2013 Legislative Session: Fifth 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)

Monday, March 4, 2013

Morning Sitting

Volume 43, Number 3

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

MONDAY, MARCH 4, 2013

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

HEALTH CARE IN RURAL COMMUNITIES

C. Trevena: Mr. Speaker, I think there's no question that all of us in our own ways would defend our public health care system and would also try to ensure the best-quality care in our communities.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Now, thanks to an extremely hard-working group of individuals in the north Island, primarily led by a loose coalition of people known as the Citizens for Quality Health Care, we're going to be getting two new hospitals — one for the Comox Valley and one for my constituency, based in Campbell River.

This is not a new announcement. We've known for some time that we're going to get our hospital. However, what we've not been able to see is the business plan on which the hospital is predicated — not for want of trying. Verbal and written requests went unheard. A freedom-of-information request made by my office resulted in a four-page piece of fluff which could be found on the Internet.

Some select people have been able to see the $3 million business plan on how $600 million is going to be spent, how decisions were made and how the construction will evolve, but the health authority categorically refuses to make it public. So I would like to ask the Minister of Health to share it with the people of the north Island, because it might put at rest some of the serious concerns we have.

When negotiations were occurring over the building of the hospital, we were assured that we would lose nothing from our current hospital. Then the rumours started to circulate. What was going to happen to the pharmacy, to the lab, to the cafeteria? No one really knew.

Then we heard that the autopsy room was going to be located in the Comox Valley. The reason? Lack of space in Campbell River — this lack of space before an architect has put pen to paper and a long time before the shovels are in the ground, so to speak. Now we hear that this has been reversed, but I and others in the community worry about what this row signals.

Firstly, that the mistrust of the health authority was well placed. Having been promised at least the status quo, we've had to fight to get it.

[1005]

In fact, when I challenged the CEO of VIHA, the health authority, he said: "If we put in autopsy, something has to come out. It's a question of setting real priorities, and this one isn't one." So much for having the status quo.

Secondly, we became increasingly concerned about the inflexibility of the plans. This is particularly acute when looking at bed numbers. Remember, we're still a ways from the RFP going out, still no plans drawn up. Doctors, nurses and many others in the community started to get very worried that the number of beds calculated for the hospital is too low.

We're going to have "up to 95 beds." Seeing as the present hospital with a capacity of 59 beds often has to cope with more than 80 patients needing bed space, there's real concern that by the time the new hospital will be built, it will be too small for the population it's supposed to serve.

Who knows how the numbers were really determined? We've not seen the business plan. But we do know that First Nations say their growing-population statistics were completely ignored in the plan. Initially, VIHA said it did the projections. Now it says the ministry has made them. But if First Nations — who largely did not complete the census — have not been included, there will without a doubt be a significant miscalculation.

We do know that every day our present hospital is bursting at the seams. There's a rule at Campbell River Hospital that no surgeries will be cancelled, and that's great, except when you don't have the room for the patients.

There are six bays for people who are in for day surgery and three operating rooms, but those bays are also places where other patients are placed because there is no other space. There might be five patients there with respiratory infections or gastro problems, or seniors with Alzheimer's, leaving just one bed available for day surgery. If you have surgeries planned throughout the day, it is easy to imagine the chaos building.

There are also patients backed up in the TV room, in the endoscopy suite, in the hallways, in the Harry Potter room, which is a curtain over a cubbyhole in the corridor. Patients have been known to spend four or five days on stretchers.

Overcrowded, the risk of the spread of infection, unsafe working conditions — the list goes on. That's today. When the new hospital is built, it's feared that it will be at capacity as soon as it opens. So people in the community want to make sure that if we're spending $266 million on the Campbell River Hospital, 40 percent of which is being paid for by local taxpayers alone, through the regional hospital board — the public part of this private-public partnership, I believe — we get what we need.

Not only is the health authority intransigent, handing over responsibility to a project team, which is working
[ Page 13222 ]
specifically on the public-private partnership — although with a 40 percent buy-in from the regional hospital board, you'd think they would be a bit more responsive to the public; it is intimidating those who work within it. There's been concern from the medical staff — doctors, nurses and care workers — about the situation.

You have to realize people want to work in Campbell River. It's a lovely city. It's in a fabulous location, and despite all the obstacles, you get great care in that hospital. The staff is truly dedicated, and they want to make sure it's done right.

But when a number of them started to question the bed numbers and when they started to challenge the blithe arguments that there are plenty of beds, they were — not to mince words — intimidated. The word came down that if they questioned the decision-making, if they had the audacity to ask for the bed numbers to be reviewed, they would put the whole project at risk, and we would likely not get a hospital.

They were seriously worried because they know that the more-than-50-year-old hospital we currently have is falling apart, and they want a place where they can continue to work and provide the best quality of care to their patients. They didn't want to be held responsible for the new hospital not going ahead.

So they shut up, as the health authority and the 3P management wanted, because medical staff do get respect in the community and they do get heard. If they had continued to question the bed numbers when they are daily trying to navigate the overcrowded hallways of our current hospital, a lot more people would have started to demand from VIHA that before the plans went much further we made sure we got it right.

I was appalled when I heard that the doctors were intimidated in this way. I heard of other health care workers also fearful of speaking out because they, too, had been told that if they questioned things, it would mean they would not get the hospital.

I would like to quote an e-mail from one of the doctors:

[1010]

"By insisting on more beds or more square footage, it will mean that the project will go back to the government Treasury Board, and we will be back in the lineup awaiting funds like everybody else in the province. We all would like more beds and space, but we are not the ones who get to decide. Government decides.

"Although I recognize that some of the timelines have been somewhat artificial, I realize they are centred around the upcoming election."

D. Barnett: Rural health is a topic that is close to many of us. We are very fortunate in the province of British Columbia to have the health care we do today in rural British Columbia.

I have lived in rural British Columbia for 47 years, and I have seen the changes in health care, in health care needs and in how health care is delivered. There have been massive changes. Demographics make change. Technology makes change.

We have something in rural British Columbia that has helped so many of us, and it's called video conferencing. Most people don't even know it's there. You can have a smaller hospital with smaller numbers of doctors, great staff. Through video conferencing, many people's lives have been saved, and many health care issues have been resolved.

We talk about building new hospitals and building new facilities. It is an ongoing challenge, but it is happening, and it is happening in places where it needs to happen.

I was so excited when I heard that Burns Lake, a small community that needed a new facility, was getting a new hospital. I had the privilege of going to Burns Lake to look at the facility, and I thought to myself: "That facility is one that didn't just deteriorate over ten years. That facility deteriorated over many, many years, and it should have been a priority 20 years ago."

To me, the government has done a great job in taking a look at the needs of the small rural communities throughout British Columbia. Where I come from, over the past ten years there have been great, great capital changes done in my communities, and we are so thankful for them.

We also have a rural physician issue in British Columbia. On this side of the House…. In northern British Columbia we now have a northern medical program. In 2004 it was established, and doctors in northern B.C. graduated its first class in 2008. In 2012 the government opened the southern medical program in Kelowna.

Physicians who are educated in rural areas are more likely to return and to stay with their families. In the first three years in the northern medical program, Northern Health recruited 11 new family doctors from the school. We are continuing to work with Northern Health and UBC to make sure that as many doctors as possible who graduate from this program stay in the community.

Since the school was established, we've seen a significant increase in the number of doctors practising in rural B.C. According to the latest available statistics from the Society of Rural Physicians of Canada, B.C. has 874 rural residents per GP. The Canadian average was 1,153 rural residents for each rural GP.

We've also established one of the most comprehensive funding and incentive programs in Canada to encourage doctors to stay in rural B.C. In 2011-12 the government spent nearly $100 million on these programs They include the rural recruitment incentive fund, which provides an incentive of up to $20,000 for doctors to fill a vacancy in a rural community, and the rural recruitment contingency fund, which provides funds to help rural communities with recruiting expenses.

B.C. also offers a forgiveness program for nurses, nurse practitioners, medical residents, pharmacists and other medical professionals who choose to work in underserved areas. The province will forgive any outstanding
[ Page 13223 ]
B.C. student loan debt at 33 1/3 percent per year. After three years the B.C. student loans are repaid in full — rural education funding to support ongoing professional development.

[1015]

Also, in rural B.C. we have other incentives that are there to encourage doctors, nurses, pharmacists and all those wonderful people that we need in rural health care to make our communities safe and healthy.

C. Trevena: The member opposite mentioned about keeping doctors in the community, and that is so important. That's why it is so important that doctors aren't intimidated, that medical staff and nurses aren't intimidated, that they feel they're part of the system and not just a cog in the wheel to be used.

As I say, on the Campbell River Hospital issue there has been a sense within the medical community — doctors, nurses and others — that they've been intimidated and not been allowed to speak out. So when the e-mail went out saying, "I recognize some of the timelines have been somewhat artificial; the reality is that they are centred around the upcoming election," the medical staff actually saw through the politics of it.

Even knowing they were being played politically — and the member opposite didn't really talk about the politics of health care, which is a big issue in rural communities, where we are fighting to maintain our health care — they were scared into shutting up.

Even though in the budget — the government's bogus budget, we say…. In the lines for our hospital, where it says that we're going to have a new hospital, it says, "Figures are estimates and will be confirmed through the planning and procurement process," which would indicate some flexibility on the government's part.

People are scared about talking about what's happening in the health authority, and not just the hospital project but daily routine work — the lack of real support for seniors, from baths to breakfasting; the violence many health care workers face in the workplace; the pressure of poor work conditions; and the pressure of lack of staff. It's not healthy, Madam Speaker. The health authority should realize that it's not healthy.

We live in a democracy. People have the right to voice their concerns and at times have an obligation to do so.

I could wax eloquent on the inequities of the public-private partnership and the fear that VIHA and its project team has now launched by questioning whether the hospital will join with other disasters across the province by privatizing housekeeping, but in this very limited time of speaking today I wanted to focus on the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent without proper scrutiny because we cannot see the business plan and on the desperate need for compliance. Our hospital could be overcrowded as soon as the doors are open.

People have worked long and hard for high-quality health care in our community. After years we have an agreement that we will have a new hospital, and we need to make sure that it serves everyone's needs. We need to see the business plan, we need to revisit the bed numbers, and we need to stop the intimidation within the health authority.

CIRCLE TOURS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

K. Krueger: I'm here today to speak about circle tours of British Columbia. Through our Tourism Ministry we have been encouraging staycations for years now. We encourage British Columbians to get to know their own province first. It's a fabulous place.

I had hardly travelled outside of British Columbia until I was 50 years old, and I had no problem finding new places to go for vacations all those years. Our previous Premier, Gordon Campbell, named British Columbia the best place on earth, and I continue to feel that he was entirely justified in doing so.

Some years ago a committee of government MLAs set about mapping out what we then called circle tours around British Columbia, ways that we could suggest that people new to British Columbia or people who are residents of British Columbia travel around a particular area of the province. The local tourism marketing associations could make sure that that they became acquainted with the many unique things to do and see on each of these routes.

Our Tourism Ministry has built on that approach considerably. They now have this wonderful website called hellobc.com that tells people where to go and who to see and how to get around and find out what's going on — what the current events are, the cultural events, the things the arts communities are doing. We continue to find this a very successful way to encourage tourism within British Columbia.

Of course, that's an issue now with the Canadian dollar as valuable as it is. It used to be that Americans pretty much had a two-for-one special on everything in B.C. Now that our money is sometimes worth more than theirs and very often right around par, that isn't the attraction anymore.

[1020]

We want to make sure people come to realize what a wonderful, diverse province we have. We were very successful, through the successful Olympics in 2010, in marketing British Columbia, attracting a lot of attention. We're still top of mind with a lot of tourists considering visiting outside their own countries. So it isn't just the U.S.A. that we're relying on anymore. There are people coming to us from all around the world because they paid attention to Vancouver and they paid attention to British Columbia during the Olympics.

I'll give you some examples of the kinds of tours that people can do. In the North Thompson Valley — which
[ Page 13224 ]
I, sadly, no longer represent because of a boundaries change by the Electoral Boundaries Commission — has marvelous tours.

They still have two reaction ferries along the North Thompson River. They used to have nine before there was a highway and a railway. It's 3,000-year-old Egyptian technology — this reaction ferry approach. They change the pontoons on the ferry, and then the current pushes it one way. Then they change them, and it pushes it the other.

You can take two or three vehicles on these wooden ferries — really interesting to do. There are beautiful country roads that people can travel on. They can circle back on Highway 5, if they choose, or end up on Highway 16, for that matter, and go across the country.

There are huge circle tours in British Columbia, and there are much smaller ones. You can find out all about them on hellobc.com. A young researcher who's working with us — he started recently — was so excited when he found out I was going to speak on this topic that he came and urged me to talk about circle farm tours, which they officially launched in 2003. He says it has spread across the Fraser Valley.

Each tour consists of five regions, and each region pictures their town as a cartoon map and showcases each of the participating tourist locations and farms. Abbotsford has 17; Langley has 15; Chilliwack, 13; Harrison-Agassiz, 10; Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, 14. That's all the advertising I'm going to give the Fraser Valley, because they've got lots of MLAs.

There are many around Kamloops, as well — fabulous tours.

Interjection.

K. Krueger: Highway 16, the member says, and he's right. It's fantastic — Smithers and Hazelton and Prince Rupert. You're throwing me off, Member. I've got to advertise Kamloops a little.

Kamloops — you can circle back through the Fraser Canyon. You can go out around the Yale-Lillooet area. There are fantastic tours.

The one I want to really focus on today involves Highway 5A. We call it the old Merritt highway. It starts in the riding, obviously, of the member from Yale-Lillooet, and it ends in Kamloops. It's just a beautiful, beautiful drive, and I'd encourage you all to take it. You see ranches. You see a whole string of beautiful lakes and some potholes. There are wildfowl all through them.

I took the road the other day, going home on Saturday. I saw birdwatchers on opposite sides of the road. You'd see an elderly couple, and they're taking pictures of birds in the shrubs along the road. In the summer it's beautiful — red-wing blackbirds and all kinds of species.

That is actually one of the largest, fastest-growing tourism activities in the world — birdwatching. A lot of people snicker when you say that, but it's true. In the Vancouver papers this winter I saw a species that had been photographed that's seldom seen here, and hundreds, thousands of people came from around the world to see that particular bird. It's a big activity, and it's really good for tourism.

You also see resorts — beautiful ranch homes and little tiny ranch homes, ancient cabins and really sophisticated estates. Recreational vehicles love to tour this highway. It's a meandering, slow-speed highway. It should be a slow-speed highway. Not everybody travels slowly, and that's an issue there.

You see motorcycles, but you don't see them when the trucks are around. The semis frighten away a lot of these activities. People like to go on bicycle tours of Highway 5A, but when the truckers are on it, it's frightening. Locals tell me sometimes there's a truck a minute, and they practically blow people off the road. There have been serious accidents. No doubt there will be more unless we can do something about that issue.

You travel along and look at the hayfields and the cattle grazing. There's a sign on the side of the highway at one pullout point, and it refers to the "empire of grass." Kamloops became the ranching area that supplied the miners during the gold rush. A lot of people who were probably planning on being prospectors decided that it made sense instead to grow food for the miners because the wildlife wasn't able to supply the volume of people coming in.

Ranching around there got its start because of the gold rush. Tremendous grasslands — you can see them from Highway 5A. Sagebrush, wildlife. It's a beautiful, beautiful place to be.

[1025]

There's an old hotel at a place called Quilchena. It still has bullet holes in the bar from activities that went on in there in the past. There are a couple of beautiful golf courses there as well. You pass lakes with names likeRichie, Trapp, Napier, Roche….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'd like to thank the member for his speech around circle tours and his government's efforts to go around in circles. Certainly, some members will have noticed that over the last couple of years.

But no, to be serious, I'd like to say that I really enjoy the circle routes. Certainly, the member described his great delight in travelling the province and getting to know B.C. and his efforts to encourage more people to do that.

I think we all should do that, because we live in a truly inspiring place, a beautiful place, a place with incredible history, which we could do a better job in exploring and teaching about. Certainly, it's the land, which is the famous thing — "Beautiful B.C.," "Super, natural British
[ Page 13225 ]
Columbia" — but also, I think, it really is the people and what we do on that land and how we explore that. Whether or not it's eco-tours or cultural horseback rides or ATVs or those kinds of things, there are many different ways to get to know B.C.

When we talk about circle tours, I think we also need to think about some other circle tours which are not officially on the B.C. map. There's the circle tour map that's on hellobc, but I think about one that's quite an interesting one that I got to know a little bit about thanks to the efforts of the Kootenay Rockies Tourism Association, which is the international Selkirk circle tour route, which is through the United States, up through B.C. and then back down.

That route is actually bringing a lot of American tourism into the Kootenays, which is very important. Certainly, we have not seen the same degree of American tourism as we used to have, but we need to do more to bring it here.

Another route, of course, locally here…. We hear the boat from here in the Legislature, whether it's the Coho or the Clipper, down to Port Angeles and down to the United States, Washington State. People will often make that circle tour — one way down and then travel up through the Mainland and then come back over to the Island or vice versa.

There are some exciting routes. "Two-nation vacations," I think the people in the vacation world are referring to them as. We can do a lot more on that, I think, particularly in the Asian markets. There is a real interest in United States–Canada tours together, combined.

One other area, and the member mentioned it, which I think is exciting is cycle tourism. We haven't really taken as good a look at cycle tourism as we need to in our province. Of course, people will know the Tour de France, and there's all sorts of discussion around cycling in this world today.

But in terms of British Columbia's offer, we've got an incredible one. I think of the Kettle Valley, which needs some more work — absolutely. It can be a little bit dicey for some these days because of the materials on the route. But you look to Vancouver Island. You look to the Tour de Delta. You look at the GranFondo up to Whistler.

There's a huge desire to increase cycling tourism, but I think we need a strategy to do that, and I think that includes working cross-ministry, working with municipalities and many others. I know that a number of our members on this side of the House — the member for Delta North, for example — have long been advocates of cycling tourism.

I think the other benefits that we need to consider with cycling tourism and that tie in with the circle routes are the health benefits. If we can increase cycling in this province, we're going to better our health. We're going to reduce environmental impact, and that's something we need to consider around tourism as well.

Cycling tourists, we know, spend a lot more in communities because they eat a lot more in communities. Their food is their fuel. They also, of course, take much less room in campsites and leave a much lighter footprint on the roads. The roads last a lot longer with cyclists.

Of course, that's not possible at all times of year in this province. Maybe in Vancouver and maybe in Victoria, but in many other parts of the province that's difficult. I know, certainly, that friends of mine try to cycle year-round in Kamloops. They've got studs in their tires, and some of them are making do with it. I know that the member spoke earlier…. I'm not sure if he's ever tried cycling in Kamloops, but that might be another route that he could take and circle the route with the circles of a tire on his bike.

There are some other things that I think we need to consider — the ability of our parks to take in the tourists, to take in the traffic that comes on circle tours. Certainly, we've got to look at maintenance efforts there.

[1030]

Our cultural ability — the museums, the heritage sites. Certainly, heritage is very important on this side of the House, and I'm sure the members opposite would agree. We need to do a better job of making sure that the small little heritage societies have the support of Heritage B.C. and other organizations to maintain their churches, to maintain their heritage locations so that they can truly prosper. It is tough to run these facilities, and it's very expensive.

So I thank the member for sharing his love of riding the roads of B.C. I share that love and look forward to hearing more.

K. Krueger: I thank the member opposite. I miss the halcyon days of he and I duking it out as Tourism Minister and critic. It's nice to speak with him again in the chamber.

I mentioned that I travelled Highway 5A on Saturday. The road restrictions are on because it's spring breakup. The melt is on, so the roadbed is softer. Only 70 percent loads are allowed. As a result, I only saw one truck on the whole route, and it takes over an hour to drive it. The people who live along the highway, the tourists who like to use it, the locals who like to cycle and motorcycle, the birdwatchers — all are having quiet enjoyment. It doesn't last nearly long enough for them.

I'll be tabling a petition this afternoon, where local people who live along the highway travelled the length and breadth of the highway. They write this to me:

"We directly knocked on approximately 95 percent of all households adjacent to Highway 5A, between Merritt and Kamloops down to Hugh Allan Drive. Of the doors we knocked on, 10 to 15 percent were not home. We left petitions with notes. Of the persons we spoke to directly, then, approximately 98 percent were in favour of the petition. In fact, we only ever visited six households that did not sign."

There's a reason for that. One was a government employ-
[ Page 13226 ]
ee who thought somebody might not like it — and a few things like that. We're not naming anybody, obviously.

But the point is that residents, locally, are terrified of the truckers on this route. We have a beautiful alternate — the Coquihalla Highway — just over the hill. Some truckers don't want to use it because of the hills, and they say it burns a little more fuel. But since our government has waived the tolls and knocked down the toll booths, they're saving far more each trip from the tolls than they'd spend on any extra fuel.

If we could keep the trucks off of Highway 5A, it would be a whole different life for the people who live along it and a whole different boost for Tourism Kamloops and tourism venues throughout the area. There have been a number of terrible fatal accidents on the highway. People are afraid that one day a truck will cross centre line and hit a school bus. I hear about this all the time.

I've sworn to my constituents that I will do my best before I'm done — I'm going to be done soon as an MLA — to plead with the government to ban non-local truck traffic from Highway 5A and to restrict trucks to a lower speed.

Now, this would be a new thing for British Columbia. The ministry, understandably, is reluctant to set the precedent, but lives are at stake here. People have died. There was a terrible head-on collision between two truckers just recently, and both were killed — a fiery accident, an awful thing.

I've had a constituent tell me that a trucker tailgated her all the way to her driveway, to her ranch house, and then the trucker pulled over. He was in such a hurry, but he had time to pull over and chase her up the driveway on foot, yelling and swearing at her because she had made him slow down. It's just completely unacceptable to have that full-bore highway traffic coming from Vancouver going to Alberta and frightening constituents who live along the way.

I think it's time — that we'll have to have a look throughout British Columbia at quiet roadways and quiet waterways and encourage our tourism industry in that way.

GOOD GOVERNANCE

D. Donaldson: Today I am going to address the topic of good governance. There has certainly been a lot of feed for this topic last week in the Legislature and over the weekend, but I'm going to focus my comments on public trust, on confidence for investors and a supported, non-partisan public service. Today I'll talk about that in the context of and all in relationship to land stewardship by this government and revenue generation from those resources.

In B.C. we're blessed with an abundance of natural resources owned by the people of the province. The expectation is that since the resources are commonly owned, the benefits will accrue to the people of the province and that the development of these resources will be done in a manner that not only provides current benefit but is done so in a manner where future generations can enjoy continuing benefits without a compromised environment.

[1035]

We want to talk about benefits, now, done in a manner where the benefits will be able to be accrued for the future and done so in the future, without putting at risk other economic activities that are existing on the land base — as well, and above all, recognizing that we're part of the ecosystems in which we live and are not apart from them.

Public trust in government to manage properly is one of the key parts of good governance. Over the last ten years, that public trust has been severely eroded. I'd like to refer to a couple of reports by the Auditor General just in the last year and a half — one of them on forestry, where he found that under this government, "the ministry has not clearly defined its timber objectives" and "the ministry does not appropriately monitor and report its timber results against its timber objectives."

In another report in the last year and a half from the Auditor General on the environmental assessment office, the Auditor General writes: "The environmental assessment office cannot assure British Columbians that the conditions and commitments stated in the environmental assessment certificate are being met." In other words, when the environmental assessment office gives a certificate to a development company with mitigative measures to reduce risk to the environment, they can't even say whether those conditions are being met.

A third example from the last year and a half — in fact, it was just last week from the Auditor General's office — on good governance and public trust was around biodiversity, where the Auditor General found that "government doesn't know if its actions are conserving biodiversity." Just the basic…. The government doesn't know if that's happening or not.

You can see with these three independent reports by the independent Auditor General that public trust in the government to manage properly has been severely eroded. Public trust is based on the ability of the public service to do its job properly. If you lose that public trust, then it creates uncertainty, which directly impacts investor confidence as well.

A prime example of this uncertainty and the lack of trust by the investment sector is the permitting fiasco, especially in mining. The proponents of these huge investments should have the confidence in a timely turnaround, but what we've seen is that 7,000-permit backlog. The government has tried to address this. And this is around good governance and public trust. Yet they recently missed their goal of reducing notice-of-work permits by 34 percent. We had a 60-day target by this government, and it was 81 days in December, so they missed the goal by 34 percent.
[ Page 13227 ]

The public is unsure and the confidence of the investors is unsure of whether anything has changed now that the resources that were put in to address this permitting backlog have run out. Industry and proponents are unsure, and that creates uncertainty in trying to attract investors. The public is unsure about the integrity of the process when it comes to environmental considerations, and that creates further uncertainty.

The public service, upon whose shoulders this front-line work rests, becomes demoralized as permits continue to back up. They try to follow their legislative responsibilities with ever-decreasing resources and billions of dollars of increased applications. This has direct impact on our revenue-generating capabilities in the province as well. It's not an example of good governance when it comes to the resources we commonly hold.

Another prime example of this was just shared last week when the Fraser Institute released their annual survey of mining companies. That was just last week. This survey surveys 96 jurisdictions — other countries, other provinces, other states in the United States. They look at and have a series of questions on public policy factors that encourage or discourage investment.

B.C., unfortunately, ranked 31st out of 96 jurisdictions. In other words, we didn't quite make the top 30 percent — 31 out of 96. Other jurisdictions that ranked ahead of us were the Yukon, our northern neighbours; Manitoba and Saskatchewan, to the east; Ontario; even New Brunswick. Of course, the top countries were Finland, Sweden and Norway.

What this points out is that you have to have a good governance structure in order to support public trust and investor confidence, and to have a public service that's beyond partisanship and is supported.

[1040]

If you have those three factors, then you're going to see the revenue generation that we've been missing in areas such as mining. Then this report from the Fraser Institute, pointing out that we're ranked 31st out of 96 when it comes to public-policy factors that encourage or discourage mining….

I'd also like to say on that list, as it relates to public trust, is that B.C., when it came to uncertainty concerning disputed land claims — in other words, the First Nations aboriginal title question…. We were 17th from the bottom, well into the bottom third of those countries and jurisdictions surveyed, so 17th from the bottom in 96. I find that, again, this is not a good example of good governance where public trust is concerned, where investor confidence is concerned and where the public service is concerned.

G. Abbott: Thank you to the member for his statement. Last Thursday I was asked to provide a response to the topic of good governance. I thought that would be a delightful exercise. After agreeing to it, I heard further that apparently, with some members at least, the practice of the place is to share only the title as opposed to any of the content. So I've not been privy to any summary or preview of the member's comments.

That certainly makes for….

An Hon. Member: Welcome to the back bench.

G. Abbott: Yes. I'm certain the member knows it well and is looking forward to continuing on there.

It is, I think, not only an opportunity for an improvisational adventure here but also an interesting comment on the culture of the place that even on private members' days, where this supposedly is non-partisan and non-political, we don't share the content of our statements with one another. It's a fascinating piece, and in fact, I want to speak a little bit about that point.

I am leaving politics, and I hope that elicits a cheer all around the House.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: No way, eh? No way.

I had the honour of serving for 17 years in local government and 17 years in this chamber. So it's not my last speech. They don't have to be really kind to me on this one — second-last speech. I am a living, walking case for term limits, I realize at this point.

But I have had, through those 34 years, a lot of experience with governance, both good and bad. I had the honour to serve on regional district, municipal council and the Municipal Finance Authority and have had the honour to work as a minister with the health authorities, school boards, First Nations bands, UBCM and so on. I think that, by and large, British Columbia does get good governance from their local governments, subject on occasion to those frailties and weaknesses of the human character.

This place is, I think, an interesting example of the challenges of governance. In fact, we've seen a great evolution of this place over 140 years. In its first 32 years there were no formal party lines, no party system and no party discipline in the sense that we have it today. MLAs might run with labels. They may label themselves socialists or liberal or conservative, but the coalitions tend to be non-partisan, informal and not overly durable.

Fifteen governments in the first 32 years of this province, six governments in the last seven years of this province. All of that changed with the McBride government in 1903, and we've now had, for 110 years, partisan government in the province. I think there has been both good and bad in that. But I do think that after 110 years of partisan government, this place needs to change and the culture of this place needs to change. I say that sincerely. I know that party lines are not going to go away.

[1045]

All members of this chamber will very soon be embarking on an adventure, in many cases, seeking re-election for the opportunity to serve here. But we've got a lot of complex public policy puzzles that need to be addressed — how to ensure strong prevention in primary care and our world-class health care system, how to ensure that every child in B.C. has the opportunity to get a great start in life. How do we ensure First Nations resiliency after a hundred years of often destructive public policy?

We need to think about the committee system of this place. We need to rethink those opportunities when we can sit as private members in this place and talk about these public policy issues in ways which don't always excite partisan differences and which don't always excite people to move in confrontational ways but, in fact, to find some answers to these very compelling challenges that are faced by our province.

The 21st century is going to be a remarkably challenging time for governments in this province, regardless of whether they're B.C. Liberal, NDP or anything else. Every British Columbian deserves good government, and it starts right here in this chamber.

D. Donaldson: To the member for Shuswap: I agree. He demonstrated that he has many years of improvisational nature, being a cabinet minister for so many years. I think what he said is that apparently he's transferring well into his next career. It sounded like an ad for his course at University of Victoria, apparently Wednesday nights. Apparently, it's oversubscribed, so perhaps he'll be using this Hansard clip as evidence in the course, and I hope he includes my part of the Hansard clip, as well, so that we can have a good balance there.

I must say, though, the topic of good governance…. If that was what I saw on a title sheet, I would think that we would be talking about three fundamental cores of good governance. That's public trust — public trust in the government and how that is engaged. And I thought we would be talking about investor certainty, which is another part of good governance; and a robust, nonpartisan public service. These are three components of good governance that I would assume — if I saw the topic of good governance — would pop into an experienced member's head, and also that he would use his five minutes to address it.

I addressed these three topics around good governance, hon. Speaker, and I talked about how there is evidence, in the last ten years, that public trust has been eroded — and those weren't my words; those were words of the Auditor General, on forestry and environmental assessment and things like biodiversity — and that investor uncertainty has increased.

An example I provided of that was in the mining sector, and that is supported not only by the permit backlog that hasn't been addressed to its full extent but also by the Fraser Institute's report of us being 31st out of 96 jurisdictions in the mining sector, when it comes to investor confidence.

Finally, on the public service, there's the need for a strong, robust, non-partisan public service in order to carry out the work of government and support public trust and investor confidence. It's so we can generate the revenues from the resources on the land that we see and are blessed with in B.C. We know we have to do it in a manner that leaves future generations the same types of opportunities in resource extraction and the same types of opportunities to live in an environment that provides — and is uninterrupted, as far as being able to access — pristine environments, environments that actually support people and ecosystems that support people.

Those are my comments. And I wanted to say that I appreciate the work that the member for Shuswap has done over the years, and I look forward to these comments being part of his future work — public trust, investor certainty and public service.

GROWING FIBRE, GROWING VALUE —
A PATH TO THE FUTURE IN FORESTRY

J. Rustad: In the spirit of what my colleague from Shuswap has just said earlier, I have the pleasure of getting up and debating or discussing growing fibre, growing value and a path in our future of our forest industry. The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, I believe, has graciously said that he would debate their side of this question.

[1050]

So of course, I had a chat with him about the issues that I wanted to bring forward, because I believe that Monday morning time can be very useful in putting issues on the table and discussing issues that are of importance not just for us or anybody politically but important for the province of British Columbia.

We face a very significant challenge in British Columbia in our mid-term fibre supply. I just wanted to talk a little bit about some of those challenges that we're facing.

The mountain pine beetle epidemic, once it's completely run its course, without us taking any steps, is estimated to reduce the amount of fibre supply but provide perhaps as much as ten million cubic metres per year. Now, that's a big number. People say: "Well, what does that mean? What is the reality of that?" Ten million cubic metres a year is about the equivalent of eight pretty reasonably sized sawmills that would no longer have the fibre supply.

It's a serious issue, especially for a small community — whether it's a community like Burns Lake, a larger community like Quesnel or other communities around the province that depend on forestry and its forestry is a major component of their economic activity.

The challenge we have is what to do stepping forward. We can debate about the causes and the issues that
[ Page 13229 ]
brought us to that point. But what are the things we need to do to try to secure mid-term fibre supply? Historically in British Columbia, going back 50-plus years, we have had government programs that have come forward. They've created investments in the land base. But over time those peter out. They get dwindled away because there are other priorities, and they aren't achieving quite what you would have hoped they would when they were originally created.

FRBC in the 1990s is a prime example of that. It was a program that thought about creating some activity on the land base. It created an enormous amount of money coming in. When it started, it had great aspirations. But by the end of it in 2001…. A company in my riding, for example, Houston Forest Products, was paying about $13 million into it and were seeing about $1.3 million come back in terms of investment — only one-tenth. It's just the challenge that you see time and time again.

The challenge going forward is: are we going to be bold enough to look at doing something different? Or are we going to do what Einstein said, which is continuing on with more of the same and expecting different results? It's not a recipe for a real positive opportunity in the future.

The key piece in the report that we produced was around how we can create those opportunities in our forest industry, how we can bridge through the future — going after things like marginal economic stands, going after some different silviculture activities on the land base, trying to reduce the amount of unsalvaged losses, trying to expand our opportunities to look at the waste piles.

All of those things are important pieces, but there's one other piece that is very critical in terms of how we manage the land base, and that's called area-based management. Today the vast majority of our forests are managed through volume-based. For people that are wondering what the difference is between volume base and area base, in volume base, you have one very large area and you're allowed to go cut a certain amount of wood per year. You have obligations to reforest and to go forward and make sure that you're in a certain state after you've harvested.

In area-based management, not only do you have that opportunity, where you have a defined area and you're going to be harvesting, but you also have the opportunity to make investments on the land base, to do things differently to actually increase the amount of fibre so that you can grow more fibre and grow more value on the land base. In volume base, when you make those kinds of investments, there's no guarantee you'll ever be back to that particular hectare to get a benefit from it. In area base, you have that opportunity to be able to make those investments with a reasonable certainty that you will come back and be able to manage and harvest what you sow.

It's a very important step, I think, in going forward in how we manage. When you look across the province and you look across the world, the examples of success in area-based management are very compelling. Dunkley Lumber, in their TFL south of Prince George and north of Quesnel, managed to achieve a 17 percent increase post–pine beetle. That was after the pine beetle had already ravished and taken a chunk of their wood away. In Quesnel, West Fraser, with what they are doing on their TFL…. They're very successful in planting more trees and being able to get more value and actually get more volume off the land base. It's these types of examples that lead us to think that area-based management has enormous potential.

[1055]

But the challenge going forward is also around politics. The report that we did…. We had over 650 submissions and 32 meetings in 18 different communities, and we heard from a wide variety of people. I want to quote one person in particular.

When we talked about our shift to area-based tenures, from page 12, it says: "I'm in the camp of area-based management. I think that's the proper way to go, instead of volume-based tenures. But there are problems with how you would move from where you are today to area-based management." That's from Bill Bourgeois of the Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities group, from our July 9 hearing in Vancouver.

The question I'd like to pose to the opposition is: how should we move forward towards area-based management? Is it the right model? I believe it is. Is it going to be able to achieve the type of opportunity we want to see in mid-term fibre supply, and how do we go about achieving that so that the industry and the public have confidence that area-based management will be able to deliver on helping to meet our mid-term fibre supply?

N. Macdonald: Again, I very much appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion. It's an interesting one. I think I'll focus the response just on the question that the member asked: how would we see proceeding?

There is a bill in front of the House. I don't want to drift into that, but basically, it talks about one part of area-based tenure. That's the TFLs.

In terms of area-based tenures, we also have community forests; we also have woodlots. I think that in terms of politics, these are not difficult areas to go into. They are ideas that the public is easy with and competent, yet there are still complexities in setting them up, finding room on the ground.

With TFLs, it's a bit more complicated. I think the member and other members here that were part of the committee will understand that.

The recommendation I would have is that given the time that we're in, we would take time with this complex issue and would have a genuine discussion with the people of this province before we move into an area that is complicated.

In terms of the case for area-based tenures and TFLs, it's still a discussion to be had. One of the questions we
[ Page 13230 ]
had on the committee is: can we have the academic research out there that actually makes the case that the outcomes one would predict would be there with area-based tenures — that it's actually something that we have evidence, and academic evidence, for? I think that's an open question.

I think, just from the member's question, I'll just go to what was said by a major licensee. This is somebody who made his name in China and has come to be CEO of one of the biggest companies operating here in B.C. I'll just read from one of the 650 presentations that were made to us.

This is his exact quote. "Twenty years ago it would probably have been inconceivable that the CEO of one of the largest wood products companies in North America would stand in front of this legislative committee looking to increase available timber and say: 'Proceed with caution.'"

This is a company that's on the record as being in favour of area-based tenures, but they are not pushing them quickly. They're saying: "Proceed with caution."

They go on to explain why:

"Be careful with what you do."

They're speaking to the committee.

"The viability of our business is at stake. The land use conflicts we endured in the '90s compromised our ability to access global markets for our products. Protests and discord tarnished our reputation and hurt our ability to compete on the international stage. We learned the hard way that our social licence to operate in public forests is paramount."

That is what they are telling us.

These are the licensees, right? They are telling us that we have to be careful in what we do and that we don't create the possibility that the public would think this is a giveaway, a privatization of the land. It is that warning that I would say means we have to be thoughtful about how we proceed.

[1100]

The advice I would give to government is that on a big tenure issue that is bound to be contentious and has the risk of being misrepresented…. It is not what licensees want. It's clear that there is enough public concern about it and that you need to move it to a place where we can have a good discussion about what is an interesting idea.

The committee's recommendations, and we agreed unanimously on them, do not close the door on this sort of discussion. What we heard again and again and what the committee's recommendations reflect is the need to move forward and make sure that the public is absolutely sure that what happens is authentic.

If anybody has not had a chance to look at the report, I certainly would recommend that they do so. There are a number of other quotes that I think, as we get into the discussion on the legislation, I'll have a chance to speak to. Just to follow up on some of the other things that this member and other members earlier this morning said, it is an example of that process of where we could do politics better here.

The seven MLAs that were part of that process I think universally would say that it was a process that was productive and that the debate was informed. We all learned from the process.

I thank you for the opportunity and look forward to your closing comments.

J. Rustad: I want to thank the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke for his comments and for participating in our discussion on this again. It is the second week in a row that we've had an opportunity to talk about forestry. It is an example of how the time in this Legislature can be used usefully to try to discuss issues, particularly to raise topics that can be contentious and can be fairly challenging.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

When I think about the discussion moving forward here, there is no question…. Do you create some enabling opportunity in an area base, go out and have a discussion and then try to finalize it? Or do you go out and have that much broader discussion with the public around it first and then bring that enabling process in? I'm not sure which is the right way to go. What is clear to me is that when you have something like this coming forward, you cannot let politics take over.

The quote the member said, from the forestry company…. I believe it was Canfor that said that quote. There is no question that companies are nervous and that they do not want to disrupt what they are currently doing.

The member for Cariboo North, for example, in the false information and stuff…. He is going out for political purposes, to prevent himself from heading towards political oblivion. It's clearly an example of how politics can be used to damage something that would be very beneficial for the province of British Columbia.

I agree with the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke that we do need to make sure that we have that opportunity to be able to have the discussion — to make sure that we can forward something that is this important, that can create such a great benefit and change.

I said this last week, Mr. Speaker, but I want to say it again. Back in 1987, when we made the shift that drove the private sector into silviculture, the results of that were phenomenal — way, way better than what we had been doing in the past. It's that kind of ingenuity that we need to drive further in investment on the land base — to drive some investment dollars, to drive innovation, to be in a position where we can actually help to grow our mid-term fibre supply and get us in that situation where we can meet those challenges that we're facing and secure what we need for communities.

The report we brought forward I think goes a long way to meeting the mid-term fibre supply. It will help bridge
[ Page 13231 ]
the gap, to go that little bit further. To drive what we need for the next generation of our forestry industry, we need to change to a different management model.

I think we need to be able to be bold to do that. We need to be able to overcome the politics and the situation that we have with an election, and we need to be able to set the time frames so that our future in the forest industry will truly be bright.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, hon. Members. I would remind members to be cognizant of comments they do make when they are making their statements.

Hon. I. Chong: I call private members' motions, No. 8.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 8 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

[1105]

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 8 — REGISTRATION OF
BUSINESSES FOR PROVINCIAL SALES TAX

J. Brar:

[Be it resolved that this House urge the Government of British Columbia to ensure that all retailers are registered for the PST before April 1st, 2013; the day the province is scheduled to return to the PST.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Last week, almost four years after the B.C. government implemented the HST shortly after the May 2009 election, this Legislature unanimously passed its Provincial Sales Tax Transitional Provisions and Amendments Act to phase out the HST and return back to the provincial sales tax, called PST, on April 1, 2013. This is a huge victory for the people of British Columbia.

I rise today to move a motion to ensure that the PST registration process is handled by the government of B.C. in a manner that is trouble-free for our small businesses and is done in timely manner, to avoid huge lineups at the last minute. That could cause a lot of pain to small businesses and could crash the system.

Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, why this government needs to find ways to ensure the timely PST registration of every retailer.

As per the Ministry of Finance, there are about 130,000 retailers required to register to begin collecting PST by April 1, 2013, but only about 23 percent of retailers were reported to have registered a few days ago. A Vancouver Sun reporter stated on February 26, 2013: "Only about 30,000 have signed up since registrations began in January."

I would like to emphasize the fact that only 30,000 retailers registered in about eight weeks, and the remaining about 100,000 retailers have just four more weeks left to do so before the PST comes into effect. Clearly, there's a problem, and that needs to be fixed as soon as possible to ensure that all retailers are registered for the PST before April 1, 2013.

The best way to assist small businesses make a timely and trouble-free transition back to the PST from the HST was to pass the Provincial Sales Tax Transitional Provisions and Amendments Act during the fall session. Unfortunately, this government cancelled the fall session for their narrow political gains.

It should be noted that the enabling legislation for the PST, passed about a year ago, covers almost 200 pages. The transitional bill passed last week covers another 150 pages of transitional laws. The small businesses are required to understand and implement those lengthy and complex provisions. Clearly, this is a painful transition for many small businesses, and the B.C. Liberals have made it harder for them by refusing to deal with it during the fall session.

I've spoken to the representative of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, a representative of the South Asian Business Association and with a number of small businesses regarding the PST registration process. I would like to list some of the concerns raised by them about the PST registration process.

First, the information regarding transitional rules established under the legislation is long and complex, and they need time to understand and implement it. Second, the big worry is to get timely information that small businesses need in order to comply with the transitional rules. Third, there may be an end-of-March jam-up, making it harder for small businesses to register. Fourth, there will not be sufficient staffing resources to assist small businesses during the busy transition time at the end of March. Fifth, some small businesses may not be able to register before April 1 because of the long lineups at the end of March, and subsequently, they may face penalties.

[1110]

These are very serious concerns, and this government needs to listen to small businesses and address those concerns as soon as possible.

I would like to also convey my sincere thanks to all the civil servants responsible for the transition of PST from HST.

P. Pimm: Thanks to the member for bringing this motion forward. It's certainly one that we'll need to talk at length about, I'm sure. Some of the points that the member for Surrey-Fleetwood made…. I'm not really hearing too much of that in my community. In my community we have some different discussions.
[ Page 13232 ]

I'm wondering what the opposition have done, being that they were the ones that went out and pushed hard to make sure the HST didn't get implemented — along with Mr. Vander Zalm. It was kind of a nice little camp that they put together. Certainly, I'm wondering what they're doing to get the businesses to come back on board, from that end of things.

I have to say that last week was interesting. We had an opportunity to vote for PST legislation, and I would call that the most regressive piece of legislation that I could possibly ever think of voting for. In fact, I wanted to not vote for it, but I couldn't bring myself to go there being that the people of the province of British Columbia told us in a referendum that we should do that. The longer we had gone on with that position, I think they probably would have realized that it's something that's not going to be positive for this province and is going to be hurting us down the road.

I want to talk a little bit from a small business perspective, because I'm a small business man. I have been a small business man all my life. The PST system is very regressive. HST worked like a charm. For small businesses it simplified the accounting. You bought an item, and you paid the HST on it. You sold the item, and you charged the customer the HST. At the end of the month you took up how much you sold, how much you paid. You deducted what you paid, made one submission into the process, and away you went. My accountant absolutely loved it. My bookkeepers loved it. They're stressing now when we're going back.

I'm one of the businesses that have already filed. I've got my number, and I'm going back to the system — begrudgingly. But nonetheless, that's what we have to do.

The HST was one of the things that levelled the playing field between British Columbia and Alberta. In my neck of the woods — we're right beside Alberta — the number one complaint we hear all the time, from everybody, is equalizing the playing field between Alberta and British Columbia. HST actually did that, and now we're giving it up and going back to the PST. That automatically puts all of our businesses in northeastern British Columbia at a 7 percent disadvantage. I have such a hard time with that, I must say.

We talk about the farming community, the agricultural community and the cattlemen out there. Maybe at first they didn't understand what HST was going to do for them, but as time went on, they understood.

Every time I talk to my cattlemen and my grain growers, they say, "What can you do to put this system back in place so that we can actually have an HST? It works so good. When we get back to PST, we're going to have to walk into the hardware store with a manual in our hands so that we can figure out what we're paying PST on and what we're not paying PST on. If it's a shovel, if we're using it on the land, we don't have to pay PST, but if we're using it around the house, we do have to pay it," and on and on it goes. It's such a regressive thing. I just absolutely have a hard time with it.

To go back to the self-assessing around the PST. This is the part that small business really, really dislikes. I do lots of contracts where I actually have to deal with municipalities, that sort of thing, and so you have to self-assess. With HST it was no big deal. You bought it, and you remitted at the end. You didn't have to worry about it. Now I have to worry about the tax department coming after me if I forget to self-assess properly.

I have to have auditors come in and audit the stuff. It takes a five-day audit to do a PST audit, whereas under HST, there's hardly a need for an audit. You just come in and do the work on it, and it's just there. Whatever you paid, you got it remitted back to you.

[1115]

I know that this is a hard concept for the NDP to realize, and the biggest reason for that is that not one of them in this room, not one in this chamber, has ever had to sign the front side of a paycheque before. I certainly understand where they'd have such a problem with that.

We have done some things, moving forward, here. We're improving PST for small businesses. We go back to PST with that input from the business community, from the expert panel on taxation.

M. Elmore: I'm very pleased to rise and speak in favour of the motion and am surprised to hear the comments from the representative for Peace River North. I think it's a breaking news flash that we're actually past the debate on the merits of the HST — if we are indeed returning. It can be characterized as, certainly, an unmitigated disaster from the start to the end.

We have seen this Liberal government…. The main achievement, I think, if we can call it that, has been the debacle of the HST when it was imposed — from a broken election promise; to even dragging out, now, a very painful and bitter end; also, really imposing a lot of hardship on small businesses, in particular; and creating unnecessary and unneeded difficulties and uncertainty for the business community.

Madam Speaker, we've seen the numbers, which are shocking in terms of the large number of businesses that have not currently registered to transition back to the PST. Currently, there are nearly 100,000 businesses needing to register for the PST. Part of the problem is that from the start to the end, we've seen just mismanagement by the government and a delay in bringing in the legislation and really delaying the transition back. This has been a huge problem that has contributed to mounting problems that small businesses today face.

There is a recent survey that was put out by the B.C. Chamber of Commerce on December 5. They found that 63 percent of businesses don't feel prepared for return to the PST and GST, and 73 percent do not feel they've received adequate information. This was a survey from all
[ Page 13233 ]
sizes of businesses across British Columbia — very concerning. I think it informs the reality and the statistics, in terms of the majority of small businesses that have not yet registered to return to the PST.

The problems that the small business community is encountering have been exaggerated by the Liberals failing to bring in timely legislation and now pushing and jamming the business community and really putting pressure on small businesses, now with a short time frame. If you claim to be business-friendly, I don't know how you can realistically expect, from January 2 to March 1, the transition period, all small businesses — over 130,000 — to register and get the needed information and transition back.

We're seeing not only the delay…. The government had promised and had pledged to introduce the legislation earlier to give businesses the opportunity to understand the changes and have an opportunity to register, have questions answered and make the transition smoothly. We're now seeing and hearing a number of concerns and questions being raised by small businesses, to this problem.

The need in terms of addressing the situation…. What are small businesses left with? If they are not able to register, they'll be faced with fines after April 1 — if they are not properly registered and complying with the requirements.

[1120]

In the period for the HST to come in and go out, exit, there have been over 30,000 new businesses start up that have not had experience with PST.

We're seeing continued uncertainty. I think it's characterized by this government letting down businesses in British Columbia and, particularly, putting undue hardship and difficulties onto the backs of small businesses.

I'd like to conclude my comments that I'm in favour of the motion and that, certainly, British Columbians, the business community and constituents have higher expectations for supporting small businesses' transition.

R. Howard: I'm happy to stand this morning, I guess. Let the record show the rhetoric has started. I've heard some remarkable comments already this morning that this government has let small business down. My goodness, I can't believe that my ears hear this. I get dizzy when I hear that.

The opposition campaigned so hard to go back to the PST. This was a remarkable partnership between the NDP and Mr. Vander Zalm, he of the property transfer tax fame. Really, I guess, I can see there may be a future partnership available with Mr. Vander Zalm, perhaps on the corporate capital tax and some of your other tax plans.

I've heard words such as "a huge victory," "dragging out" and "mismanagement," and I'll address those as I go through this. But you know, I'm reminded of a news clip on the eve that the HST was defeated — the Leader of the Opposition high-fiving other members of his team in a great celebration. I thought: "My goodness, that's a funny thing to be celebrating — a return to a 60-year-old archaic and out-of-date tax structure, especially for small business."

I can't help but wonder, because it was so important to the member, about just what exactly he's doing. Perhaps we should reword this motion. Perhaps it should read: "What is the NDP doing for their most favourite tax, and what are they doing to help us move back smoothly?"

My next thought was: is this what you got? Monday mornings and private member motions, intended to be for individuals to talk about ideas and principles that are important to them…. I'm glad the member has fought so hard for this. I guess he's taken some time away from his study of the Cuban economy and the merits of the Cuban economy. So that's good.

At the end of the day, the people have spoken, and we are returning to this 60-year-old tax. As a small business person I shudder, and I know that small businesses all across the province would share that. I have relatives that are also small business people. You just hear the horror stories of the self-assessment, which the member for Peace River North mentioned when he spoke, and the extreme challenges that face small business. With all the other time pressures they have, to go through their invoices at the end of each month and figure out what goes in the PST file and what doesn't…. It's not a happy day.

I can only hope…. It does seem to me that our government has taken this opportunity to modernize the tax as much as possible while living up to the commitment to go back to the tax the way it was.

Just from a dragging-out-the-comment and a timing standpoint, I think it's important for British Columbians to know there's no win in the government for taking a single hour longer than necessary to get the return done — no return whatsoever. People have to understand — I hope British Columbians can understand — that going to the HST, there was a game plan. We were piggybacked with Ontario, and it was a system that we could follow along. There was a rule book, moving to the tax.

[1125]

Moving back away from the tax, there is no playbook. We've got to renegotiate a whole series of extremely complicated issues with the federal government, get the federal government's support for those changes, implement those changes. Our government has always been committed and has executed fully to get this return to PST done just as soon as responsibly possible.

I think, just quickly, some of the numbers. There have been over 100 seminars to date hosted for local businesses. The PST tax department has tracked and answered more than 30,000 questions and talked to 60,000 businesses by phone. There have been news releases, webinars and mass mailings of 160,000 letters. Our government continues to execute a focused plan on assisting business
[ Page 13234 ]
back to the PST. We ask the member what he is doing.

B. Ralston: I will address the motion. This is really a motion which is directed to good public administration. Some of the comments we've heard from members on the other side of the House, I think, are far less generous and a bit more peevish than the former Minister of Finance has stated. He essentially expressed some contrition on behalf of the government and the way in which the HST was unveiled and rolled out and, I think, probably took a far more gracious approach than we've seen in evidence this morning from government members.

The debate clearly is over in terms of the transition back to the PST. The question is now: will it be done as effectively as possible? It's important, I think, to remind members just what commitments were made by the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, then the Minister of Finance.

I'm going to make a couple of quotations. Let me begin with the first one on the radio on May 14, 2012. "So that's why we've got to get all of this stuff done by October — so we can go out to the business community with them knowing exactly what the legislation and what all the exemptions are under the regulations."

Let me quote from Hansard, May 16, 2012, the same former Minister of Finance, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale: "…we plan to publicly release a proposed final version of the PST legislation, which includes the transitional and other amendments, this fall."

Ministry of Finance news release, May 14, 2012: "Fall 2012, final proposed version of PST legislation with amendments publicly released."

None of those deadlines were met. When it was raised in the fall, the response was to deny that those statements were ever made and those commitments were ever made. So there has been delay in returning to the PST on the administrative side. That's notwithstanding the hard work that has been done by very capable officials in the Ministry of Finance. But the fact remains.

I think perhaps the B.C. Liberals are simply, given the attitude that we've heard expressed this morning, reluctant to talk about this in a way that's going to remind retailers of the obligation that's coming upon them very, very rapidly. I think on this side of the House we're just urging the government, as a matter of good administration, simply to speed up the process as best they can.

In the debate with the Minister of Finance in the spring I suggested that they might even wish to give some modest financial incentives for those who registered early electronically. The government was quite willing to spend tens of millions of dollars to reduce the Port Mann toll in advance of an election, but in order to perhaps facilitate good public administration they weren't prepared to make a similar financial commitment.

When it's reported, as it is, that only 30,000 retailers are registered and there are about 100,000 or so more to go, even though the deadline is rushing towards us, it is a matter of concern. The concerns that are raised by the member for Surrey-Fleetwood, I think, are good ones.

Perhaps those members of the government side who are going to respond in this debate could direct themselves to steps that the government is proposing to take to deal with potential bottlenecks, system crashes, if people try to register electronically and there's a sudden rush towards the end, and assist in what is the inevitable return of the PST.

[1130]

I understand the attitude of the members in the sense that they didn't support it, although they voted for the bill. We'll see how they do tomorrow, in terms of supporting the budget, given some of the expressions that we've heard here.

I think the key thing is that the government commit itself to making this transition as easy as possible. It is a major source of revenue for the government, over $5 billion a year. It is a major, integral part of business in the province, so I think we need a recommitment and a redoubling of effort here by the government to make sure this transition goes as smoothly as possible.

J. Thornthwaite: Returning to the PST is not something that anyone on this side of the House wants to do. In fact, my riding was one of the top ridings that voted to keep the HST. But we went through the referendum process, we listened to the people, and we are committed to going back to the PST.

I have been told that the 19-month time frame to return to the PST is actually on the low end of the schedule. The Minister of Finance at the time did warn everybody that it was going to take a long time to do it, because it was so complicated and unprecedented. No other jurisdiction has had to go back to an archaic system. Most of them are moving forward. I think we're doing a pretty good job of being on target and going into an area that nobody has done before — and the fact that it is less complex to dismantle a tax than structure and build a new one.

But the people have spoken, and I am happy to report that the people will get the same exemptions that they had before. This seemed to be the most contentious issue that I heard about from people. As we committed in August of 2011, we are returning to the PST with all permanent exemptions. Consumers will once again not have to pay PST on purchases like food, restaurant meals, bicycles, gym memberships, movie tickets and others, or personal services like haircuts or fingernails.

We have also introduced commonsense improvements that will make administration of the sales tax easier for small businesses, and that's really key, because as John Winter, the president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce said: "Business is facing a $1.5 billion tax increase just by going back to the PST. It's the largest single tax imposed
[ Page 13235 ]
on business in the history…not to mention the cost of compliance."

I've been told that one of the most recent analyses said that it is costing us an extra $535 million in the first year, in addition to having to pay back the $1.6 billion to the feds, that we actually received from the federal government to adopt the HST.

I'd like to say a little bit about the film industry, because a lot of the folks from the film industry have contacted me and are concerned about their competitiveness within other jurisdictions.

We all know, and the film industry knows, that one of the major factors that was bringing them up into competitiveness was the adoption of the HST. Peter Leitch, the president of Lions Gate Studios and Mammoth — Lions Gate being in North Vancouver — was a real strong advocate and leader in the Smart Tax Alliance, trying to educate folks during the referendum period that we should keep the HST for all small businesses, all businesses, to improve the jobs in our province, but in particular for the film industry.

I'm really concerned for the folks in my riding that depend in their livelihood on the film industry, when we go back to the PST. I'm hoping that when push comes to shove, those folks will recognize that it was the opposition that pushed to go back to the PST, not the Liberal government.

[1135]

Having made the decision and listening to the people, we have put forward some improvements for businesses. We've moved the due date for tax remittance and returns to the last day of the month to match the GST remittance. This is simplifying administration for businesses. We've incorporated the hotel room tax into the PST. This step reduces paperwork and eliminates separate registration remittance and returns.

We've allowed businesses to register with their federal business number, making registration easier. We've permitted retailers to refund the tax to customers and make internal adjustments in a broader range of circumstances. Businesses that collect and remit tax will again receive commission of up to $198 per reporting period, typically monthly.

Again, to quote John Winter, who is the B.C. Chamber of Commerce president: "We know government is making extraordinary efforts to reach out. They have sent out two massive mailings to all licensed businesses in the province in the last several months. They have been reaching out." I think we're doing what we can, and we'll get everybody on board as quickly as we can.

J. Trasolini: I rise to speak in favour of the motion in front of us from my colleague from Surrey-Fleetwood. Also, I need to respond to the comments from the member for Peace River North in regards to something about nobody else on this side of the House having been a business person. I'd like to respectfully say that I have been a businessman for 27 years. I've had the privilege of signing cheques for hundreds of employees, dedicated employees, and I wouldn't want them to think that they weren't employed all this time, which they were.

The HST saga, caused entirely by the B.C. Liberal government, has resulted in a provincewide crisis for both business and all British Columbians, a crisis that, frankly, lasted for about four years — four years when the wheels of government ground to a halt and at times went backwards. The implementation of the HST has seriously hurt the economy of this province. The restaurant and entertainment industry, the real estate industry, retailers — all impacted. Now, as we come close to the reimplementation of the PST, small business runs the risk of once again being negatively impacted.

Although the Liberal government had lots of time to work on the implementation of the PST, they chose not to have a fall session and chose instead to wait until the 11th hour to pass the PST-enabling law. At the same time, the government procrastinated to the point where it created another crisis. It would have been advisable for the government to redirect ads dollars to inform small business in this province.

Business owners have full, busy days, and they need information and help so that they can register for the PST before April 1, 2013. The enabling bill was passed one year ago. I think it comprises about 200 pages. Then you add to that 150 pages of the bill passed last week, and you can see where business is having issues understanding the complexity of the bill and, of course, getting on with the transition to the PST.

Because of the reluctance on the part of the government to deal with this in the fall session, the business community is left with a very painful crunch come April 1. The government needs to, in my opinion, ensure that sufficient staff and resources are made available so that small business can be informed, and provide an adequate flow of information to small business so that they are aware of the looming deadline of April 1.

Also, the government must take the concerns of small business seriously. Small business is the backbone of our economy. They need help, and they need help right now, so I urge the government to provide that help.

[1140]

You know, in this past week I had the chance of walking around in my riding, and I met a lot of people. I have a lot of friends that are business people, and a large majority of them weren't aware of the looming deadline. Some of them were aware of the implementation, but they didn't realize the urgency.

I can only say that, having come this far, it seems — I mean, maybe I'm wrong — that the government is reluctant to speak about returning to the PST. It is a reality. It is a fact. And I encourage my fellow members in this House to support the motion.
[ Page 13236 ]

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, the member for Delta South seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

V. Huntington: I am delighted today to be able to introduce a large group of students from my riding, Delta South. They're from kindergarten to grade 12, and they're all home-schooled. They've had a wonderful time today in the House and have many parents with them too. It's a delight to welcome them, and I hope members make them feel at home in this place.

Debate Continued

D. Horne: It's with pleasure that I stand up on the motion this morning before us. You know, as I listened to the last member, the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam, I have to say that I, too, ran a business for many years before I was elected.

As the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam knows, the complexity of dealing with government and the requirements of government regulation can be very complex. We talk on this side, oftentimes, about signing the front of a paycheque. I have to admit that, with the number of employees I had, I found it more advantageous to use a payroll service and have them deal with the complexities, because it is complex.

Having said that, one of the things that seems to be missing from the discussion this morning is the hard work of the people within the Ministry of Finance that have gone through this. I'd like to quote one of them, Glen Armstrong from the Ministry of Finance tax policy branch, the executive director, who was quoted in the Prince George Citizen on March 1. He said:

"In an ideal world, if one was going to rewrite a statute, this was going to be a four-year job. I don't think that there's any question that it is the largest legislative project ever undertaken and completed in such a short period of time. Certainly, in British Columbia I would guess there are very few projects with the same number of people that would have been done in this period of time."

And I think that goes to say about the difficulty that's faced.

As the members have gone…. Many members before me have spoken on this, you know, about many of the advantages. I think, given the opportunity to move back from the PST…. As several members have said, the debate on whether we're moving back to the PST is over and done. It's something that we're doing.

In doing that, we have taken a look at some of the difficulties that small businesses have faced in the past and addressed those — things like being able to file and register on line, having the date for remittances on the last day of the month so that they coincide with a GST filing as well. It goes into the complexities that small business people, medium-sized business people and large business people have to deal with.

I find it very interesting, you know, when the members opposite stand up and again seem to be — or seem to believe in their own heads that they are — the saviours of small business. It's an interesting task.

As the member next to me mentioned during her speech, you look at sectors like the film industry and you look at other sectors. One of the things that government needs to do in the way that we approach anything is to really make it as simple as we can so that we get out of the way of business and allow them to build a strong economy, allow them to succeed, and allow them to create the jobs that British Columbians all enjoy.

[1145]

I think a perfect example is the film industry. This provincial sales tax that we're now moving back to is a huge impediment to jobs within the film sector. It makes us uncompetitive. It was said over and over again how we will be uncompetitive under this.

We need to constantly be looking at the way we collect the revenues that government needs and how efficient we are in collecting those revenues and making certain that we do so in such a way that we don't impede the economy and don't do things that create barriers for businesses to create jobs. A perfect example that was also mentioned earlier was the corporate capital tax and other capital taxes that just are job killers and just really don't move our economy forward.

As many of the members opposite have said, this debate is over. But I think the one other issue that is going to face British Columbians as we move forward to April 1 is for those that are on the low-income side. Those opposite always basically go on and on how they are the saviours of those in the low-income sector, although I will point out that someone that made $18,000 a year in the year 2001 paid $420 in provincial income taxes and over $700 in MSP premiums and that person now pays zero in income taxes and zero MSP premiums.

Over and above that, if you look at those groups…. Low-income British Columbians under the HST have been receiving $230. They're no longer going to receive that.

M. Karagianis: I'm happy to stand today and support the motion that has been put before the House.

I am quite fascinated to listen to the members from the other side who seem to be blaming the failure of the HST on this side of the House. I would like to just say for the record that, in fact, the failure of the HST belongs very squarely with the government that implemented it.

Also, further to comments made by one of the members this morning from the government side about how this is a huge tax shift back onto small business, let's remember that when the HST was implemented, it was an
[ Page 13237 ]
enormous $1.5 billion shift of dollars away from business onto the backs of consumers. It hurt families and consumers right across this province. So for the government to sit there and be in some way feeling that small business is taking on an undue burden, let's just remember how consumers felt post-2009.

In fact, the HST seems to be the signature piece of this government. They have been seized with this topic for almost the entire term of office, from 2009 until today. We have a tax regime that was brought in, in a stealthy way, post-2009, and the government has had four years of battling with this.

It has had, in many ways, crippling effects on industries like the restaurant industry, who were very, very vocal in their opposition to the HST. Now we see that the government has, in fact, managed to stall the economy as this HST works its way out of the system.

The reality is that the opposition to the HST was an uprising by taxpayers and small business leaders in this province, who said: "We do not want this tax imposed on us." While the government may want to rewrite some of this, I don't think any of that is going to be in any way persuasive to the public about what really happened here — four years of the HST seizing the government and all actions, basically giving them no opportunity to create or do any other initiatives outside of that while they battled with it.

I think that the purpose of this motion here today is to say that the government has done a very poor job of making sure that small business is ready for this shift that's going to take place, in fact, in less than four weeks. It's currently March 4. This taxation, PST, kicks in on April 1, so we have less than four weeks for small businesses to prepare themselves, for businesses right across British Columbia to be registered to prepare themselves for this transition.

I think that it is, again, part of this whole signature process that the government has embarked on for so many years. Even the PST on its way back in has been so ineptly handled and so bungled that we see a significant segment of the business community unprepared and not ready to take on this change on April 1.

[1150]

Now, I have not heard from any member of that side any current status on what is happening with this tax. That's unfortunate. I was hoping someone would stand up and say, "Well, no, we've reduced those 100,000 small businesses to something more manageable," but I've heard nothing from the other side of the House to say that there have been significant inroads.

You know, at a time when we're spending $17 million of taxpayers' dollars on government advertising to help improve the political image of this government…. In fact, the purpose for government communications is being squandered in an effort here to spend it for partisan reasons, rather than use it to help ensure that all those small businesses were ready for this implementation on April 1 — again, another vivid example of how taxpayers' money is being misspent on advertising.

No one has given us any kind of update on what kind of progress has been made with small business. Just as significantly, I haven't heard one member from the other side say what is being done with less than four weeks until the PST kicks in.

At last report 100,000 businesses were not prepared to go in — and an extremely complex number of transition regulations that we have seen in this massive bill. What has the government done to provide solutions for this? So little.

Again, I've heard no argument. I've heard lots of diffusion here of the government's own role in the HST and no solution as to what they are going to do to resolve this for small business — what can be done.

J. Les: Very interesting commentary this morning from members opposite. I just want to relate to the House for a minute that in my riding I've been very busy making people aware that the transition back to the PST is occurring. It's going to happen on April 1.

I've been making people aware through advertisements in the newspapers for several months now about these facts, making them aware of the toll-free number that's available and that people are standing by, ready to help them — at a moment's notice, literally — with their HST-to-PST transition issues.

On the other hand, we have the member for Fraser-Nicola, who was also advertising, but he was engaged in political attack ads when maybe he should have been doing something more productive, as well, in terms of representing his constituents and ensuring that they had some information available to them to transition back to the PST.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I've heard several members opposite refer to the B.C. Chamber of Commerce — discussions they've had with them recently and with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Of course, if those members opposite had had any discussions at all with those agencies before the referendum, they would have been told flat out to advocate to keep the HST.

So it is at least mildly hypocritical for the members opposite now to be suggesting that they're in deep consultation with these agencies, when their advice, clearly, on economic and financial grounds — on solid economic grounds — would have been to keep the HST.

However, we're transitioning back. We had a referendum, and in keeping with those results, we made a commitment that first of April, 2013, we'll have the PST back in British Columbia.

It is not going to be without difficulty. Anybody who
[ Page 13238 ]
ever said that this was going to be a smooth transition would have been misrepresenting the facts. Anybody who would have represented that this wasn't going to be damaging to the economy of British Columbia would also have been guilty of misrepresenting the facts.

Members opposite are fond nowadays of standing up for the film and movie industry in British Columbia. I wonder if those members opposite also told the film and movie industry that going back to the PST was going to be extremely harmful to them in terms of their competitiveness.

When B.C. voted to go back to the PST, Dalton McGuinty, the then Premier of Ontario, said that it was a great day for Ontario. Guess where some of the film and movie industry is going to today. Ontario, because Ontario has the HST.

Now, I'm not here re-arguing the referendum, but I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of some of the members opposite, which I think is rather breathtaking some days.

[1155]

We have four weeks left to go back to the PST. Yes, there's a large number of business people that have not yet registered, but there are an awful lot of people as well…. Sometimes I've been guilty, too, of being somebody who gets things done at the last minute.

I'm pretty confident that people will know pretty quickly that this is something that they need to get done. We will work through it.

There have been some questions raised by members opposite as to whether we, on the government side, are ready and whether we have the resources in place. I can say unequivocally: yes, we do have the resources in place, and yes, we will work to make sure that every British Columbian and every business person who needs help, who needs assistance, will get it.

That is an absolute commitment by the Minister of Finance and by our government — that we are working hard to make this transition as reasonable as it's possible to do that in the circumstances.

J. Les moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. I. Chong: I thank every member for their private member's statement this morning. I move the House do now adjourn.

Hon. I. Chong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2013: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada