.

So now we have two cabinet ministers, individuals who used to sit at the Premier's table, who are all saying identical things, which is that the way the Premier and the way the government brought in the HST was not upfront with the public, was not taking the information forward and that they found the way of bringing in the HST — using, again, their words — "sneaky" and "deceptive."

The Premier continued to say during the election campaign that they opposed the HST. I want to touch on this for a moment, because we've heard comments from the Finance Minister over the last while on the questionnaires that were sent out. The Finance Minister has argued that the response that the party gave on those questionnaires didn't count as promises — that they didn't matter.

I'd like to ask the Premier: does he agree with his Finance Minister's comments that the B.C. Liberal Party responses to surveys in election campaigns aren't binding on anyone who then becomes government?

[1655]

Hon. G. Campbell: I think one of the things that is clear is that the questionnaires were responded to, and people should be able to count on those responses. This is what the response said: "In short, a harmonized GST
[ Page 6102 ]
is not something that is contemplated in the B.C. Liberal platform, but we are committed to improving the tax system."

That is precisely what was answered. So I think people should be able to depend on the responses they had. That was the correct response at that time. As I mentioned to the member opposite earlier, the changes that we took, the consideration even of moving to an HST, didn't even begin being contemplated until the end of May 2009. So that's a correct response.

I certainly understand what the public is concerned about. In fact, in July of 2009, I pointed out that I recognized that this had not been processed well, but we did have a choice. We could either wait up to two years to try and put this in place, or not.

In view of the fact that this would allow us to not just encourage investment and encourage people to think about investing in British Columbia at a time when we needed investment, encourage job creation at a time when we needed job creation and protect important and critical services like health and education when we were watching, frankly, a rapid deterioration of our revenues in the province of British Columbia, we felt that in spite of the fact that it was not necessarily going to be a politically popular move, it was an important decision to make in the best long-term interests of the people of British Columbia.

C. James: To ask the Premier again, then: does the Premier agree with his Finance Minister that promises were never made by the Liberal Party or anyone speaking on behalf of the party that the HST wouldn't be brought in? I have to say, from the public description…. Probably "weasel words" would be the description that the public might use for those words. But is the Premier actually saying today that that was not a promise by the Liberal Party — to not bring in the HST?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, let me reiterate. The answer that we provided in the questionnaire was correct. "The harmonized GST is not something that is contemplated by the B.C. Liberal platform, but we are committed to improving the tax system." That is a correct statement. It was not something that was either contemplated or considered, or part of our platform, in 2009. We recognize that.

There were significant changes that took place following the election in 2009. We acted, as I've outlined this afternoon, on those changes. I do think that people have not just every right to hold us to account. I think one of the great things about living in a democracy is that people will hold us to account. All I can do is lay out what we did, when we did it, why we did it and what we think the benefits are. People will make those choices on their own as we go forward.

C. James: I think there's no question that those words were written so that the associations and the groups and organizations that receive those believed that the government was not moving to an HST, that they were not going there.

Both the restaurant and food service industries wrote to major parties during the election, and the question was very straightforward. "Will your party oppose harmonizing the GST with the PST in British Columbia?"

The response in writing, as the Premier said: "It's not something that's contemplated in the B.C. Liberal election platform." But they continued in that quote. This is again from the B.C. Liberal response: "The B.C. Liberals have no plans to formally engage the federal government in discussions about potential harmonization…. We do commit to engage in consultation with industry prior to any future tax changes that affect food." One more broken promise we can add to the HST promise.

[1700]

The restaurant association wasn't consulted at all. In fact, they were shocked and angered by the HST reversal. According to the current Finance Minister, the statements that the party made didn't count as promises. Again, I ask the Premier: in his view, shouldn't the restaurant association be able to take the party at its word on the HST?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, I will say that the responses to the questionnaire during the campaign were the correct responses. I do think it's important to note that we identified some of the challenges that we faced in terms of the HST. We did say that they were concerns to us, and they were concerns, actually, we were able to discover after the election, were not in place.

For example, we are able to set our future provincial tax rate. That's something available to us within two years of the implementation of the HST and the elimination of the provincial sales tax. I think that was very important, and this was not part of what our agenda was in 2009.

I also think it's important to note that we have a responsibility and obligation when we're in a decision-making role to make choices in light of the information that's in front of us. The information that was in front of us in July of 2009 suggested that we were having dramatic reductions in our revenues, which are what we use to support our critical public services like health and education and transportation. Whatever public services we have, they're actually supported by revenues that come into government.

We felt that we were already in a position where there was enough additional debt being incurred by future generations that we actually had to contain that. We wanted to protect that. The transition funding that was available from the federal government would help us mitigate some of those challenges.
[ Page 6103 ]

I think that the ability for us to set our own tax rates was critically important, and the imperative that the federal government consult with us prior to any change in the federal GST was important as well. I recognized in July 2009 that it wasn't an ideal situation, but when taken with the fact that we were up against a time limit to make a decision for the benefit of British Columbians, we decided it was right thing to do.

C. James: I think it's an understatement to say that it was not an ideal situation when we take a look at the public and the kind of anger that's out there and the feelings of the public on this government not being upfront about the HST.

I mentioned the restaurant association. They aren't the only association that felt betrayed by this government when it came to the HST. The home builders association also has been angered by the government. They also received a response, and I quote from a Vancouver Sun op-ed where they state: "In the response, the Liberals defended the current provincial tax system and found fault with tax harmonization."

The Liberal response included: "A harmonized GST would reduce the provincial government's ability to unilaterally adjust sales tax. The harmonized GST would make it harder for future provincial governments to lower or raise sales tax. In short, a harmonized GST is not something contemplated in the B.C. Liberal platform."

It also goes on in this to say: "By the way, the responses to our questions were printed on letterhead which featured a 'Keep B.C. Strong' graphic at the top and a 'Premier…and B.C. Liberals' logo at the bottom. To me that indicates an official party line, not just some individual working out of party headquarters."

[1705]

So I have to ask the Premier: does he believe that in future election campaigns, British Columbians should simply disregard what the B.C. Liberals say in response to questionnaires?

Hon. G. Campbell: I appreciate the member reading out the answer, because the answer is what I've been talking about for the last couple of hours. B.C. Liberals are also "mindful that a harmonized GST would reduce the provincial government's ability to unilaterally adjust sales tax rates."

That's what we believed at the time. It wasn't until late May or early June of 2009 that we saw the opportunities for flexibility, the opportunities to set our own rate. You know, just as an example, I understand that had we gone with the Ontario rate, it would have meant an additional $800 million coming into the provincial government in terms of revenue.

We weren't looking at this in terms of revenue. We were looking at it in terms of creating a strong economic environment, a competitive economic environment. We now know that in combination with the federal government's taxation regime our taxation regime will be one of the most competitive in the world. We did think it was important that we have this flexibility, and it wasn't until after the election that we discovered that the flexibility was there.

We do think it's important to protect health and education services, and after the election we discovered that there would be $1.6 billion in transition funding available for health services. We also understood at that time that we had some very challenging choices to make with regard to falling revenues in terms of the government.

We felt that it was the best decision to make. It was the correct answer to the question, and I am sure that people will decide for themselves whether or not that answer is something that they will take in the future. We're glad to answer questions, and we're glad to lay out what our platform is.

There was a detailed platform that we laid out before British Columbians, and as this particular answer says: "Harmonized GST is not something that is contemplated in the B.C. Liberal platform." That is correct. We also weren't contemplating in the B.C. Liberal platform that if we should ever consider the harmonized GST, we would have to do it very quickly, because if we didn't, we'd lose the opportunity for another couple of years.

Those are things that I think we did discover, which we have laid out for British Columbians. As I've said, we will all be held to account for the decisions that were made, which were made to encourage investment, encourage job creation and strengthen the economy so that you can protect those critically important services like health care and education and transportation, environment, etc., etc.

C. James: I think there's no question that this government and every B.C. Liberal will be judged on this issue. We've mentioned a number of former cabinet ministers who have spoken out on this issue, the way the government and the Premier made this decision. I've talked about Brenda Locke, Christy Clark, Carole Taylor. I've talked about high-profile Liberals like Scott Nelson. Well, even the Premier's chief of staff, Martyn Brown, seems to get the HST reversal issue as a broken promise.

A couple of weeks ago on the stand in the B.C. Rail corruption trial…. We won't be asking any questions about the trial, Madam Chair. I just wanted to make sure you know that. This isn't a question at all to do with the trial, but on the stand in the corruption trial Mr. Brown sought to distinguish between the Premier's election promise in 2001 not to sell B.C. Rail and the 2009 HST reversal.

The Premier's chief of staff denied that the B.C. Liberals broke an election promise in the first case, in the issue of the sale of the railway, but in contrast said this about the HST: "The government paid a heavy political price…but
[ Page 6104 ]
I think it's different than B.C. Rail…. I would say that the HST commitment, if you want to come to that, was widely interpreted as a broken promise."

The Premier has refused to say that he's broken a promise on the HST, but even his own chief of staff here has admitted it. I would ask today, as we come to this section on HST, whether the Premier will stand up today and apologize to the people of British Columbia for the decision on the HST.

[1710]

The Chair: Before I recognize you, I want to mention to the Leader of the Opposition…. I just sort of want to caution you. As much as you said that they're not questions about matters before the court, I caution you about trying to draw or rely on statements made in a court of law with matters before the court.

Hon. G. Campbell: I will not be commenting on the comments from anyone in the court case, to be candid about it.

In terms of apologizing for the decision, I can tell British Columbians that I clearly wish that we had not faced that kind of a difficult decision when we did. I'm not apologizing for actually making a decision that I think will generate literally billions of dollars of investment. I'm not apologizing for a decision that will create literally tens of thousands of jobs in British Columbia, that strengthens our business environment.

I understand that there are times when you make difficult decisions that you believe are right, where people may disagree with that. I think that when we apologize for doing what we think is right, that's actually something that undermines public life. I will stand and be held to account for the decisions that I made and our government made, as will members of our government.

I think that the critical component here is that we did something that we thought would generate investment, would generate jobs, would protect services and would ensure that our children had a chance to actually benefit from the same services that we've enjoyed all of our lives because we didn't load them up with unnecessary debt.

C. James: I think that the comments the Premier has just made really point out that he just doesn't get it. The Premier just doesn't get that the anger out there is not simply at the HST and a tax being brought in. It's anger at the way the tax was brought in. It's anger at refusing to have a discussion with the public when there was the opportunity to do so.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

When the Premier had the opportunity in March when Ontario moved to the HST, when the Premier had the opportunity in January when the federal budget mentioned flexibility, when the Premier had an election campaign, he had the opportunity to raise the issue with the public to get a sense from the public, to do the consultation that he needed to do, and he refused. That's the kind of anger that is out there. That's the kind of anger that the public is expressing.

I want to read to the Premier one of the first core values of this government's strategic plan, a core value and a strategic plan that the Premier, as head of government, is in charge of. The first core value is integrity: "To make decisions in a manner that is consistent, professional, fair, transparent and balanced."

I'd like to ask the Premier how the HST, and the way this government brought it in, lives up to this government's core value of integrity.

[1715]

Hon. G. Campbell: Cabinet made the decision in the middle of July of 2009 that we would make this decision, and I've outlined why it is that we made the decision. I think the critical part of this is that in an open and democratic society, we're in a position where people are welcome to debate, where people on one side may say that building a strong economy isn't the most important thing to them, and on another side they may say it is.

We believe that a strong economy is a critically important aspect of supporting health care and education and all the public services that we have. I also think that it's important for elected leaders to make decisions they think are right, regardless of how uncomfortable they may be. At the end of the day I think what will be judged is: "Did they make the right decision?"

Just so we're clear, we made a decision to try and ensure that we had a competitive tax regime that would encourage investment. We made the decision to take action to encourage job creation and investment across the province of British Columbia in literally the entire economic framework. We made a decision to move forward with an HST when we discovered that there was new flexibility, which gave us the opportunity in British Columbia to set our own tax rate. We made the decision when we discovered that there was $1.6 billion of transition funding.

So the Leader of the Opposition can suggest that we should have been making the decision in January, but it wasn't one that we were considering. The reason we weren't considering it was because those conditions precedent to the decision were not there. We were not aware of flexibility being built in.

We had heard on a number of occasions from people across this economy that they felt this was one of the most important things we can do. Again, I understand that you can turn a deaf ear to that.

When we discovered that we could set our own rates, when we had flexibility, when we could have a tax regime that would respond to what British Columbia had
[ Page 6105 ]
already done…. It's very similar in some ways to the carbon tax that we initiated in the province. There were a number of people in the province that said it was the wrong thing to do, that they didn't like that — the opposition included. They weren't in favour of it.

We are now hearing from people that in fact it's probably one of the most constructive things you can do to deal with the challenge of greenhouse gases. We talked directly about that with the public. We knew that it was something that would be a political issue, both as we introduced it and as we carried it out, and people decided on that.

Similarly, there will be a decision that will be made in 2013 with regard to whether or not we made the right decisions in the best interests of the maximum number of British Columbians. I think that's what's critically important. I'm willing to stand and to be held to account for the decisions I make — as, I'm sure, my colleagues are willing to stand and be held to account for the decisions they make.

C. James: The Premier left a large piece out when he was talking about the role of government and the importance of government, and that's the issue of trust, openness, accountability, transparency. All of those things, the Premier will remember, were so important to him back in 2001that he was quoted, as he was elected, that they'd have the most open and transparent government ever, that that was the most important thing, that he wouldn't forget as a politician those issues.

Well, how fast that's disappeared. When we take a look at the issue we're facing now, there's no question that this is an issue of trust and openness and accountability.

I want to move on to talk about another issue that continues on with this theme that we've talked about. We talked about the issue of the government and HST and the way they brought it in. We talked earlier today about the children's representative and how the government dealt with the children's representative.

[1720]

I want to talk, as well, about another independent officer of the Legislature, because Ms. Turpel-Lafond isn't the only independent officer in this province that ended up in court battling the B.C. Liberal government. I'd like to ask the Premier whether he believes that taking B.C.'s independent officers to court is a good use of taxpayer dollars.

Hon. G. Campbell: Of course, our goal is to make sure that independent officers are working well with the government and that the independent officers are able to fulfil their responsibilities to the Legislature.

It's also important that independent officers work within the law, and if the Attorney General feels at some time or another that they are not, then it's our responsibility to make sure that that is clarified for the independent officers and for the government. But our goal is to work with the independent officers and ensure that not just the Legislature of British Columbia but the people of British Columbia are well served by both the government and their independent officers.

C. James: To talk about specifics, then. We've talked about Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond and the issue of the government going to court on that issue. We have seen that the FOI commissioner has had to request a $400,000 legal budget to cover the growing number of court challenges to his ruling by the B.C. government, including challenges from the Premier's office itself.

My question would be to the Premier. Why is the Premier's office choosing to use public dollars to challenge the FOI commissioner in court?

[1725]

Hon. G. Campbell: As the member opposite knows, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act envisages the government working in concert with the Privacy Commissioner. I think it's important that we recognize it's possible at times for two parties acting in good faith to have a legitimate difference of opinion with regard to the application of the law. When those differences of opinion arise, if it's not possible to resolve those matters, then there is an adjudication process that is called for through the courts.

My goal — and, of course, I believe, the Privacy Commissioner's goal — would be to have no issues where we're not able to resolve them. But in the few cases where we are not able to resolve them, yes, there's adjudication that takes place through the courts, which is as it should be under the law.

C. James: Just so there's no misunderstanding out there, we're talking about individuals who have made freedom-of-information requests. The commissioner has backed the requests and has told the Premier's office to release the documents, and the Premier's office is challenging that request and saying that they don't want to release the documents.

I have to say that the Premier has another option there. Rather than going to court and challenging the issue, he has the option of releasing the documents. That's a perfectly reasonable approach for the Premier's office to use.

Again, I'd like to ask the Premier: how does defending and fighting with the FOI commissioner in court over releasing documents…? How does the Premier justify that as a good use of public dollars?

Hon. G. Campbell: I do think that it's important to recognize that the government has a number of obligations. We obviously have an obligation to live within the laws of British Columbia, as does the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner.
[ Page 6106 ]

There are times — and it is possible — where two people acting in good faith can actually have a different interpretation. The Attorney General has an obligation, in fact, in terms of his oath, to make sure that the law has been adhered to.

[1730]

I think last year government responded to something in the order of 6,300 freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy requests. We were able to do that in a way that I think was smoother for people that were making the application. We've seen the improvement in time frames. We're working well, I think, with the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner.

On occasion there are differences of opinion about what the legal framework is, about what the legal requirements are. So yes, there are times when we do deal directly with the courts to try to adjudicate those on behalf of both us and the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner.

I think we should be under no illusions. The reason that we're doing that is because we are reading the law, and I'm sure the privacy commissioner is reading the law. The Attorney General, in good faith, is reading a different set of constraints around the law or applications of the law than the Privacy Commissioner is, and that's why you go together to court to have it resolved.

C. James: I just want to remind the Premier of some of his own statements, because I think it's important to recognize that this is not a rare occurrence here, where the Premier's office is challenging the FOI commissioner around documents. This is not a rare occurrence for this government to try and keep information from the public.

When this Premier was sworn in, in 2001, he made the following statement: "This cabinet is founded on two fundamental principles: political accountability and improved public access."

In his victory speech in 2001, he also restated the party's now infamous commitment to openness and accountability by saying: "We will bring in the most open and accountable government in Canada. I know some people say we'll soon forget about that, but I promise we won't."

Well, I'd like to ask the Premier: will he admit now that that promise is not only forgotten by him and his government, but, in fact, that this government has turned back the clock when it comes to transparency and openness and accountability in this province?

Hon. G. Campbell: We have taken a number of steps to improve the freedom-of-information and privacy provisions and how we apply that and how we do it. In fact, I'm sure the member opposite is aware of the fact that there has been a significant expansion of the freedom-of-information requirements, and British Columbia today is recognized as having some of the strongest information legislation in Canada. It covers more of the government than ever before. We've added over a hundred bodies to its scope since 2001. It's now covering over 2,900 public bodies, and that's the largest number of any jurisdiction in the country.

We have supported the commissioner with consistent budget increases. He just received another increase this year, while many parts of the government are facing restraint as we try to protect critical services in health and education.

As I mentioned earlier, last year we saw 6,300 requests. That's 18 percent more than 2008-09. Arguably, those requests will continue to get better, so we're continuing to look at how we can improve on those things. The government is investing literally millions and millions of dollars to meet those requests and to make sure that people have the information they find is important.

Personal information. There's no charge for personal information that people receive from the government. All of those things have improved, I think, the openness in British Columbia. That is not to say there's not more that could be done. I think that though those are important steps that have been taken in British Columbia, we'll continue to look at ways we can improve on that. There was a report submitted yesterday from the freedom-of-information and privacy committee of the Legislature.

Again, I just reiterate that according to former Auditor General Wayne Strelioff, British Columbia now leads the provinces in complying with GAAP and inclusiveness of its budget and financial reports. We've heard time and again that British Columbia is in a leadership position with regard to that.

[1735]

We are continuing to strive, both through significant financial investments in this and systemic investments in this to try to improve the quality of services that are available to the people of the province, in keeping with the twin and sometimes conflicting goals of freedom of information and protection of privacy. I think that's an important and challenging equation to keep, but it's one that we are constantly striving to improve upon.

C. James: I'd like to suggest to the Premier that he needs an update on where things are around freedom of information, because it's not simply the opposition that's been expressing concerns about this government's secrecy and turning the clock back around freedom of information. There are a number of groups and organizations.

The latest Canadian Newspaper Association audit released on May 14 again put B.C. at the bottom of the list in Canada when it came to freedom of information — dead last. The Premier promised the most open and accountable government. How on earth can he then ex-
[ Page 6107 ]
plain the last-place ranking in information access again this year?

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Chair, like the member opposite, I was concerned when I saw the recent report by the Canadian Newspaper Association. At the time, the Minister of Citizens' Services said that he would be contacting the author of the report to determine what actually took place and to see how we can do better in the future.

However, I do think it's important to note that substantial improvements have been made. The government has cut overall response times to FOI requests, actually in response to some recommendations from the Information and Privacy Commissioner, from 71 days to the current average of just over 24 days. The government now responds, as I mentioned, to between 6,000 and 7,000 requests every year, some of which are large and complex.

Last year we centralized government's information and privacy operations to improve the response times. As of February 2010, 87 percent of requests were done on time compared to 71 percent prior to centralization. So it's clear that we're making progress. It's clear that that should raise some concerns, and it did raise some concerns with me.

The Minister of Citizens' Services will be contacting the staff not just to determine British Columbia's response, but what other jurisdictions' response was to the same requests and how they manage them. I think the costs, particularly of the requests, seem to be unusually high. We want to find out the reasons behind that, but I do think it's important to note that on average, taxpayers currently support requests for freedom of information to the tune of about $2,200 in terms of processing time.

All of the processing of freedom of information and protection of privacy is done by professional public servants. There are application procedures, etc. Ministries have them, but we now have that centralized. The overall budget for the taxpayers of British Columbia is in the order of $15½ million each year. As I mentioned before, we will continue to look for ways that we can improve on the provision of information and the protection of privacy.

[1740]

C. James: I'll give the Premier one example where I would hope the Premier would agree that improvement has to happen. One of the B.C. ministries, the Transportation Ministry, also had the distinction of charging the highest fee in this audit that was done — over $98,000 to produce cell phone records. Does the Premier believe that almost $100,000 for government information is reasonable? And how is that open and accountable government?

Hon. G. Campbell: We're just trying to confirm that those were the numbers that I was actually referring to earlier in my last answer.

I don't think anyone disagrees that a fee of $98,000 seems like it's excessive. I think the critical thing is to determine why that fee was there. It is, again, administered by the professional public service. It actually doesn't cost the full cost of the services. I understand that our staff have actually met with the researcher. It was a sampling of five requests that were put in place. I don't have the answers yet for the member opposite.

Our goal is to make sure that we do make available information as we should under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. We've seen a substantial increase in the funding for the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy services that are available to the people of British Columbia. We've seen improvements in performance. We've seen, frankly, good cooperation between the commissioner and the government.

We'll continue to do that. Obviously, we want to make sure that we get to 100 percent. We're not at 100 percent in terms of what we should be trying to do. That's why we centralized. It's taken some time, but we've made real progress this year, and I hope that we'll make progress in years to come.

I also think it's important for the researcher to be able to directly communicate with staff about what they were trying to accomplish and what are the challenges there. I can't answer that today. I'm not in a position to answer what the challenges have been, but I know that our staff are concerned about it, as we are and as I am, and we're trying to resolve the issue.

C. James: The Premier once again contradicts what statements are made by groups and organizations and the public in trying to access information from this government. The Premier talks about improvements, but in fact, report after report shows exactly the opposite.

In the latest review of the FOI Act the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association made a submission to the committee in which they stated that the act had been eviscerated and specifically noted that in the last six years, instead of improvements to the act, the problems under this government had escalated into a crisis.

This criticism was echoed, as well, by the current FOI commissioner, Paul Fraser, and by his predecessor. In 2009 the then commissioner, David Loukidelis, found "an unacceptable pattern of governmentwide failure to respond to access requests in as timely a fashion as it should."

The commissioner also stated in his timeliness report that the worst offender of all was the Premier's office. Now, the Premier once pledged to this association that all citizens would have timely access to information —
[ Page 6108 ]
this from a Premier now who is unwilling to provide access to information and, in fact, is using dollars, scarce dollars, to take the FOI commissioner to court.

How can this Premier explain how his government and, in fact, his own office have treated FOI with such disregard and how they've fallen so short of where we should be in British Columbia?

[1745]

Hon. G. Campbell: I think we canvassed some of this last year in estimates, but let me go back. I think the member referred specifically to a 2009 report from the FOI commissioner. The member is correct. At that time the FOI commissioner said that the Premier's office was the worst performer and had the longest turnaround and delays, with only 31 percent of requests being processed on time.

I was, frankly, surprised by that, and I said at the time when the FOI commissioner's report was made available to me that it was both surprising and not acceptable to me. I was clear that our objective was to improve access across government and in my office in particular. At the time we took steps to actually make sure that we could remediate that.

The commissioner's most recent annual report from 2009 actually suggested that he had some optimism. He applauded the government's quick actions to address the issue, and he noted that in the first-quarter reporting, results were "an encouraging sign that the government intends to follow through in its commitment to improve its processes."

For example, the Minister of Citizens' Services reports that as of February 2010 we've improved overall response time from 71 percent to 87 percent of requests completed in the legislative timelines. That's a 16 percent improvement. I think it's important to underline this. We intend to get to 100 percent. We are not there yet, and I acknowledge that. I think we have to do better, and we will continue striving to do better.

In the Office of the Premier I am told that turnarounds with legislative timelines have steadily improved from the 31 percent so that today 93.6 percent are being completed in that way. It's a significant improvement. Again, it's not an improvement that reaches our goal, which is 100 percent compliance, and I do think it's important that we look at this.

I also recognize that turnarounds have been a problem for governments since 1993, when this was first brought in. This report was the first time we saw the results of that, and I think it was important that we had a systemic and thorough review, which the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner provided us with.

We've been able to take steps with regard to that. We've improved services from 71 business days on average to 24 business days on average, and that builds on the improvement from 71 to 34 days last year. We are continuing to work on this. We will continue to do that as we strive to ensure that we meet our goal of being the most open and transparent government in Canada.

C. James: I want to take a look at some concrete examples. I hear numbers. I hear the Premier saying they're looking at improvements. But the reality out there doesn't reflect that, and I think that it's important to take a look at specific examples where FOI delays and interference are endemic across the government.

The Premier recently took part in a trade mission to Asia. It's interesting to take a look at the Alberta Premier, who was also on the trade trip, and to take a look at the key difference between the two Premiers when it came to transparency of costs.

The Alberta government provided an immediate costing of the trip. They put the estimates of travel costs for the Premier, for the staff, plus costs for events and promotion. Nothing from the Premier. The Alberta government has publicly posted detailed expense information on international travel since 2004, as well as posting other expenses for the Premier, along with other ministers.

My question to the Premier would be: if the Alberta Premier can make the costs of international travel public, why doesn't the Premier commit to do this?

[1750]

Hon. G. Campbell: As I'm sure the member opposite knows, the government does disclose travel costs through the public accounts on a regular basis.

I am informed by staff that there are a number of challenges in terms of doing what she's suggesting, what they do in Alberta. I actually heard about the Alberta situation myself on the trip. I think that that's certainly something that we should look at. I noted that the Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act suggested that we look at being more proactive, and I think that's a recommendation that we can certainly look at.

C. James: I'd like to give the Premier another example, and I'll be watching to see whether we take a look at the Alberta example. I'm certain that if Alberta is able to move to it, British Columbia can certainly look at similar kinds of approaches. I want to give you another example of another jurisdiction.

On January 4 of this year, 2010, two FOI requests were made. One was to the State of Washington, and one was made to the Office of the Premier for exactly the same documents. The request was for records that were related to joint cabinet meetings that happened between the State of Washington and the province of British Columbia — so same meetings, same document requests. One was to the State of Washington and one
[ Page 6109 ]
to the Office of the Premier. This request was made, as I said, on January 4.

February 3 — less than a month later — we received a note from the office of the governor of the State of Washington, with a fee of $63.30. Or they offered that we could actually come and view the documents. And I should note for the Premier that, in fact, under his government's new centralized approach on FOI, the B.C. Liberals don't even allow the option of coming to see the documents, to view the documents and save those photocopy costs, so I find it interesting that Washington is there.

We paid the $63.30, and we received a full package of information — all the records, 300 pages, with no severing — on March 3. We put in the request in January. We got back, in March, full documents — $63, no severing. That was crossing an international border, and it only took two months.

[1755]

Now let's contrast that with the request that we put in to the Premier's office — same FOI, same documents, same meetings. We put in our request on January 4. The Premier's office sent a letter back on February 11 asking for the date to be extended to the end of March. Well, here we are today, June 1, and we still haven't seen any documents come back from the Premier's office.

The Premier's now two months late from his two-month extension. How does the Premier explain his own office's inability to produce exactly the same records in a timely manner, when Washington State managed to get them to us?

Hon. G. Campbell: I've been trying to review the January 4 request with the staff, and I will not make an assumption with regard to what has taken the time. I think it's important that we get the member back the information on why it has taken this time.

One thing I will say, though, is that we do have a different law in British Columbia than they have in Washington, and I think it's important that we actually act within our law.

I don't know the impacts with regard to Washington versus British Columbia. Certainly, I think that when a freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy request is submitted, it is administered by professionals who review that and submit it. I will get the information back for the member.

C. James: Just so the Premier knows, here are the kinds of records that we received back from the state of Washington, as he's looking through the requests that came into his office. We received briefing notes, including joint briefing notes on the cabinet meetings. We received e-mails, detailed agendas, complete progress reports, expense information — all entirely unsevered. I'll expect a response from the Premier's office shortly, then, around why the delay of two months is there and why we still haven't had a response at June 1.

I'd just like to turn now to another FOI issue which again comes and points to the government's lack of providing information to the public, to the government's secrecy. We've been asking about the number of requests that have been coming back from this government with the response of "No records."

[1800]

Now, as a member of a committee reviewing the FOI Act, our critic had heard numerous submissions saying the same thing — that there was a trend of requests coming back from ministers' offices and from others that came back with a "no records" response. The minister responsible for FOI suggested in estimates that the reason for this was due to the increasing number of FOI requests that the opposition was submitting.

I'd like to ask the Premier: does he agree with his minister that the concern around FOI requests by the opposition has actually caused his government to restrict the information that's put in FOIable documents?

Hon. G. Campbell: The government and the people of British Columbia have our Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It is my expectation that every office of government must follow the act. The act requires that response of records be returned on request, and it's my expectation that that is done. I understand that that is the case.

I understand that if the opposition feels that has not been undertaken in the way it should be, they can appeal that to the freedom-of-information commissioner, who would be the appropriate body to ask about it. I believe that we are covering off our responsibilities under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and we will continue to do so.

C. James: Well, I think the facts speak for themselves, and it shows that the government in fact is not living up to the FOI Act and the requests there. I think that's been pointed out not simply by the opposition but by the public and other groups and organizations.

I'd just like to read for the Premier what his own minister is saying, because it contradicts what the Premier has said here. The minister responsible for freedom of information stated — and this is speaking about the "No records" coming back: "This has been accomplished while requests from political parties have increased by over 250 percent in the same period…That's a significant increase, and you can imagine that maybe the reason you're seeing more without briefing notes is because of the volume that is being requested by the political parties."

I think the Premier would have to agree, in hearing that quote, that the minister seems to believe that requests from the opposition on FOI activity are a valid
[ Page 6110 ]
reason for the government not to provide documents. What does the Premier have to say about his own minister who is responsible for FOI making that kind of statement?

Hon. G. Campbell: First of all, let me be very clear. Whether the request comes from the opposition or a private citizen, we have obligations to meet those requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. We will do that.

[1805]

There is work done by the professional public service. This is not something that is politically interfered with at all, but there's work done that will often request people to focus their requests to try and make them not just sustainable but far more effective in terms of how we deal with it. I think we've seen that.

As I mentioned, literally every FOI request that we get in the province costs taxpayers roughly $2,200. I think it is reasonable for the people who are charged with covering this that they actually try and focus down on what it is they're after. I understand that the average length of an FOI request is about 500 pages. That again is a significant amount of work, literally millions of dollars a year.

Having said that, I think what is important to recognize is that if your request is incredibly broad, it may well be that there are not documents for that request. If your request is more narrow, it may well be. Just because you throw your net wider, it does not mean there are going to be fish all through the sea, if you want.

It is important for us to recognize that the effort that is made by the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy professional staff is to ensure that all parties get the information they need in a timely manner. We've seen significant improvements with regard to that — significant improvements in my office as well as significant improvements across government. We will continue to strive to get 100 percent effectiveness with regard to that. I think that requires everybody to participate in the solution.

C. James: I have to say that I don't believe that I or the public have been reassured by the responses around FOI. As I see we're getting close to our time, I'd like to make some closing remarks and just reflect on the discussion that we've had in estimates over this day.

We started out the morning and I started out talking about how the public has lost faith with this government, that this is a government that has broken trust with the public. I have to say that the Premier's responses did nothing to change that today. Topic after topic after topic, the Premier's responses raised more questions than they answered. I believe the public will be disappointed in their hopes of getting some responses to serious issues facing this government and serious issues facing the people of British Columbia.

We started out today by canvassing the two-time resignation of the former Solicitor General. We wanted to get some answers and responses from the Premier about his decision to reappoint the member for Vancouver-Fraserview to the post of Solicitor General in the midst of a police investigation — his decision to push ahead with the reappointment despite the fact that he had been told the special prosecutor was resigning and another special prosecutor would have to be appointed.

Well, we didn't hear any responses from the Premier that gave us any kind of indication that he put any thought to the important office of the Solicitor General, to protect that office as the top cop. The Premier himself wouldn't talk specifically about what he was told by his Attorney General.

In his answers he appeared to be more concerned about making sure he got the member back in as the Solicitor General than he did about doing the right thing — the right thing to protect the office and protect the integrity of the office, which you would think was critical. I have to say that section in particular raised concerns for me about this Premier and this government's judgment when it comes to decisions.

We then moved on to one of the most important issues facing British Columbians right now, which is the HST. British Columbians have been questioning this Premier and this government, trying to unravel the stories and trying to find out what really happened when it came to the HST. Again, we didn't get responses from this Premier. The Premier actually justified his reversal by saying that the facts had changed.

Well, when we started walking through all of the facts with the Premier, what we found out was that the facts were actually available well before the election. The federal government made its offer of flexibility in January. The Premier surely should have been aware of that, and if not, that raises more questions about competency than I think anyone could imagine.

The province of Ontario moved in March to adopt the HST, another key that the Premier said was important. That was already there, information the Premier already had. Incredibly, the Premier wants the public to believe that, oh no, he wasn't paying attention to any of that. All of a sudden it magically appeared a couple of days after the election. Again, the public doesn't buy it.

[1810]

We find out that a tax official, the day after the Premier met with the tax people and with the Finance Minister and the Deputy Finance Minister, started requesting information and having discussions with his federal counterparts on the HST. The Premier says it's a pure coincidence. Well, again, I don't know how far this Premier can stretch the stories.

The public just doesn't buy it. The public is angry that this government betrayed the trust of the people of British Columbia. They were not upfront about the HST.
[ Page 6111 ]
The public is angry, and the Premier said that the public will judge. Well, yes, the public will judge. The public will clearly judge this Premier and this government for what happened around the HST.

We closed off by talking about openness and transparency — questions about the independent officers of the Legislature and the fact that two of the officers, the FOI commissioner and the children's commissioner, have had to go to court around decisions of this Premier and this government.

Again, this is a Premier that back in 2001 said he wanted it to be the most open and transparent government — and, I have to say, has failed miserably. That was apparent again today in the responses.

In conclusion, we face big challenges in British Columbia. We're just coming out of what is one of the deepest recessions we've seen in our history. The people of British Columbia are facing challenges in communities. They've gone through difficult times.

We're seeing a recovery that is a jobless recovery. We haven't seen the kinds of employment numbers we need for people to feel that they're able to support their families.

In the midst of all of this, what's the government's response to the challenges facing British Columbia? Are they coming forward with a comprehensive economic plan to help the people of British Columbia; to get us back on track; to increase economic growth; to grab the opportunities for the green economy of the future; to invest in people, our greatest resource? No.

The government instead is making cuts to services that matter to people, not putting investments into education that they should be because that's the future of our province, and bringing in the HST.

In closing, I thank the Premier's staff for taking the time today, but I have to say that there weren't the kinds of answers, there wasn't the kind of response, there wasn't the kind of open and transparent dialogue that not only we expect as the opposition but, I think, the public expects from their government.

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it is important just to mention a couple of things. In fact, the single most important challenge we face in British Columbia is building a strong economy to come out of this economically challenging time — a strong economy that takes full advantage of our strategic and our economic position, that builds on the successes of the last number of years.

Obviously, we are concerned about creating an environment where there will be more investment and there will be more jobs. We are concerned about working with British Columbians in small business, in forestry, in mining, in agriculture, in energy, in digital media, in film. We have been doing that.

I think one of the things it's important to note as…. You know, I've come to these estimates now for a number of years with this leader, and it would be great to come to estimates and hear some positive things that the opposition would like to be considered which we can move ahead.

I do believe that the initiatives we've undertaken with regard to Asia and the Asia-Pacific are significant. We see 3,500 people involved in the forest industry here that are directly a result of the initiatives that have been undertaken in China. We see significant new opportunities building for our students and people across the province as we make even stronger connections with Korea and with Japan and with India.

I think one of the things that's really important as we look to the future, and maybe one of the changes that people can look to for all of us, is to find ways that we look for the things that we have in common and the goals that we share.

I think the opposition actually shares our goal of making sure that our health care system is there for people. That's why we're investing literally two billion additional dollars in health care.

That does not mean we don't have to make changes, to make improvements. I think it's, frankly, a mug's game to follow the path of expedience on literally every single occasion, so the Leader of the Opposition can rest assured that we will not follow that path. We'll make the best decisions we can with the information that's in front of us, and we'll make those decisions on behalf of British Columbians in every single part of this province. We'll make those decisions to strengthen the economy.

It's because we've been willing to make those decisions that we've actually got over 400,000 additional jobs since 2001. We saw, again, in April a significant uptake in the number of jobs in British Columbia.

[1815]

We hear financial institution after financial institution saying that we will lead the country in terms of economic growth. We are leading the country in terms of job creation. We're continuing to look at ways we can improve on that, and I welcome all British Columbians who want to build that.

As we build the economy, as we build the private sector, as we build the economic engine of British Columbia based on our natural resource foundation and our global competitiveness, which is essential in the world that we live in today, it is essential that we be globally competitive if we're going to watch the quality of life for British Columbians rise, if we're going to have the resources we need to improve our advanced education but, more importantly, if we're going to have the resources we need to improve our K-to-12 education system, to improve our early childhood learning.

All of those things are critical that require a different mindset from all British Columbians.

In 2010 we hosted the Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games. I think it's fair to say we exceeded expectations not just in British Columbia; we exceeded expectations in
[ Page 6112 ]
Canada. We exceeded expectations of the International Olympic Committee.

When British Columbians work together, when British Columbians strive to make sure that we are thinking of other British Columbians as well as ourselves, when British Columbians act on principle, there is really nothing we can't accomplish as a province as we lead Canada into the 21st century.

Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $9,711,000 — approved.

Hon. G. Campbell: I move that the committee rise and report resolution.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:17 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