2010
Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament
HOUSE BLUES
This is a DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections, and will be replaced by the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.
(HANSARD)
THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2010
The House met at 1:35 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Introductions by Members
Hon. P. Bell: It's not very often in my life that I have been brought to tears, but that happened last Friday. However, they were tears of joy, not tears of sadness, and the individual responsible for that, at least in large part, is joining us today in the gallery. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The event was to celebrate the sale and transaction of a pulp mill in Mackenzie that will add $300 million in gross domestic product to the province of British Columbia, $20 million in direct taxation, huge benefits to the local and regional economy. But most importantly, it will put 240 people back to work in Mackenzie — direct jobs — families that can stay in the community as a result of this individual's very hard work. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This was a task of unbelievable size. Many times throughout the process it nearly failed, but never for a single second did this individual waver or believe that it was not to come to fruition. I would ask that the House please not just make very welcome but also pass on a significant show of our thanks to Tanner Elton, who joins us here today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Macdonald: My colleague from West Kootenay has asked me to welcome two school trustees that are here from school district 20, Kootenay-Columbia. They're Toni Driutti and Lorraine Manning. Will the House join me in making them welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Bennett: Two introductions today. First of all, my constituency assistant, Jennifer Osmar, who is, after nine months, the best constituency assistant I've had in nine years, which is saying something. Her mother, Lucille, is here and Erdie Poitress from Kelowna. Please help me make them feel welcome. They're in the gallery somewhere. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Also, it's my pleasure to welcome several members of the UBCM executive who were here. They're here all week in Victoria doing various meetings. A lot of the members last night attended a reception that UBCM hosted. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
First of all, there's councillor Barb Steele from Surrey, who is the second vice-president of UBCM. There's the mayor of Quesnel, Mary Sjostrom, who is third VP. Councillor Tim Stevenson is there. He's the Vancouver rep to UBCM. Al Richmond, chair of the regional district in the Cariboo, is the electoral area rep for UBCM. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Director Grace McGregor is the representative from the Kootenay-Boundary area. Chair Karen Goodings from the Peace River Regional District is the rep to UBCM from that area. Finally, Mayor Sharon Gaetz of Chilliwack is the director at large with UBCM. A great group of people — both sides of the House enjoy working with them. Please help me make them feel welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Austin: I'd like to introduce two guests in the precinct today. The first is no stranger to this place, and that is Lois Boone, who is a former member and minister here. She is currently the vice-chair of the Prince George school district. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The second guest is Valentine Crawford, also a school board trustee from Prince George. They are both here to attend the B.C. School Trustees Association meetings that are happening over the next couple of days. Will the House please join me in making them welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I would like to welcome many B.C. school trustees who are with us in the House today, here for their annual general meeting and joining us. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would also like, particularly, to welcome two very good friends from Trail, where I used to be a family doctor — two hard-working trustees who are here with us. I was delighted to meet and speak with them earlier today. They've already been introduced, but I would like to introduce them again: Lorraine Manning and Toni Driutti. May the House please, again, make them all warmly welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A. Dix: I'm pleased to welcome, on behalf of the member for Vancouver-Kensington, grade 11 students from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School today, along with parents and teachers. I'd like to ask everyone to make them welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. N. Yamamoto: Today in the members' gallery we have a very special guest from Indonesia. I'm pleased to introduce Mr. Bambang Hieandrasto, the new consul general of the Republic of Indonesia at Vancouver. I had the pleasure of meeting with the consul general during the Paralympics when he first arrived in Vancouver. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1340]
Today he is meeting with quite a number of ministers in Victoria for what I'm hoping will be very productive discussions to further our good relationships between our two jurisdictions. Please join me in giving the consul general a very warm welcome to British Columbia and to the House. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
H. Lali: I have a couple of introductions as well. First of all, I would like to join my colleague from Skeena and join him in welcoming a former caucus and cabinet colleague and the former Deputy Premier for the province of British Columbia in the 1990s. Of course, when she spoke, everybody listened. That's obviously Lois Boone, sitting up in the galleries. That's my first introduction. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Secondly, one of the folks here with the UBCM executive is the mayor of one of my eight municipalities in Fraser-Nicola, and that's the mayor of Clinton, Mr. Roland Stanke. He's sitting right up there. Would the House please welcome him to Victoria. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Sultan: In the galleries today is a constituent, Mauro Chiesa, who has had a distinguished career as a senior investment officer with the World Bank in Washington, D.C. Born and educated here in British Columbia, he served as a senior financial adviser to governments in the financing of port power, telecommunications and water system projects around the world, including Panama, Brazil, Senegal, Botswana, the Philippines and Morocco senior investment officer with the World Bank in Washington, D.C., and now he's come home. Would you please make him welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Horgan: I hope this isn't a career-limiting introduction following on the Minister of Forests. I'd like to acknowledge my friend Tanner Elton, who I met when he was trying to revive rail transport on Vancouver Island. Now, after the great job he's done in Mackenzie, I'm hopeful he's going to be coming back to the Island to get that train running in the right direction. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Minister of Health. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Minister of Aboriginal Relations — sorry. My mistake. Question period hasn't started. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Abbott: I was having a brief nightmare there for a moment. I thought I may have been restored as Minister of Health. That indeed would not be welcome, given the remarkable job that my friend is doing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I leap to my feet for this purpose, Mr. Speaker. In the gallery today is a constituent from Shuswap, the chair and trustee of school district 83, North Okanagan-Shuswap, Bobbi Johnson. She's doing a great job, and I'd like the House to please make her welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Chandra Herbert: I rise in this House to welcome a constituent of mine, a former member of the House, former minister of the House, though I don't think he was a minister of health. I'd like to welcome city councillor Tim Stevenson. Would you please make him very welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Hogg: On a day when we have many auspicious guests visiting, I'd like to add to that list. We have from the White Rock Rotary Club three hard-working, dedicated, committed and brilliant people — they tell me: Don Jones, Peter Short and Russ Clinton. They are accompanied by special guests from Brazil: Marcelo Guancino Persicotti, Viviane Iark, Anita Castro Menezes Xavier, Leonardo Jianoti and Leandro Dalalibera Fonseca. Would we please make them all most welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. J. Yap: I have two introductions today. In the gallery today are Monika Marcovici and Sonny Wong of the Board of Change. The Board of Change is an inclusive organizational network that exists to develop and foster a new economic model that values the pursuit of sustainability equally with the pursuit of profit. I met both of them at the recent Globe 2010 trade show and conference in Vancouver, and I ask all members of the House to give them a warm welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1345]
P. Pimm: I'd like to introduce a lady that's already been introduced once, but this lady deserves to be introduced more than once — one of the great ladies of our region, the chairman of the Peace River regional district, chairman of the North Central Local Government Association and member of the UBCM committee. I'd like a warm welcome for Karen Goodings, please. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Reid: My niece has joined us today, Michelle Ramsell, and her lovely friend Shannon is with her. I'd ask the House to make them welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Hayer: I would also like to welcome Barbara Steele, our city councillor and second vice-president of UBCM, who is my constituent. She is known in Surrey as one of the hardest-working councillors there. She's with her friend today, Colin Campbell, who is coming here to see question period for the first time. Please make them very welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Barnett: I, too, would like to welcome the chair of the Cariboo regional district, Director Al Richmond, from area G, one of the prettiest areas in the Cariboo Chilcotin. I welcome him today as a member of the UBCM executive and ask the House to join with me. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. McRae: I would like the House to welcome Stephen Borley and Danika Village, two teachers from the Comox Valley who are participating in the B.C. Teachers Institute on Parliamentary Democracy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: The strength of any profession is the talents of the students that come along. At the Attorney General's Ministry we are very fortunate in attracting some of the best and the brightest. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They are here today. They are a group of articling students who are participating in a conference that involves the Law Clerk, Jennifer Furry and Carol Anne Rolf from the government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They are Brian Dybwad, Shannon Davis, Mark Myhre, Justin Mason, Dea Lloyd, Tina Parbhakar, and they are also accompanied by, from legislative counsel, Corinne Swystun. I hope all members will make these talented young people feel welcome here today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Speaking of the best and the brightest, the Pacific Christian School is here from Abbotsford — 12 grade 8 students accompanied by 18 adults. They are enjoying their tour, looking forward to question period, and I hope members will make them feel welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Finally, joining us in the gallery are three individuals — Wendy Neufeld, Terry Voth, and Ken Funk. They are here not just to participate and watch the proceedings but to visibly articulate their support for hospice and the Abbotsford Hospice Society. I know they're looking forward to question period. It may not be the highlight of the day. The highlight probably occurred earlier when they were landing in a small aircraft and the button controlling the landing gear came out of the panel. They've enjoyed their time. I hope members will make them feel welcome as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
Bill M203 — Cosmetic Pesticide and
Carcinogen Control Act, 2010
R. Fleming presented a bill intituled Cosmetic Pesticide and Carcinogen Control Act, 2010.
R. Fleming: I move that the Cosmetic Pesticide and Carcinogen Control Act be read first time now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved.
R. Fleming: Introduction of this bill enables our province to join other provinces representing nearly 20 million Canadians that ban the use of toxic cosmetic pesticides that threaten our environment, our waterways, children, pets and personal heath. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The legislation is consistent with provincial legislative reforms urged by the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Toxic Free Canada and the David Suzuki Foundation. The bill is also consistent with recommendations made by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker, 29 local governments across B.C. governing millions of our citizens have enacted bylaws to ban the sale of cosmetic pesticides, but these bylaws are ineffective because they lack the authority to govern the retail sale of easily obtained environmental toxins. The Community Charter does not give communities the legislative authority to ban the sale of pesticides. Only provincial legislation can accomplish this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Our society faces a huge potential cancer burden from exposure to hundreds of known and possible human carcinogens from thousands of new chemicals that have not been tested for their cancer potential. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1350]
The New York Academy of Sciences found that women exposed to pesticides as children are twice as likely to have breast cancer later in their lives. Research by the Harvard School of Public Health linked some pesticides to lowered intelligence, behaviour disorders, autism, ADHD and asthma in children. Cosmetic pesticides also put at risk our food supply, and new research links pesticide runoff to the decline in B.C.'s wild salmon returns. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Much of the pollution of our environment can be prevented. For children and pregnant women, there are no safe levels of exposure to chemicals such as endocrine disrupters and neurotoxins. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In protecting our young children, this legislation offers the promise, over time, of lowered cost of delivering health care services by reducing chronic disease. The legislation takes important steps to protect human health and our environment. The time for government to take strong legislative action is now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day at the next sitting of the House the day after today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Bill M203, Cosmetic Pesticide and Carcinogen Control Act, 2010, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
EARTH DAY
R. Fleming: April 22, Earth Day, is the largest, most celebrated environmental event worldwide. Today more than six million Canadians will join a billion people in over 170 countries in staging events and projects to address local environmental issues, and today nearly every school child in Canada will take part in an earth day activity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Environmental challenges to the sustainability of our planet are immense. Around the globe national economies remain tied to large-scale daily actions that pollute and degrade the fragile environment that humans and wildlife depend on to live. Earth Day 2010 provides the opportunity for all of us to identify solutions, to take positive action and to achieve results that will shift our societies from the present risk of runaway climate change to a green, low-carbon, sustainable way of living. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This year Earth Day turns 40. First launched as an environmental awareness event in the United States in 1970, April 22 is celebrated as the birth of the environmental movement. Earth Day has and continues to be a powerful catalyst for change. The first Earth Day was spearheaded by Governor Nelson of Wisconsin, and it involved 20 million participants in teach-ins that addressed decades of environmental pollution. The event inspired the U.S. Congress to pass clean air and water acts and establish the Environmental Protection Agency. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In 1990 two million Canadians joined 200 million people in celebrating the first International Earth Day. That global event brought pressure on heads of states to later convene the UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro to address climate change and the loss of endangered species. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In Canada, Earth Day is celebrated in every community, from large public events — including Victoria's Earth Walk this weekend — to the thousands of smaller events that are staged by schools; employee groups, including here in our public sector in British Columbia; and community organizations. I encourage local residents to join me at local events this weekend. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES IN
WEST VANCOUVER–SEA TO SKY AREA
J. McIntyre: As noted, today indeed is Earth Day, and in over 170 countries people will be taking part in events and projects to recognize sustainability and to encourage greener living. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm fortunate to represent one of the greenest ridings in the province. From West Vancouver to north of Pemberton and Mount Currie, the residents of West Vancouver–Sea to Sky have proven by their actions that they take seriously the challenge to change their actions to help mitigate the effects of climate change. We just hosted what is being termed "the greenest games ever." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Recently VANOC's John Furlong recognized Jim Godfrey, who was Whistler's former administrator and executive director of its 2010 games office, for his work in ensuring that sustainability was in the forefront of the games' values. This commitment resulted in a number of innovative programs, crowning us as the greenest games ever. Now that legacy and challenge has been passed on to other Olympic venues. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
During Earth Hour on March 27 three communities in my riding — Bowen Island, Pemberton and Whistler — were in the top five in British Columbia, where residents showed their support for the fight against climate change by not using electricity for one hour. Earth Hour is an annual global event hosted by the World Wildlife Fund and sponsored provincially by B.C. Hydro to create awareness of energy conservation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1355]
A number of local councils in the riding have adopted leading-edge environmental strategies. For example, the resort municipality of Whistler has been making great strides with their Whistler 2020 initiative, which focuses on a long-term, comprehensive, community-developed action plan. Whistler was also winner of one of our government's seven inaugural Green City Awards at the UBCM conference in 2007. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's not just the residents helping to make a change. My riding has a disproportionate share of green power projects up and running and just approved in B.C. Hydro's recent clean call that deliver clean electricity to power our province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
To my constituents, elected officials and numerous organizations, congratulations on a concerted effort to work together to halt the effects of climate change. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
ALEXANDRA MORTON
AND WALK FOR WILD SALMON
C. Trevena: On this Earth Day I would like to talk about one of my constituents who has been an environmental activist for many years. Alexandra Morton is marking Earth Day by starting an epic journey. She'll leave her home in Sointula on Malcolm Island and follow the path of the wild salmon on migration. She plans to finish the journey in this place on Mother's Day. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
She'll be walking with Molina Dawson, a 14-year-old from Kingcome Inlet. They'll be joined along the route by others who want to save wild salmon. First Nations are bestowing a blessing on her at the Nimpkish River. There will be community celebrations on Quadra Island and in Campbell River in my constituency, and more as she moves south down the Island. She'll be joined by others who will migrate along with her, walking from the west coast to meet up with her. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Ms. Morton has almost single-handedly kept the issue of wild salmon at the centre of people's attention, a place that such a cornerstone of our ecosystem deserves. Without wild salmon we know we would not have our abundant forests or our healthy wildlife. There is a reason why salmon have long been central to the life, survival and culture of First Nations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
She has been challenged and vilified by people who question her judgment or her science, but she is this year to be awarded an honorary doctorate of science by Simon Fraser University for her research on sea lice, and her research has moved the debate forward. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Her actions at the B.C. Supreme Court have moved the governance of aquaculture to the federal level. But for Ms. Morton, this is not far enough. The reason for this walk is to show that the missing Fraser sockeye and other disappearing salmon stocks will not be forgotten, nor will the central place that wild salmon have in our ecosystem. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
ALZHEIMER SOCIETY OF B.C.
L. Reid: Today I would like to dedicate my remarks to Alice Mann, who is an extraordinary caregiver. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Dementia is not an illness we can ignore. A progressive disease, it exacts its toll on caregivers, family and friends. Dementia affects more and more people as our population ages. Over 70,000 people live with dementia in British Columbia, and approximately 15,000 develop dementia each year. Often thought of as an older person's disease, many are surprised to learn that well over 10,000 people are under the age of 65. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Alzheimer Society of B.C., established in 1981 by a small group of caregivers, is dedicated to helping people affected by dementia to live well despite the diagnosis, building confidence and skills. The society also works to improve dementia care and to raise awareness of the disease. It works to erase the stigma and to secure funds for support and research. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Today the society has grown and maintains 18 resource centres around British Columbia where local residents obtain information on issues such as understanding the disease and how it might progress, skill-building for positive caregiving and useful information such as dealing with the sensitive issue of driving cessation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The society offers support groups for both caregivers and those who have dementia. I know of one early-stage group that meets every two weeks over breakfast so that people can share their issues around the life-changing experience. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A provincewide dementia help plan is available to enhance the availability of support and information. First Link is a new program introduced by the Alzheimer Society. First Link is an early intervention service designed to connect individuals and families affected by Alzheimer's disease or a related dementia with services and support as soon as possible after diagnosis. Formal referrals from physicians and health professionals allow for proactive contact with individuals and their families. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Alzheimer Society is committed to expanding this program throughout British Columbia so that families and caregivers have the tools to more effectively manage their long journey with this disease. I recognize and acknowledge the good work of the Alzheimer Society of British Columbia and their dedication to improving the lives of people coping with dementias in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
COMMUNITY VOLUNTEER SERVICES
FOR SENIORS
D. Thorne: Today, during Volunteer Week in B.C., I would like to acknowledge the volunteers who have made the Community Volunteer Services for Seniors a valuable wellness program in the Tri-Cities. CVS offers outreach for frail, isolated and homebound seniors. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1400]
This registered charity's programs include the Shop by Phone program where volunteers take grocery orders, do the shopping and then deliver. They have a visiting program which matches volunteers with lonely, homebound seniors. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
CVS also helps low-income seniors who have a computer by providing a volunteer to help them connect to the Internet and use their e-mail, keeping isolated seniors in touch with the outside world. CVS acts as a referral agency with approximately 1,500 calls per year. They also run a recreation program for those with memory loss. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
CVS has kept the costs of these many services to a minimum. Small donations from the community have helped, but CVS has primarily been funded by Fraser Health. Two staff members and more than 195 volunteers provided these services to approximately 220 seniors every year for the past 13 years. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Today I'm sad to announce that this program will close on June 11 because the funder, Fraser Health, has decided to no longer fund it. This is the third valuable volunteer service to be lost to the Tri-Cities in recent months because of funding cuts. Today during Volunteer Week I would like to once again and for the last time salute these hundreds of volunteers and thank them for all their wonderful work. They have made our community a better place to live, and we sure will miss them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
SUPPORT FOR CRIME VICTIMS
AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION
D. Hayer: I rise today to speak of rights — the right to feel safe in our communities, the right to live, work, learn and play without fear. British Columbia has proclaimed this week as the Victims of Crime Awareness Week and the Prevention of Violence Against Women Week. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Ever since I was first elected in this House — in fact, for many years before — I have spoken out that the rights of victims should be paramount over the rights of those of criminals, that rights of the victims should be more important than those of the criminals. All victims of crime and abuse deserve to be heard, respected and protected from future violence, and every victim counts. Every child, man and woman counts no matter what the circumstances. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
People matter. People's rights and freedoms are vital to the fabric of this nation, Canada, and in the opinion of law-abiding individuals, criminals' rights should be diminished greatly when they commit acts against others. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This week across this great province, we recognize the right of Canadians and victims in activities that will focus on raising awareness of services available to victims of crime and enforce the shared belief that every victim matters. This government supports more than 160 police and community-based victim services programs across British Columbia to help raise awareness. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Prevention of Violence Against Women Week is also being recognized. More than 250 programs provide supports to women and children fleeing violence. We all must work together to support each other and prevent violence to make our communities a safer, better place to live. I urge everyone in this House to support the events in your communities this week in recognition of Victims of Crime Awareness Week and Prevention of Crime Against Women Week. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Oral Questions
REPORTING ON GOVERNMENT AND
CROWN CORPORATION
OLYMPIC GAMES TICKETS
C. James: Last year when reports of taxpayer dollars spent on luxury suites at GM Place became a political scandal for the B.C. Liberals, the minister promised this House that there would be a full reporting on taxpayer-paid Olympic tickets. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Here's what the minister said on October 21 last year: "I've said in this House...there will be a full accounting of each and every ticket used." But there's still no sign of that report. The secrecy continues; the confusion is getting worse. FOI'd documents that have been received back from B.C. Hydro show that taxpayers are still being denied details on who attended. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A request was made — a simple request — for who hosted and who attended events paid for by B.C. Hydro. The response came back with page after page entirely blacked out. So much for access to information. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1405]
My question is to the minister. Why are taxpayers still being denied information on who used Olympic tickets, and will the minister tell this House what's behind the black ink on those documents? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. McNeil: You know, the government has committed to a comprehensive report on the government's Olympic and Paralympic ticketing and hosting strategy. We've committed to that by late spring, but I anticipate it will probably be ready within the next couple of weeks, and we are going to be delivering on that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But the Crown corporations have their own reporting requirements and their own individual boards they report to, and I understand much of that information is already on the website. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: It's pretty clear that this minister doesn't have any kind of handle on what's going on with taxpayer dollars spent on the Olympics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would be happy to share the blacked-out document from B.C. Hydro that doesn't, in fact, include any information in the document. Hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars spent at a time when this government is cutting funding for school playgrounds, child care, education. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Last week when we asked the minister if Crown corporations would be included, the minister refused, saying: "We're just including information on government tickets, not Crown corporations." Well, Crown corporations are taxpayer dollars. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, my question is to the minister. Nothing short of full disclosure will satisfy the questions surrounding money spent on Olympic tickets, so will the minister commit today to including Crown corporations in the report coming forward? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. McNeil: As I said in estimates just this week and I have said before in this House, the government has committed to providing a comprehensive report on the tickets purchased by this government within our hosting and ticketing strategy. We committed to doing this by late spring. We anticipate it will probably be ready in the next couple of weeks, and we intend to deliver on that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: It's very clear that this minister just doesn't get what full disclosure means. Taxpayer dollars are taxpayer dollars, whether they're spent in a ministry or a Crown corporation, and the public deserves to know where those dollars were spent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We know that B.C. Hydro paid at least $600,000, B.C. Lottery Corporation $400,000 and ICBC $400,000 for luxury suites, using taxpayer dollars. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So I again ask this minister: when will she put an end to the secrecy? When will she agree to a full accounting of all taxpayer dollars used, who went to what event and when? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. McNeil: The member opposite refers to the Crown corporations, who were sponsors, by the way. They have their own reporting requirements and individual boards they report to. In addition, it's my understanding that much of the information she's asking for now is already on their individual websites. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Horgan: "Complete and full accounting of each and every ticket. I've said in this House, as my colleague" — the member beside her — "has said, that there will be a full accounting…." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Member, just sit down for a second. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Members. Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Continue, Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Horgan: I'll finish the quote, in case those over on the other side didn't get it when the minister made it. "The distribution of whatever Olympic tickets are touched by government will be fully accounted for." That was back in October. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So the minister is telling us that Crown corporations are not part of government. We received a freedom-of-information request dated April 15 that has all of the information available to the minister and her colleagues to release to the public, except it's redacted. It's blacked out. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1410]
So my question is a simple one. While the minister still has some authority as a cabinet minister, this week, why doesn't she do the right thing and ensure that all tickets touched by pieces of government — whether they be ministries, ministers, Liberal MLAs or Crown corporations — are fully accounted for? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. McNeil: As I've said before, we are committed to releasing a report on the cost of the hosting activities and the ticket allocations that were purchased by the government's Olympic Games Secretariat, and we will have a full report. As you can appreciate and as I'm sure many can appreciate, this was the most major undertaking this province has ever done — the Winter Olympic Games. Not only were the Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games the most successful games in history, they were also the most complex event that the province has ever hosted. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We are committed to the report. As I said, the report will probably be out within the next couple of weeks, and I encourage the members opposite to wait and see the report at that time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Horgan: B.C. Hydro expends… [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Horgan: …hundreds of thousands of dollars for friends and insiders of the B.C. Liberal Party, while ratepayers are looking at 29 percent rate increases on their hydro bills. B.C. Hydro has done the work. They've blocked it off at someone's request. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Will the minister — again, you may only be a minister for a short while — use that authority today to get B.C. Hydro to release full and comprehensive information and do it now? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. McNeil: As I explained before, the Crown corporations have their own reporting requirements. It's my understanding that most of this information, including who they gave the tickets to, is on their individual websites, and I encourage the member opposite to go on line. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Farnworth: This government committed in this House to full accountability on every ticket that touched the hand of government, and that includes Crown corporations. The public doesn't believe that hiding behind gallons of whiteout is transparent or accountable. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Will the minister stand up in this House and commit that Crown corporations will be included in this report and we will know that Crown corporations were not used as a ticket slush fund for ministers to attend Olympic events? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. McNeil: As I've said, again, there will be a full accountability of the tickets purchased by the Olympic Games Secretariat. There will be one, and I encourage the members opposite to wait until they see it. At that time, if they have questions, then we can continue the discussion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But just as the members opposite were talking about the Olympic Games and not being very successful and panicked before…. Again, we hosted the most successful Olympic Games yet. I encourage them to continue to wait. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Farnworth: Not good enough, Minister. Not good enough. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister said in estimates…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Continue, Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1415]
M. Farnworth: The minister stated in estimates that ministers could be forced to provide the information. Well, ministers shouldn't have to be forced to provide information. They should be required to provide information that they committed to in this House. Giving back blacked-out FOIs is not accountable or transparent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So once again to the minister: will she commit to ensure that Crown corporations, every single one of them, will be tabled in this House as to how those tickets were used? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat for a second. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Members. Members on both sides of the House, there should be an element of respect when the question is being asked and an element of respect when the question is being answered. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. McNeil: What I will commit to, as I have in October and I've continued to commit to, is that we will have a full accounting of the detailed report on the government's Olympic and Paralympic hosting and ticketing strategy. It will be complete with who used what — MLAs and what ministers went to which events. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: The minister made a commitment that all information on who got tickets and who used them would be made public. The minister has said that she will be transparent on this. There's no transparency if she excludes $1.4 million worth of tickets from Crown corporations. Clearly, this is another broken promise by the Liberals to not provide this information — another broken promise. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
British Columbians have a right to know who went to the games on their dime, including people who went through Crown corporations. Will the minister keep her promise and release a detailed list, including the Crown corporations? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. McNeil: Again, I will, as I have in the past, commit to a comprehensive report on the government's Olympic and Paralympic hosting and ticketing strategy, as we promised. It should be released within the next couple of weeks. It will have a detailed report on who used these tickets. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Crown corporations and the ones you're talking about that were sponsors of the Olympic Games have their own reporting requirements, and I understand much of that information is already on the website. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: The Crown corporations might have their own reporting authority, but the bottom line is that this minister and this B.C. Liberal government are responsible to the people of British Columbia to tell them what money was spent. This minister has that responsibility. Maybe it's because she thinks her job is done now that the Olympics are behind us, but it's not. She has that responsibility, including the Crown corporations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Will she make that list available, including the Crowns? If not, she's broken her promise. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. McNeil: Again, the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games was the largest event ever hosted in this province, and it was a tremendous success. In addition to being successful, it was a very complex series of events — not just sporting events but other events. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I encourage the members opposite to wait for the report, which will be detailed and will be coming out within the next couple of weeks, until they pass their judgment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
ANNUAL FACILITIES GRANTS FOR SCHOOL
DISTRICTS AND CARBON NEUTRALITY
R. Austin: Last year this government took away all the money that school districts used to upgrade their buildings, a $110 million cut. This year school districts are only receiving half as much for facilities grants as they received in 2008. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1420]
My question is to the Minister of Education. How are schools supposed to become more energy-efficient when this government continues gutting their facilities grants? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: As the member opposite is well aware and as he has actually acknowledged, very clearly we have increased education funding this year. There is a total of $110 million available to school districts in annual facilities grants as well as a number of other grants they can take advantage of as we go forward with carbon neutrality, which is of enormous importance to British Columbians everywhere in this province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Austin: It's correct the facilities grant has been restored, but over two years, not one. So it's still a cut of 50 percent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This government's decision to eliminate facilities grants last year left school districts helpless to improve energy efficiency and reduce their carbon footprints. Now, according to Susan Skinner, chair of the North Vancouver school district, calculating carbon will "definitely increase administrative costs." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again to the Minister of Education: why doesn't this government get serious about protecting the environment by fully restoring facilities grants to schools so they can invest in energy efficiency and carbon reduction? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It is very clear — something on Earth Day but every day of the year — that we owe it to our children and our grandchildren to make sure that we're working toward a cleaner environment and carbon neutrality. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Every school district in this province signed on to the climate action charter. They were aware that in return for this, they would receive their carbon tax rebates in full, which they will. Not only that, they've already received $800,000, and by the spring of 2011 they will receive about $7 million in carbon tax revenues, which can be used for projects in their schools that will help to pay for energy upgrades. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
SCHOOL DISTRICT CARBON OFFSET COSTS
AND ENERGY RETROFIT FUNDING
R. Fleming: Carbon offsets for B.C. school districts this year will cost $6.3 million, and they will be paid for out of operating budgets. Incredibly, under the carbon offset regulation, schools can't apply to the fund to retrofit their own schools and actually lower their carbon emissions. Instead, the money flows from our schools to private companies like Lafarge cement and Whistler's Westin ski and spa resort. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
How can the Education Minister justify forcing districts that are laying off teachers, that are closing schools, that are cancelling their own energy retrofit programs to pay for private projects like these? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The province is providing school districts around this province with $10 million to upgrade their heating and cooling systems, which is going to realize an efficiency gain in energy of 46 percent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The health and safety of our students is important, and it isn't just in schools. It is the overall environment of this program. That is why we have taken leadership which has made us renowned around the world — leadership like the carbon tax, leadership like our position on reducing our greenhouse gases. We know the members opposite were against that, but we're in favour of those changes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: The minister knows that the Pacific Carbon Trust actually gets its money from cash-starved school districts, all of whom are in deficit this year, but prohibits green investment going back into the thousands of school buildings across British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There are other jurisdictions that do it differently. The U.K. — they allow school offsets to be pooled to then be used to lower the actual carbon footprints of their school buildings. That makes sense. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again to the minister: why are the B.C. Liberals prohibiting school boards from investing their offset dollars in projects that would actually lower the carbon footprint of our entire school system here in B.C.? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1425]
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It's certainly interesting to be preached at by an opposition that didn't have a plan for the energy or the environment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
School districts around this province are working hard in this area — upgrading. They have multiple sources of revenue. We've been working with them. We've been helping them to access different kinds of funding, including…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Mr. Speaker, the important thing is that we must address the environment, and the members opposite are well aware of that. We have to pay attention to this. We have a plan, and we'll continue to work with school districts and take care of the children, the students in this province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
SURREY SCHOOL DISTRICT PORTABLE USE
AND CARBON OFFSET COSTS
H. Bains: This year the Surrey school board is being forced to add 20 more energy-inefficient portables to hundreds that actually crowd our Surrey school grounds. Not only are they forced to pay $2 million out of the operating money for these portables, they are forced to come up with more than half a million dollars to calculate carbon and to buy carbon offsets mandated by this government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question to the minister is this. Why doesn't this government do the right thing, take real action to protect the environment by putting Surrey children in real classrooms rather than in these energy-inefficient portables? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It's interesting. One of the things that we never hear from the opposition, which we never hear any acknowledgment of, is our investment in schools. And it is certainly true that in Surrey even now we're investing $50 million in new schools. Over the last ten years we've invested more than $1.7 billion, and each of these schools is energy-efficient to the highest standards. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What's also true is that the NDP have opposed every single major environmental initiative that we've put in place since 2001. They voted against the carbon tax. They voted against cap-and-trade. They voted against the funding for LiveSmart B.C. We are committed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
H. Bains: Answers we get from this minister today and for the weeks in the past are a despicable display of arrogance and contempt for our trustees and parents by this minister. The minimum she could do is be upfront with those parents and trustees and say: "Look, we're not giving you money because we used that money to pay for the ministers' and Liberal MLAs' Olympic tickets." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The money that the Surrey school district is spending on carbon offsets and new portables could pay up to 35 teachers, and not a penny of that money helps the Surrey school district reduce their carbon footprint. So my question again is to the minister. Does the Education Minister really think that it makes sense to send funding from the cash-strapped school system to ski resorts and cement plants? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member opposite has made such a large number of incorrect statements that I really don't know where to start, but I will begin here. In Surrey we have increased funding by $14 million this year. We're supporting education in Surrey. Surrey is the fastest-growing district in the province, and we acknowledge that. We have invested over $204 million in new schools, in seismic upgrades, and we continue to invest in this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1430]
It is difficult to keep up with a rapidly growing district, but to say that we have not been investing in schools, to mislead the public in this way, is simply wrong. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
SCHOOL DISTRICT CARBON OFFSET COSTS
AND ENERGY RETROFIT FUNDING
N. Macdonald: I think for now and for the next three years, it's going to be very awkward for any B.C. Liberal to stand up and talk about misleading, after what they've done to the province. Pretty thin ice. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Central Okanagan school district is facing a $7.4 million shortfall, as this minister knows, which includes $137,000 in unfunded carbon offset costs. That means the district has to cut that money, deprive students of that amount of funding, and there is no opportunity for the district to reduce their carbon footprint. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So the question for the minister is this. Why is the government depriving students of needed services and then using that money to fund private companies through the Pacific Carbon Trust? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I really must correct the record and remind the members opposite of exactly what we have done in this province with respect to our funding in education. As of next year there will be 60,000 fewer students in the system, and we are investing more than 1.3 billion additional dollars in education in this province. It is really ironic that the NDP would take this day, Earth Day, of all days to argue against the carbon neutrality for school districts — something that is in the best interests of students and the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Just wait, Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Macdonald: I'm anxious to go. Let's use an example for the minister. Elkford Secondary School could not replace their furnace because at the last minute, as the minister will remember, facility grants were cut. Neither can they access Pacific Carbon Trust money. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But the money they put in as carbon offsets were available for new heating systems for Westin Whistler Resort and Spa, Pan Pacific Mountainside in Whistler, Four Seasons in Vancouver. So lots for private hotels; nothing for Elkford Secondary School. My question is simple. How does that make sense to use educational funds in that way? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: As I said, our government is absolutely committed to carbon neutrality and to continuing our leadership in this area — without question. As the member opposite is well aware, school districts around this province have access to $110 million for annual facilities grants. There are other grants they can apply for. We've worked with a number of districts over this past year to allow them to access restricted capital funding, and they've done these sorts of projects. Many of the school districts value this just as much as we do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would ask the members opposite how they would manage things differently. How would they raise taxes? What would they download onto these very students that they claim they are supporting? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[End of question period.]
Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)
D. Horne: I rise to reserve my right to raise a matter of privilege. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Petitions
D. McRae: I'd like to submit a petition from Comox Valley cycling residents in regards to the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: I seek leave to present a petition. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Proceed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: I have another approximately 500 signatures from residents in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows calling on the government to scrap the implementation of the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1435]
Standing Order 81.1
SCHEDULE FOR DEBATE ON BILL 9
Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 simply to advise the House that I will be soliciting input from the Opposition House Leader with respect to developing a schedule for debate on Bill 9 that would see the required votes on that bill take place prior to the expiration of the month of April. I'll report back to the House in due course. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. de Jong: I call, in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Forests — and, in this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 9. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Second Reading of Bills
Bill 9 — CONSUMPTION TAX REBATE
AND TRANSITION ACT
(continued)
On the amendment (continued).
J. Brar: I rise once again, Mr. Speaker…. [Applause.] I have support on both sides of the House. That's good to know. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[L. Reid in the chair.]
I rise once again in support of the motion to refer Bill 9 to a committee called the Select Standing Committee on Finance. I do so because the people of British Columbia have a lot of outstanding questions when we talk about the implementation of the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
During the last election the B.C. Liberals promised to the people of British Columbia that they would not impose the HST. That was the promise made by this government to the people of British Columbia. Not only that, as I said earlier, but they gave that commitment in writing to the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, and they signed that letter. They gave that commitment in writing to the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association, and they signed that letter as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That was before the election, but as soon as the elections were over, they dropped the bombshell of betrayal on the people of British Columbia by doing completely the opposite to that. Just six weeks after the election, they announced the implementation of the HST. Just six weeks after the election. Now we have found that just three days after the election there were actually negotiations going on between the government of British Columbia and the federal government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's why it's very important that we send this matter to the committee so that we can find out the truth as to what went on. Clearly, this government was not honest with the people of British Columbia before the election. They failed to tell the truth before the election when it comes to HST. That's why it's very important to refer this matter to the committee so that we can find out what the reality was. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, 85 percent of the people of British Columbia don't support the HST. That's a huge majority, and they deserve to be heard. That's why it's very important for us to send this matter to a committee so that the committee can go out and listen to the people of British Columbia from all walks of life. That's why it's very important. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It is known that this HST tax is unfair. It's unfair, and that's why it's very important that we refer this matter to a committee so that the people of British Columbia can come and provide their feedback to this government so that they can find out how it's going to hurt the average person in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The reality is this. The HST is going to transfer $1.9 billion in taxes from big businesses to the people of British Columbia. So $1.9 billion is going to be transferred from big businesses to the people of British Columbia. In other words, big business will pay less, and the people of British Columbia will pay more. During the last nine years, since this government has been in power, tax cut after tax cut after tax cut to big businesses has been going on and subsidy after subsidy to corporations. Where will it end? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1440]
When we talk about the minimum wage, they have constantly refused to raise the minimum wage. That's why it's very important that we refer this matter to a committee — so that we can find answers for the people of British Columbia asking at this point in time. It's very clear that HST is going to drive up the cost of many, many things people use almost every day. It's a real thing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I don't understand. Until today the Minister of Finance failed to tell us even one thing where the cost will go up, failed to mention one figure, a figure of any item where he says specifically that the cost of that thing will go up by so many dollars. He failed to do that. That's why it's very important that we refer this matter to a committee so that we can find out exactly what it will mean to the people of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's going to raise the cost of many things, once the HST is implemented, and the list is very long. Restaurant meals will go up. Many groceries — such as snack food and other prepared food like salad, sandwiches, heated food — will go up. The cost of school supplies will go up. The cost of services, such as taxis, will go up. The cost of live theatre, movie tickets, amusement parks, campground fees, museum admission fees, whale-watching tours — those will all go up. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The cost for accounting services will go up. The cost for veterinarian care will go up. The cost for many other professional services, like architects or real estate agents, will go up with HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The cost for yoga classes will go up. People go out to get healthy and probably save costs to the province, and the cost for yoga classes, dance, cooking classes and martial arts will go up. The cost for membership fees for clubs and gyms and players will go up for many teams and sports. The cost of haircuts will go up. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The list goes on, and this government has failed to tell us. How much more will it cost the people of British Columbia for those things? The list is very long, and that's why it's very important to send this matter, to refer this matter to a committee — so that we can find out exactly where the cost will go up and how much it will go up when we implement the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I have heard from the other side time and again that a lot of businesses are supporting the HST, but I have heard the other side of the story. There are a lot of businesses out there that do not support the HST. It will actually hurt a lot of small business people. The restaurant and food service industry is one of them. The construction industry and the real estate industry will be hurt by this. The tourism industry will be hurt. The taxi industry will be hurt negatively. Veterinarians will make less. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Thousands of people in British Columbia will lose jobs as a result of HST, in the restaurant industry alone. The restaurant industry alone forecasts that HST will cost them up to 12,000 jobs — 12,000 jobs to the restaurant industry alone. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The tourism industry predicts that it will cost them up to 10,000 jobs — 10,000 jobs to them. So there are a lot of businesses which will be impacted negatively. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The list goes on. The Council of Tourism Associations of B.C. is opposed to it. The B.C. Care Providers Association is opposed to it. The Federation of Community Social Services of B.C. is opposed to HST. The Rental Owners and Managers Society of B.C. is opposed to it. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs — they're opposed to it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There are many other businesses opposed to HST. The reality is there are no winners. There are no winners among us, among the people of British Columbia. The only one group of winners if we implement the HST are the people who are the friends of the Liberal government — the big corporations, and rich people and their friends. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1445]
Madam Speaker, my time is up, and I would like to probably conclude my comments by saying that I fully support that we should send Bill 9 to the committee because there are a lot of outstanding questions that the people of British Columbia are asking. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I support the motion because the HST is the single most powerful bombshell of betrayal thrown on the people of British Columbia during the election and after the election. I support this motion because the B.C. Liberals failed to tell the truth to the people of British Columbia about the HST during the election, when they said they will not impose the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I support this motion because the HST is an unfair tax hike on the people of British Columbia. It will transfer $1.9 billion in taxes from big corporations to the people of British Columbia. I support this motion because the HST will hurt a lot of small businesses in the province of British Columbia, and it will cost thousands of jobs to the people of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I support this motion because people of Surrey-Fleetwood from all walks of life have been calling and sending me e-mails to stop the HST, and that's why it's very important for us to send this matter to a committee. I support this motion because all the supporting arguments I have heard are not very convincing as of today. It's one-sided information, and the people of British Columbia need to be told the truth. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I will conclude my comments by saying that I fully support the motion. It's very important for this House to refer this matter to a committee so that the committee can go out and find the facts and the truth and the reality, and the people of British Columbia can make a very important decision about this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: It's an honour for me to have a chance to participate in this debate today. Let me just say right at the outset that I am opposed to this motion the opposition has brought forward as a stalling tactic. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The amendment before us, as a stalling tactic, will not help put British Columbia on a strong economic footing to help us recover from the current global economic recession and come out of that recession stronger than before. It is our party and our government's stated position that that is our objective: to come out of the current global economic downturn not just recovering from the recession but coming out stronger than we were when we went into it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
For reasons I'll go into in a moment, this bill itself will allow us to do just that. In short, this bill, Bill 9, is about jobs. On the other hand, the amendment from the members of the opposition and the member for Port Coquitlam is about the exact opposite. It's about stalling the passage of Bill 9, the Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act, and it's about stalling the economic recovery, which is now starting to take place in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
While it's true that our economy is starting to show signs of recovery, our government isn't satisfied with that. We think that there's more that we can and should do to help propel ourselves out of this deep economic downturn that struck the whole world over the last 18 to 24 months. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Madam Speaker, I would submit to you that this stalling tactic, this amendment put forward by the member for Port Coquitlam and the NDP, is really typical of their approach to job creation and doing what's best for the province. Their approach is, "Well, we can put that off for another day. Let's just stall. Let's do the politically expedient thing, and let's not worry about it," even though there are people in British Columbia today who would certainly benefit if there were additional jobs created. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I was here as a member of the Legislature from 1996 to 2001, when the NDP government of the day was in office, and I had constituents leaving almost weekly in search of jobs, to go to Alberta or Ontario, because B.C. had become the last province in Canada in terms of economic growth. It was a sad record, a sad history, and it wasn't just a matter of statistics. It had a dramatic impact on individual families, including people who lived in my neighbourhood that were forced to put up for-sale signs and leave the province in order to find an economic future for themselves, for their families and their children. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Since 2001 we've seen a significant reversal of fortunes. British Columbia started to be a net beneficiary of inward-bound interprovincial migration. That means more people were moving to B.C. than were leaving, contrary to the late 1990s, when by the tens of thousands, British Columbians were voting with their feet and leaving the province to go find jobs elsewhere. After we got elected, that trend was reversed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1450]
Today we see that British Columbia is poised to lead Canada in the economic recovery. We're already showing some signs of job growth, and when you compare the number of people working today to when we took office in 2001, there are about 400,000 more people working today, even after this recession, than there were when we took office in 2001. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But as I said, as encouraging as these early signs of economic recovery are, our government is not satisfied with that. We believe there is more that we can and should do, and the HST is one step in doing that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, I want to bring this home a little bit, make it a little bit closer to home, because it's already been noted that more than 130 countries around the world have already moved to adopt a value-added tax, which is essentially what the HST is, as opposed to the old and antiquated provincial sales tax that we have here in British Columbia. When you take a look around the OECD countries, the leading economies in the world, 29 out of 30 of those countries have adopted similar tax policies. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In 1991 I had the opportunity to spend some time working in one of the Asian Tiger countries, working at a law firm in Bangkok, Thailand. During the 1990s that country, too, made a difficult choice. They decided to move to a value-added tax. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I can tell members here that it wasn't a popular thing to do in Thailand either, but it was a decision that the government of the day there chose to make, and ever since then you've seen very significant and strong and consistent economic growth in Thailand, so that it has largely outpaced its neighbours in Southeast Asia in terms of growing their economy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It used to actually be said.... When I was there in 1991 it was often referred to as a Third World country. Thailand is no longer referred to as a Third World country. I'm not going to suggest that the value-added tax that they adopted is the only reason that they moved from that not-so-desirable status to something much more enviable. But I think it is an important part. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I try to stay in touch with some of the former work colleagues I had there, as well as the many friends that I've made in Thailand. When going on the Internet some months ago, I came across a feature article in the Bangkok Post — a retrospective talking about when Thailand adopted the value-added tax and the controversy that was associated with that, but also the economic benefits that they've seen in terms of increased investment and job creation and a growth in incomes year after year in that country. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So even in Thailand, this many years on from making that decision, they still acknowledge that it was a controversial decision. But the academics, the economists, people in government all recognize that it was an important part of making that country a desirable place to invest and to help create jobs for their people and raise incomes by increasing the demand for labour — not just any labour, but increasingly skilled labour, whether it's in the high-tech sector, in the manufacturing of computer components, in the automobile sector or their natural gas sector in processing. There's been significant economic growth. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It would be remiss not to acknowledge briefly some of the very uncertain, unhappy things that are happening right as we speak. My thoughts are with my friends and former colleagues in Bangkok in particular during this time of political upheaval and protest, and I can only hope that cooler heads will prevail and that calm will come back to that country of very inspirational people who are more naturally inclined to smile than to get angry and engage themselves in violent protests. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So I hope that the leaders of the opposing groups and parties there will seek a means to resolve their differences without involving further bloodshed, because that's simply tragic and completely unnecessary in my view. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Let me return back here to British Columbia. There's one particular example that I'm familiar with where a country moved to a value-added tax and has seen economic benefits, overcoming some of the political concerns. Closer to home in my riding there's a company I've visited a number of times. In fact, a number of people I went to high school with are working there. It's a company called IMW Industries. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They're a world leader today in the manufacture, sale and distribution of natural gas compressors and dispensing equipment. That company, over the last couple of years since they moved to a new location in Chilliwack just off of Lickman Road, has grown. They've been hiring people. Even through this economic recession, they've continued to hire additional people and to grow their business. Frankly, one of the challenges they've been facing is how to expand, because some of their customers are asking for more products that would require them to expand their facilities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But with the Canadian dollar rising in value and much of their product being exported to the United States or to other countries where the common denominator, in terms of the currency exchange, is the U.S. dollar for the contract price, it's getting tougher. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1455]
The margin has been shrinking because of the rising Canadian dollar compared to the U.S. dollar. That makes it even more important for a company like IMW and for the 150 or so employees working there that British Columbia move to a value-added tax system like the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Why? Because under an HST they will be able to get input credits for the amount of money that they're paying when they purchase new equipment and supplies and the components that go into this manufacturing process in Chilliwack. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Madam Speaker, think about that — 7 percent today that they have to pay on every component that they're putting into their equipment that they want to sell. They've got international competitors, and they're selling on a world market where most of the rest of the world does get input tax credits and does not have to pay an antiquated provincial sales tax, where those exporting companies don't get the input tax credit. So the PST is clearly putting our businesses at a disadvantage. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Frequently in British Columbia, people over the past few decades have rung their hands in angst and despair, saying: "Why is it? Why is it that we haven't had more growth in manufacturing? Why don't we see more investment in high-paying manufacturing jobs in British Columbia?" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One of those reasons is because of the extra, additional cost that's imposed on businesses, like the 7 percent provincial sales tax which they cannot get back through an input tax credit. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So to make it local, something like this HST will be a significant benefit to a company like IMW and the 150 or so workers there today, and the many more that I hope will be working there in the years ahead. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Another community in the riding that I represent of Chilliwack-Hope is Agassiz, legally known as the district of Kent. Last summer I had the chance to stop in and visit another business located there. They manufacture very large steel wheels for trucks in the construction sector, and we're talking big, massive trucks that are used in the natural resource sector around the world for mining and other activities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Their competitors are also based outside of Canada, and they're trying to compete with one hand tied behind their back in the form of the antiquated provincial sales tax. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
To the extent that we can repeal that antiquated tax — and that's what Bill 9 is all about — and move to a harmonized sales tax, we can help that company, too, and the people working in Agassiz can continue to have a bright employment future by assisting that company in its international competition, by removing that antiquated 7 percent add-on for every coat of paint that they require in that facility, their carpet, their computers, the forklifts that they use, the trucks that they need to move their product to the port in Vancouver and put it on vessels to carry it to their customers around the world. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Those are just two local examples where this initiative that our government has undertaken is really about protecting and enhancing our ability to create jobs right here at home and jobs that are good-paying. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'll just refer back to my notes for a moment. Chilliwack is well known as an agricultural community. Certainly, over the years that's been a mainstay. It's been a very stable part of our economy. While other sectors have had their ups and downs, one thing that's really provided a stabilizing influence in our community is the relative health and strength of our agricultural sector. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I am always interested to hear what farmers in my community have to say, and I'd like to report to the House that, through the B.C. Agriculture Council, they're estimating that the agricultural sector will save about $15 million to $18 million per year through the adoption of the HST and the elimination and repeal of the old, antiquated provincial sales tax. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That will directly assist farmers in my community, not just in Chilliwack but also in Agassiz and Harrison. In all three areas we have a significant number of dairy farms, chicken farms, some pork producers and a number of other operations. So that's another reason why I support this initiative in Bill 9 and oppose the NDP's effort to derail it and postpone it and delay it and procrastinate by way of this referral motion, amendment motion, that the member for Port Coquitlam put forward. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1500]
Now, I know that the NDP is reluctant to acknowledge many things about the HST. Here's one. You never hear them talk about the fact that we have designed it specifically so that there are tax credits targeted for low-income families and seniors. In fact, under the proposal that our government has put forward with our Minister of Finance, more than 1.1 million British Columbians will benefit from that shift. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Add to that the climate action credit that we put in place when we introduced the carbon tax, something the NDP opposition also was opposed to at that time, it adds up to a total of $340 per year in provincial credits. That's a significant benefit and assistance to people of lower incomes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You have to ask yourself: is the NDP's opposition today similar to their opposition to the carbon tax two years ago, when they thought they saw a political opportunity and just jumped on that bandwagon and then saw that bandwagon's wheels fall off during the last provincial election campaign and veer into the ditch? Or is it really based on some underlying fundamental NDP socialist principle? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Well, that's a very good question. We hear a lot from the opposition NDP about them being all for socialist principles. Yet when you look across the country, which province in Canada is moving to the highest level of HST in the entire country? Where is that? It's in a province that has an NDP government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Nova Scotia announced just two or three weeks ago in their latest provincial budget that far from eliminating the HST, based on some NDP socialist principle, they're hiking the HST. I believe it'll now go up to 15 percent in Nova Scotia. So much for principles on the part of the NDP in opposing the HST. The NDP are increasing the HST in Nova Scotia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We know that unlike the B.C. Liberal Party, which doesn't have any constitutional connection in terms of its membership to any federal party or other parties in Canada, the NDP are constitutionally connected at the hip with their brethren at the federal level and at the provincial level. If you're a member of the NDP in British Columbia, you're also a member of the federal NDP. If you're a member of the NDP in Nova Scotia at the provincial level, you're also a member of the NDP federally. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's pretty clear, based on the actions of one of the few NDP governments in Canada in hiking the HST to the highest level in the entire country, that far from having some socialist principle opposing the HST, the NDP actually support it, and they're increasing it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's interesting to note that the types of credits for low-income earners that have been put in place by the government of Nova Scotia mirror almost exactly the kind of low-income relief that our government is providing to British Columbians for when the HST comes into effect and we repeal the antiquated provincial sales tax. Within British Columbia there'll be a large range of exemptions. For example, books for children, children's clothing, shoes, car seats and diapers will be exempt. All British Columbians will receive a credit for residential energy costs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In his news release last July Jayson Myers, the president and CEO of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, said: "This initiative is the biggest thing that can be done to boost the B.C. economy." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I've already talked about the local benefits to a number of businesses based in my community that create high-paying and, I also might add, satisfying jobs. Again, I know a number of the people working there from my days in high school. They really enjoy their work and are hoping that governments will do the right thing so that they can continue to enjoy their work and continue to raise their families with a decent-paying job in the community they grew up in and in which they enjoy living in. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A gentlemen, a UBC professor in the department of economics, a fellow named Kevin Milligan, told the Tyee on-line newspaper, the frequent source of NDP question period research material: "HST isn't a left-right issue, and it isn't ideological as far as economists are concerned. It's just a good policy. It isn't pro-business, and it's not anti-consumer. It is the necessary modernization of tax policy." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Yet we see the NDP in British Columbia continue to advocate for a British Columbia that would be left behind in the dark ages of progressive tax policy with this blatant stalling tactic that the member for Port Coquitlam has put forward. Again, that stands in stark contrast to what we see from the NDP brethren in Nova Scotia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There's another reason I'd like to offer to the members opposite not to support the motion to refer this matter that was put forward by the member for Port Coquitlam, and that's because they really haven't put forward any alternative ideas for how to stimulate investment in British Columbia and get more people working. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1505]
Just recently we saw an article in the Vancouver Sun from Prof. Jon Kesselman, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Public Finance with the graduate public policy program at Simon Fraser University, one of the universities I graduated from in the past. He wrote in the Vancouver Sun: "B.C.'s PST is seriously flawed and economically damaging, and whatever its potential shortcomings, the HST will be superior in almost every respect." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That kind of learned opinion falls on completely deaf ears in terms of the members of the opposition. You have to ask yourself again: if it isn't about their socialist philosophy, then what is it? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Madam Speaker, I'll tell you what it is. It's all about political expediency. They think they've sensed an opportunity — just like they did when they opposed the carbon tax only to reverse their position after the election, just like they did when they opposed the cap-and-trade legislation by voting against it and when they voted against low-carbon fuels, when we introduced that a couple years ago. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I predict that within a short while the NDP, even here in British Columbia, will reverse their position on their opposition to the HST. Their leader has already hinted that's the case by noting that there isn't much you can do after this comes into effect and that it will be there for at least five years. Therefore, she's not promising to repeal it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, there are good reasons why the HST should not be repealed, but it's pretty disingenuous to have the Leader of the Opposition trying to keep up with former Premier Bill Vander Zalm in his anti-HST crusade, never mind how chock-a-block of misstatements and falsehoods his website is. The NDP leader is trying — and not succeeding, it seems — to keep up with former Premier Bill Vander Zalm in terms of her public profile on this issue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's been obvious, too, from comments from not just the Leader of the Opposition but a number of other NDP MLAs that they're having a hard time getting their internal caucus position together. They're not terribly cohesive on it. We've seen it in a couple of different ways. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Recently we saw it on photo radar, with conflicting statements between their Energy critic, their Public Safety critic, and others, about whether or not the NDP would reinstate photo radar. Just this week we've seen conflicting, contorted positions on Site C, whether they're in favour or not. Frankly, the Energy critic has said that it makes him excited to think about Site C, that it's the cleanest and greenest form of energy in North America. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Today we see, with this stalling tactic that the NDP is talking about in terms of this motion, that they, too, can't get their act together in terms of what their caucus position is. We have the member for Surrey-Whalley, the Finance critic, saying at one time that they will keep the HST. In fact, here's what he told CKNW: "Once it's out, once it's done, it's done." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On the other hand, we have the member for Juan de Fuca saying to CFAX radio here in Victoria on February 10: "We can reduce portions of the HST, but we have to find revenue to offset that from other taxes." Yet with this motion we have no hint from the opposition of what other taxes they have in mind in terms of cranking them up to offset the reduction in revenue that would be experienced by the elimination of the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think it's incumbent upon the members of the opposition, if they're going to try and take a position of opposition to something, that they at least get their position consistent with each other. Even if it's not consistent with other NDP governments or parties across Canada, at least maybe within their own caucus they could come up with a position that is more consistent with each other than what we've seen to date. Frankly, one's head spins when you listen to the conflicting and contorted positions of the NDP on this issue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In fact, you think back to a unanimous recommendation that came from a Finance Committee a couple of years ago where all members of that committee, including the NDP, said something like an HST should be considered and studied. Yet here we are two years later, after a committee already studied and talked about and recommended pursuing the HST, with yet another motion to go back to that very same committee to have more discussion about this topic. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
For reasons I've already articulated, as we're coming out of a recession and looking for more investment and more jobs, now is not the time to delay and stall and defer the opportunity to make a tax measure that will expedite our recovery from the economic downturn and boost B.C.'s economic fortunes even more than they're already projected to increase over the next couple of years. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1510]
I know that the NDP likes to talk about spending more money at every opportunity. We heard it again today during question period: "Why doesn't the Minister of Education, instead of just increasing education spending by tens of millions of dollars, increase it by even more tens of millions of dollars?" They're completely oblivious to the fact that we're already struggling with a $1.7 billion deficit and recognizing, too, that those very school children that they purport to have concern about will be left to shoulder the burden of any increased debt that would result from a government pursuing NDP policies. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This tax reform, this change to the PST — the elimination of that antiquated tax, replacing it with an HST — is really about the future and about creating a stronger economy with more options for our young people that are currently in school. It's one thing to go to school and have an education, but it's another thing to wonder, when you reach the end of your grade 12, whether or not there are actually going to be employment opportunities to go to and what your options are. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We know from experience around the world that countries that move to a value-added tax like the HST see an increase in investment because of the elimination of that discouraging effect of the 7 percent provincial sales tax on new equipment and machinery. That is, I think, one of the reasons why the NDP in Nova Scotia, when looking to see how they were going to eliminate or at least take steps to eliminate their deficit, chose to increase the HST compared to other taxes, because they knew that from an economic perspective it had a better impact on the economy than other choices that they were confronted with in terms of revenue increases. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, the members opposite here don't have to take it from me or the Finance Minister or the Premier. They just need to phone up their NDP brethren in Nova Scotia and ask them why it is that the NDP in Nova Scotia think the HST is a preferable tax to income tax, corporate income tax, small business tax or any other form of taxation when they had the choice about how they were going to try to close the gap in their provincial deficit. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I note that the NDP government in Nova Scotia was elected last year and made a number of commitments about not reducing or laying off staff in the public service in order to balance their budget, and three weeks ago they announced that in fact they'll be reducing their civil service by about 1,000 positions over the next four years. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Let me share with you another observation, as I consider whether or not the NDP's motion to delay and stall on this tax reform initiative is worthwhile. We've heard doom and gloom from the members opposite that people will stop going to restaurants. I was in Nova Scotia last summer, and it was hard to get into restaurants. Their HST at that time was 13 percent — higher than what our rate will be — and it was difficult to get into restaurants. There were lineups to get into restaurants in Nova Scotia, with an HST in place that's higher than what we're proposing. That was at 13 percent, before the NDP government there decided to increase it to 15 percent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I know that any change can be challenging for people. It's something to get accustomed to, but the empirical evidence shows that over time people can adjust and, as demonstrated by the lineups that I experienced in the restaurants in Nova Scotia, they have managed to adjust to an HST, so much so that the NDP in Nova Scotia saw fit to raise it even higher to 15 percent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We've done a lot of things since 2001 to support new investment in the economy. That's one reason why we have 400,000 more jobs today than we did when we took office after the NDP's failed decade in office. Bill 9 is a continuation of the work to make British Columbia more competitive, and not just in Canada. I know we're very used to comparing ourselves to Canada. I just did it myself a moment ago to one of the examples of NDP policy and practice in Nova Scotia in raising the HST there. But it's important to know that we're in an international competition. Simply benchmarking ourselves against other Canadian provinces is not enough. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
More than virtually any other province, British Columbia's economy is trade-dependent. More than any other province, more of our exports, as a percentage, go offshore than anywhere else in Canada. We have to look not just to benchmarking ourselves with the rest of Canada or even the United States but for B.C.'s future — and our future growth and our diversification of exports in our economy — at what other countries are doing in the Pacific Rim and around the world. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1515]
That's why it's important to take note and not dismiss out of hand — as the NDP likes to do here in B.C., unlike their cousins in Nova Scotia — the fact that 130 countries around the world have moved to a value-added tax and abandoned things like antiquated provincial sales tax which result in a cascading effect, where taxes get added and added at every level of the production cycle and then get buried and embedded in the price instead of only showing up once at the end product. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I know economics has never been the NDP's strong suit — nor mathematics, for that matter — so I can somewhat forgive their difficulty in understanding the concept behind stripping out those embedded taxes that exist as a result of the antiquated provincial sales tax. But again, if they're having a hard time getting their head around it and they can't bring themselves to understand basic economic principles or even mathematics, all they have to do is pick up the phone and call Jack. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Call Jack Layton and ask Jack Layton what he thinks about the NDP in Nova Scotia increasing the HST. That's what the NDP has done in Nova Scotia under the leadership of the NDP there and with Jack Layton at the federal level of their party. So if they can't understand the economic concepts here on their own — and I can understand that they're challenged in that regard — all they have to do is phone their NDP brethren in Nova Scotia or their leader, Jack, and say: "Hey, Jack, can you walk us through this? Why did the NDP in Nova Scotia increase the HST?" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Hon. B. Penner: Have you been to Nova Scotia? Obviously, I've hit a sore point with the members of the NDP here in British Columbia, who are obviously uncomfortable by a choice their brethren made in Nova Scotia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Let's get back to some other effects here in British Columbia that we can look forward to. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: On this side I'll take Jack Layton any day before their Stephen Harper — without question. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm somewhat a little handicapped because I'm following the riveting oratorical skills of the member opposite. It was very awesome how he was able to deliver it, but I do have to talk briefly about what the Minister of Environment didn't tell us and why it should be referred. And we'll talk about the motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's the fact the HST is going to affect tourism-related industries, tourism-related industries that are part of his ministry itself. You know, campgrounds will be impacted. We're going to be looking at American competition. I mean, why would Americans cross the border and come to our B.C. parks with an HST attached? It doesn't make sense. Our dollar's at par. It's at parity. It's going up. By July 1 we're going to have a Canadian dollar probably $1.04, $1.10, and tack on the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Why wouldn't the minister want to refer this to a committee and get a better understanding of not only what the people are saying but the real economics of small towns — small towns that rely on tourism, rely on camping, RV campgrounds, RV parks, fishing charters? Why wouldn't he want to talk to those people who could possibly lose their jobs because of the impact of the HST? That's due diligence. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I mean, the minister talks about the stalling tactic, but you know, democracy sometimes is exhaustive. Isn't that what we're supposed to do? It's participatory democracy. Ask people. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
An Hon. Member: Tell them the truth. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: Tell them the truth. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We're talking about increases on, perhaps, propane. How is that going to impact the camper? The minister talked about his constituency, that of Chilliwack, and of course, we know that perhaps animal feed will be impacted, as well, by the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know, it's interesting that this government is unwilling to consult, to confer with the people of British Columbia, and that is why I support this motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1520]
The motion made by the House Leader of the opposition states quite emphatically that "the subject matter be forwarded to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and further that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberation." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That makes perfect sense. What's wrong with a heart-to-heart? What's wrong with a true dialogue? I mean, we hear on the other side how we have all this misinformation. Well, okay, let's clear the air. Let's sit down. Let's chew the fat with the people of British Columbia. Let's sit down. That's what this motion is saying. But no, it's a stall. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is kind of what Archie Bunker told Edith: "Stifle yourself." That's the attitude over there. That's why they don't want to support this referral motion. "Stifle yourself, voters. You made a big mistake. We told you one thing before the election, but we've all of a sudden changed our minds. Zip your lips. Sit down. We don't want to hear from you. We know best." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is what this motion is allowing the government to do. Instead of telling people, "Sit down. You don't know what you're talking about," here's an opportunity for this government to go around the province and listen to the people of British Columbia. That's what this motion is all about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Frankly, I just don't understand the reluctance of this government to deal with an opportunity to do a heart-to-heart with the people of British Columbia. Boy, would they eliminate the type of fervour, almost hysteria right now, relative to what they've created with the HST if they would just sit down and have a discussion with the people of British Columbia. That's what this motion is all about, but they don't get it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I have to talk briefly about…. Interesting that yesterday the Minister of Health Services stood up and enlightened us a little bit about the HST. He was talking about the discussion or the anger against his government, and I quote the minister. Yesterday afternoon, in fact, he said: "Now, you could say, I suppose, that this was a flip-flop or that they changed their position or they completely reversed direction — all the kinds of things that I'm hearing right now about, apparently, our government and our position on the HST." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A flip-flop. He admitted there's a flip-flop, but he goes on to say: "So let the record be clear for this member. I have been pushing a harmonized sales tax since I first got elected in 2001." That's what the Minister of Health Services said. He admitted it. He's the father of the HST in British Columbia. The Minister of Health Services stood here right across and said that it was his idea way back in 2001. We haven't heard one pip from this side about it till, miraculously, it occurred two days after the election. A little discussion started to happen there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
He goes on to say: "I remember talking to Minister Gary Collins at the time and trying to encourage the minister at that time to consider a merger of the taxes, because I always felt that this was going to be good for the economy." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister was already talking to the Minister of Finance way back in 2001, for heaven's sake. It was his idea. He's been lobbying for it since 2001, until it was actually implemented. Could you imagine that? Yet there's no record at all in the House that he is the father of the B.C. HST, the member from Cloverdale. That's amazing. You know, it's like a visionary. He's taking all the credit for the HST. What leadership — truly leadership. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I find it remarkable. In fact, if we refer it to a committee that goes amongst the province, this could be the B.C. Liberal leadership tour. Yes. They'll have an opportunity to go around and explain to everybody — the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health Services, who's got this vision. It's amazing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1525]
Here's a minister who in 2000 was running around the recall campaign in Cloverdale and all the rest of it, and he had a vision way back then to squeeze the consumers, way back in 2001. But he didn't come clean. No, Madam Speaker. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's one reason why we need to refer this to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services — to clear the air so that we can ask the Minister of Health Services and other ministers perhaps. Maybe we can call them, subpoena them and get them on the record and find out when this whole nonsense started, because we have the Minister of Health, who says that it's his idea. It's been around since 2001. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know, at first I had a little difficulty, I have to admit, hon. Speaker, in actually supporting this motion, because I wasn't sure what the Opposition House Leader was going to pull off here. We've seen when they've created these types of committees before, the government, and it's kind of a dog-and-pony show. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Remember the Conversation on Health, this bandwagon that went all around the province? They actually went over to Europe. They told everybody: "This is the Conversation on Health, the Premier's tour, and we're going to consult with people." They didn't consult with anybody. They consulted with their own little stakeholders, and lo and behold, when they got the answer, they didn't like the answer. What did they do? They quashed it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In fact, if you look in the archives, the archives people have been told: "You've got to remove it from the record now." It's amazing. They want to get rid of it. This is the type of government…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I want to talk about liberalism. Oh, here's a concept. Let's talk about what liberalism really means. I want to talk about the pragmatism, about the 20th century liberal John Dewey. He asserted that complete democracy was to be obtained not just by extending voting rights but also by ensuring that there exists a fully formed public opinion. That's true liberalism, accomplished by effective communication amongst citizens, experts and politicians, with the latter being accountable for the policies they adopt. That's the 20th century of John Dewey. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If you look at some of the American postal stamps, they've got his photo there. He's seen as one of the fathers of modern liberalism. Let me quote what he had to say: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
"Democracy is a way of personal life controlled not merely by faith in human nature in general but by faith in the capacity of human beings for intelligent judgment and action if proper conditions are furnished…. I acquired" — the faith in human nature — "from my surroundings, as far as those surroundings were animated by the democratic spirit.
"For what is the faith of democracy in the role of consultation, of conference, of persuasion, of discussion, in the formation of public opinion, which in the long run is self-corrective, except faith in the capacity of the intelligence of the common man to respond with common sense to the free play of facts and ideas which are secured by effective guarantees of free inquiry, free assembly and free communication?"
Free assembly, free inquiry, free communication. I bring it to the House because obviously the members opposite are liberals in name only. They're nothing less…. I mean, they're not liberals. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm a social democrat, and we do adopt many of the liberal perspectives — small-l liberal. But when you look at what democracy, in the liberal eyes, is supposed to be, it's consultation. That is called direct democracy, and that is what this motion is all about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But the opposite side we heard before…. In fact, they referred to the work in this House as busy work. Do you remember that, hon. Speaker? I'm sure you do. It was busy work. "Oh, we don't have to come in the fall." I think it was a fall session — a couple of weeks. What an inconvenience that was going to be. "Let's brush it off." I think that the House Leader on the opposite side called it busy work. "No, no, no, we don't want to do that." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm surprised that the government even wants to…. I mean, I know they want to get on with it. They want to get out of here. But I'm surprised they don't want a filibuster so that they can stay in this House all weekend and don't have to face their constituents back home this weekend. I mean, it must be devastating there. Why wouldn't they want to consult the people? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1530]
Talk about getting the monkey off your back. What an opportunity — to adopt this motion and confer and talk to the people of British Columbia. You'd look like heroes. But you're going to slink and slither under some stone and try and deny that this is going to be harmful, the harmful sales tax. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Deputy Speaker: Member, you need the address the chamber with parliamentary language. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: Thank you, hon. Speaker. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Let me address the parliamentary committees. They're "appointed by the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia to undertake business on behalf of the assembly." That's their job, and that's the whole notion of this motion. "Committees are comprised of Members of the Legislative Assembly. Committees derive their powers from the House and must report their findings back to the House." Hon. Speaker, what's wrong with that? That's what this motion is all about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Maybe it's called busywork by some, but it's to go out there in the province — and it's a little populous; I know — to go to Fort St. John, to go to the Stikine, to go to the suburbs of the Lower Mainland, to go up-Island, to go to the Kootenays and sit down, break bread, talk, find out what people are thinking and even have a discourse and correct some of the so-called misinformation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Committees consider only those matters that are referred to them by the Leg., so the motion is directive. It's telling the committee to go out there specifically with the idea to find and search the information, to hear the opinions, to collate it, to bring it together and to bring it back. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[C. Trevena in the chair.]
"Within its terms of reference, each committee" — and this committee — "is afforded total independence with its deliberations." There you go. What an opportunity to go arm's length and talk to the people of British Columbia — to talk, to consult, to confer with the people of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I thought that's why we were here. That's what I thought we were all about — not to lock us up here in the chambers and turn our back on what the people of British Columbia are most upset about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
"The committee system allows for a detailed examination of matters in a manner which would not be possible in the larger House." Okay, that is the purpose of the committee. It's to get the detail, to get the meat, to get the information, to take the politics out of it, to get out there. "At times, the committee system also allows members of the public to have direct input into the parliamentary process by making written submissions and attending public hearings." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Many of us were on city councils for years, and there were painstaking evenings that we were up till midnight. I'm sure the member for Delta South will concur on that one. We went many evenings late into the night to hear what people had to say. In many ways, I have to tell you that municipal government is far more participatory and directly democratic than what we find in the so-called parliamentary system here today. I think that's a shame, but here's an opportunity with this motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know, it's also information where we can decipher what the people are saying. According to the mandate of this committee, it can travel within British Columbia to obtain all the evidence. This committee would be empowered by the motion which is tabled in the Legislature. The motion calls for a committee to investigate this matter, and it's the Legislative Assembly that votes on the motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The substance of the motion becomes the committee's terms of reference. The terms of reference outlines the tasks given to the committee and also permits the committee to meet, to call witnesses, to retain personnel as required. The terms of reference may also specify that the committee must report back to the Legislature within a given time period. Certainly we can do that. We don't have to stall. We can somewhat not necessarily expedite, but I think we can be reasonable in the reporting-back structure. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
How much more democratic can it be but to support this motion? What a gift, to use the parliamentary committee system that allows for a more detailed examination of matters that would not be possible in the larger, more formal environment of this House. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1535]
Committees allow members of the public to have direct input with public hearings, and parliamentary committees may travel throughout B.C. In recent years committees have investigated a wide amount…. We've investigated through the committee system earthquake preparedness, agriculture and food policy, lumber manufacturing, the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle. That was painstakingly long, but it began in a committee that went out there and did it right. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Madam Speaker, you know about the fish farm committee — the standing committee on investigation. That was another one that went out there and got the information. It was an all-party decision. It was an all-party meeting. They all didn't agree, but they found the information. And the result of it.... The government did not necessarily act, and now we're in a mess today, I believe, relative to the federal government's Hinkson decision and the Cohen inquest. But I'm getting off-topic. I'm just giving an example of what a committee can do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
"At the end of its deliberations, a committee must report its observations and recommendations to the Legislative Assembly. The observations contained in a report often refer to evidence collected during the public hearing process. The committee reports contain recommendations" — recommendations for action. Who knows? Maybe this parliament of ours can work together through the committee system. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
"Committees in B. C. do not have the authority to directly alter legislation or cause the government to take any specific action." That's the good thing about it. I mean, the government is government, but it can receive advice from the people vis-à-vis through the Committee of Finance and Government Service. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The committee it's recommended to is the Finance and Government Services Committee. The Chair, the convener, is the member for Chilliwack. Now, why wouldn't the member for Chilliwack vote...? He stood up here just quite recently and said he's going to vote against it, when he's the convener of the committee that can go out there and search out there, find out all the information out. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
T. Lake: Already done it. Done it already. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: Or Kelowna–Lake Country — there you go. He's on the committee. He could tell his constituents that instead of hiding this weekend from all the fervour, he could sit on a committee and say: "I'll meet with you, and I'll show you some leadership, and we'll invite you in for coffee and find out what you have to say." The member for Kelowna–Lake Country has that ability right now to do it — right now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
He could vote for this motion and get involved with participatory democracy and invite insightfulness from the people of Kelowna and the people from all over the Okanagan, but will he use that advantage? Will he use his position on that committee? No. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Or the MLA for Comox Valley, another member. Huge opportunity to strike up the band in his community and find out what's going on. Same with the members for Abbotsford South, Nechako Lakes, North Vancouver–Seymour. They sit on this committee too. What an opportunity to discuss, to confer with the people of British Columbia. I ask them to reconsider their position. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
To consult is a matter.... There's a little tactfulness in all of it, but I believe Edward Kennedy said: "The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die." You know, I wish that's what this government would employ, because that is what consultation is all about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We know the public hearing process. We have the public Utilities Commission. It has public hearings. It initiates and examines applications. The commission counsellor has staff, has sequences and procedures followed by hearings. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's part of our DNA, our culture. It's already in place. We've seen alternate dispute resolutions. We see the first step, order and notice of public hearings, availability of the applications, interventions, record of proceedings. It's part of our tradition. Then why is this government denying this opportunity? There are so many different types of public hearings. We can see what happened with negotiated settlement processes, the proper locations, orders, notices of public hearings, information requests. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1540]
I just don't, frankly, understand why this group across the way is unwilling to consult with bike owners and stakeholders of the province of B.C. You know, in my community we have something wonderful. It's called the Tour de Delta. This is a bike race that's been around for quite a while now. It came out of the Tour de White Rock. I think even Victoria had something with a bike race downtown. Young kids are involved in biking. They are enthused about it. Nevertheless. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Where's the consultation there? Where is the consultation with the restaurant associations or the realtors? That's what the opportunity of this motion is, you know. Where is the opportunity to actually sit down? Maybe you should sit down and talk to the Vancouver Canucks. We know the HST is going to hit them after July 1. I know they did well last night, and we're all hopeful they're going to go all the way. Thank heavens the Stanley Cup final in Vancouver will be finished before the HST is in place, before July 1 this year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But what about next year? Why aren't we talking to hockey teams, the hockey moms and dads, or the Prince George Cougars, the Kootenay Ice? Here's an opportunity. This government can network with the Vancouver Club, the Arbutus Club, the Terminal City Club. Their memberships are going to be impacted. Boy, what an opportunity that would be. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Bus fares — what about the bus riders? They hear it's going to be incorporated in their fares somehow. But you know, here's an opportunity to go out there in the ether in the province and describe to everybody what's actually going on rather than spending perhaps millions of dollars on a propaganda machine. That's what we're going to see. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That is what this motion allows you to do — to go out into the province of British Columbia and talk to the people, have a cup of coffee and find out what's going on and what they think. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjection.
G. Gentner: Coffee's going to go up. Yeah, well, that's true, but nevertheless, maybe over a cup of java we can talk about what the implications are. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Golf fees. Let's get on the golf courses and talk to the golfers this summer before they decide to go Stateside and hit a ball somewhere in Washington State because the fees are cheaper and there's no tax. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Taxis are going up. Boy, there's another one we should talk to. But don't worry about that. Let's not talk to taxi associations or taxi drivers because — you know what? — they're the biggest messenger in the province. You know what they're going to say to the rest of the people of B.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Why don't we talk to the barbers, the beauticians? Why don't we talk to them? That's what this opportunity is. But I know the minister doesn't…. The minister should be worried because he's going to need a haircut some day. What's your barber going to say, hon. Speaker? It'll be a bad hair day. July 1 is a bad hair day in the province of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Well, we can get into the Beatles revival again, but we won't. The fact that people will be putting bowls on their head to cut their hair because they can't afford the cost of a barber anymore. Unbelievable. Maybe we'll see the HAIR musical revival coming, and we'll all be wearing beads and sandals. Heaven forbid. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Why aren't you talking to the naturopaths? Why don't you talk to the dieticians and see how the supplements are going to affect them? Here's an opportunity. If you vote for this motion, you'll be able to talk to stakeholders, and that's what we're supposed to do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Home maintenance. Or how about home renovations? Here's an opportunity to get out there and talk to Shell Busey. What an opportunity that would be. Get out there and talk to Shell. I know you listen to the home improvement show every Sunday morning. Nevertheless, I'm sure Shell could tell you what's going on out there and how it's going to impact it. You know, he could give you a few little tips maybe on how to do some drywall or something over there. I don't know, but what an opportunity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Concert tickets. I like concert tickets, and I'm looking at what's coming up this summer. I'm just wondering if I'm going to be able and a lot of my friends are going to be able to afford it anymore. Maybe we should sit down and get an opportunity to go talk to some rock stars, some pop, hip hop guys. Go and consult with them. How is it going to affect their situation? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1545]
Firefighters, smoke detectors — why don't we talk to them? I hear we're getting rid of the ICE fund — you know, the independent clean energy fund. Oh, we're not getting rid of it. Yes, we're going to suspend the fund, slowly drain it and trickle it away. There's another one. Why don't we talk to them? After all, solar power is going to be impacted now. Why don't we talk about the real alternate energy needs out there? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Here's an opportunity. By supporting this motion, we can get out in the province and talk to anybody we want. If you go back to some of the debates, what was said in Hansard years ago, I just want to leave you with this thought.... [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: One moment, Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Members.
G. Gentner: The current Minister of Finance said the following: "You know, at the end of the day it's not government's money; it's the taxpayers' money. It's the people that are working eight and nine hours a day, that are struggling to raise their families, feed their children, attend their local parent advisory committee meetings, be involved in the community, coach soccer. Those are the people that are making the contribution, and the work they do and the taxes they pay are something that we have to treat with the utmost respect." March 7, 2005. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I leave you with this notion, hon. Speaker. Why doesn't this philosophy hold up today? Because it's a massive tax grab. Why is it that the government doesn't welcome this motion and hit the trail and find out what the people of British Columbia are really saying about the HST? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: I ask leave to make an introduction. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Leave granted.
Deputy Speaker: Proceed, Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Introductions by Members
S. Simpson: I'm really pleased that today in the gallery we have 23 Templeton students and their teachers. They're over here, as students come from all kinds of places, to see what we do here. I'm sure they're excited to come and watch this stimulating HST debate that's going on here. I would ask the House to make the students from Templeton welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Deputy Speaker: I'd like to remind members that if they want to have separate conversations, they should do it at a more muted level. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Debate Continued
Hon. I. Black: Thank you to the previous member for making the introductions. Hon. Speaker, let me say through you to our guests in the gallery that not only are they most welcome, but it's nice to have an audience that's actually looking at you. So thank you for being here. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
For the benefit of those marvellous school children up there, by way of reference, I stand to speak against a motion that's currently on the floor, which is effectively designed — a suggestion by the opposition of the government — to delay putting into law one of the more important tax measures that our province has seen in decades. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I rise to speak against the motion that's here because it involves delaying. It involves delaying the motion that's the main item of debate at the moment, which is known as the harmonized sales tax. There's been a great deal of opportunity in the last number of months for political theatre, and we are at a point in this debate where we have to rise above that wherever we can. This is not about refighting the last election. This is about focusing on the most important thing we can do for the economy of British Columbia at this point in our history. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
To stall the legislation that is being proposed is to stall the benefits associated with this very, very important move. In order to address, I think, the needs of our communities at the moment, there's a need to rise above.... Frankly, a lot of fearmongering has been taking place and a tremendous amount of misinformation, which is often the case. Fearmongering is often caused by a fundamental lack of facts. Most people, when they have an issue of some kind or another, can very often through communication have their concerns addressed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In fact, I think back to when I was in business. One of the phrases I used to use is that 80 percent of all problems can be solved with communication. That, I believe, is very, very true. I think that as we stand here today, part of the job we have in this House is to address the miscommunication that has been taking place and, in doing so, illustrate why there is no time for the delay associated with this very important piece of legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1550]
I think of the ridiculous e-mail that's been making the rounds with respect to senior citizens and how there has been a perception that's been allowed to grow — completely against the facts, completely against the very commonly available information on the HST — that somehow this would punish seniors. The example used is of punishing seniors in the $40,000 income range to the tune of $2,100 a year of additional out-of-pocket expenditures that they otherwise would not have. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That is a preposterous scenario. If one simply does the arithmetic, one could see that in order for that to be true — of the money that that seniors couple is making, in this fictitious e-mail that has gone viral within British Columbia now — that couple would effectively have to spend $30,000 of that $40,000. After all taxes are paid, they'd have to spend $30,000 of that $40,000 on items which are not today currently taxable by the PST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That is just not an arithmetically possible or logical reality. It just can't happen, especially when you contemplate the scenario of young families, who may have lower income brackets at a time in life when they're starting out in their careers, starting out with young families — a path that I've had the challenges and joys of experiencing myself. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The reality is that in conjunction with introducing this HST, we're also introducing a $230 credit for every working British Columbian. That, along with the $1,700 extra income they're allowed to make on a tax-free basis, announced alongside of this measure, means that low-income British Columbians will not be negatively impacted by the HST. Neither will be low-income seniors. It's mathematically not possible. It's one of the jobs incumbent on us to try to correct some of these myths that have been propagated at the moment. That's just part of our job. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know, the list of the myths around the HST…. I've touched on a couple of them. The seniors e-mail is one of the more prevalent ones. The list of myths around the HST continues to grow. I still have people coming up to me asking me whether somehow there's going to be a 19 percent sales tax in July. Well, no, that's absolutely not true. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The vast majority of things that we buy today have 12 percent tax on them — 7 percent PST and 5 percent GST. That will continue to be the tax rate after July 1 on those vast majority of things that we buy. In fact, the irony of that myth is the fact that what we are actually debating stalling is the piece of legislation that will remove the existing 7 percent PST in order to allow the new 12 percent PST to continue at that level. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One of the other myths, of course, is around this notion of the products and services that we buy today. As I've already mentioned, the vast majority of those products and services already have 12 percent tax on them, 7 percent PST and 5 percent GST — soon to be combined, harmonized if you will, to the 12 percent level. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The reality is that for families, over 80 percent of what they purchase today for their household needs is going to have absolutely no change to it whatsoever in terms of the tax rate that is paid. Again, it's this tremendous number of myths that have been floating around that simply just are not true. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In fact, when you combine the $230 credit that's been associated with this measure, that every working British Columbian is going to get at the lower income levels…. If you combine this $1,700 of extra tax-free money that British Columbians are getting because the threshold has been increased from $9,300 to $11,000, in terms of when you actually start paying tax in B.C. as a person, with the fact that the average British Columbian today has $2,000 more in their pocket in cash because of all the tax cuts that have been made by this government in the last almost a decade now, it really decries and speaks against the notion that somehow this is going to be punishing to low-income British Columbians. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
And, I might add, we've also eliminated the need to pay tax entirely for about a hundred thousand British Columbians since we took office in 2001. The track record of the government in these different tax measures is very, very clear, and we're not changing our approach now. We protect seniors, we protect low-income families, and yet we've still managed to create almost 400,000 more jobs today than there were ten years ago, in the face of one of the worst recessions we'd seen in generations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That point, I think, is one of the most important elements of this debate. That is when I mentioned the hundreds of thousands of jobs that we are still ahead, relative to our position in 2001. That, ultimately, is what the HST debate is all about. It's about jobs. It's about jobs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1555]
When we voted on, and the opposition voted against, eliminating the corporate capital tax, that was about jobs. When we voted to take the small business tax rate from 4½ percent down to 2½ percent, that was about jobs. Taking it from 2½ percent to 1½ percent? That was about jobs. And eliminating it altogether for the small business community? That also was about jobs. When we raised the income tax threshold for our small business community — that I so proudly represent as the minister associated with Small Business, Technology and Economic Development — that, too, was about jobs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
For the benefit of those watching at home and our children in the gallery, a tax threshold is all the money you can make before you actually have to start paying the government your fair share to make sure that you can pay for things like health care and education and all the other public services that we've come to rely on as British Columbians and in fact as Canadians. We continued to raise that because it allowed the small business community to invest into their businesses and to create jobs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Also about jobs is the $2 billion that is freed up in cash flow within the business environment, within the operations of small businesses across British Columbia. The $2 billion that is freed up as a result of implementing the HST — that is about jobs, because small businesses have dreams of wanting to become big businesses, and the way they do that is by hiring people. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They know that they have to be competitive. Any notion that somehow the small business community is going to be able to sit on and keep that $2 billion…. I'm afraid we've got a couple of thousand years of economics that absolutely point out that that's just not possible. Because the small business people — they know. They wake up every morning knowing that part of the thrill and excitement of owning a small business is also the very real risk that there's another small business down the street that would like to take their customer. It's part of business. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They know that in order to keep that customer, they have to sell their products and services at a really great quality with customer service that they can be proud of and at a price point that will allow them to be competitive. That is exactly why the other provinces that have implemented this environment have seen a drop in consumer pricing when an HST-type system has been put into place — because small businesses have the desire to grow, the desire to serve the customers and the desire to be competitive. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's why the prices get lowered to the consumers, in the research that has been done in this one area. It's also why disposing of the hidden tax, the PST, the very measure that the NDP opposition wishes us to not proceed with…. They don't want us to get rid of the 7 percent PST. Well, I have to tell you, we have to do that because that's all about jobs as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The other element of the HST is the direct result of lowering the cost or the risk, if you will, of investing in businesses by 40 percent — immediately, a 40 percent reduction in the cost of investing into companies here in British Columbia for those small businesses that are in the position of hiring. That is a very, very important part about job creation, and it's very, very critical. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The $14.4 billion that's expected to be created over the next ten years as a result of moving to the HST — $14.4 billion of new investment money that's expected to be attracted to British Columbia because of us moving to the HST. That's about jobs. We can't delay that measure. We can't delay the creation of those jobs, and I can tell you that on this side of the House we will not delay the implementation of the most important tax measure that British Columbia has seen in decades. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Black: Now, one of the many things I've heard in this House, and it makes me shake my head, I have to tell you, is the notion that somehow the HST is bad for small business. It's a silly notion. It's a preposterous notion, and it's one that can only be put forward by those people who do not have the experience with small business. Now, I've had the opportunity to run small businesses, but in the context of the job I have right now, I'm speaking to small businesses all the time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Just a moment, Minister. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Members, would you give the minister the courtesy of allowing him to continue his speech. Other members will have the opportunity to speak as the afternoon goes on. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Continue, Minister. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. I. Black: I appreciate the fact that the members opposite have their own point of view and wish to call out remarks during the debating process. It's part of what makes it a rather spirited place to be, on occasion, in this room. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But if not my point of view, then consider that of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce, by its very definition, represents small businesses, not in one little corner of British Columbia or another but across the entire province. Tens of thousands of small British Columbia businesses are represented by the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1600]
In the long, long list of associations, think tanks, organizations and businesses that have come out and said: "Yes, this is good for us. It allows us to compete and grow our business and hire more people." One of the first organizations out of the gate were the people at the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, and the leadership that they showed so soon after the announcement of our intent to go down this path was echoed almost immediately by countless chambers of commerce from across the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think of the Vancouver Board of Trade. They have also come out and endorsed it. Are they wrong — the very people who run businesses every day and who actually provide employment to 2.3 million or 2.4 million British Columbians? Is the opposition suggesting that they're wrong? I suggest that I would defer to those who are living that every day. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You think of the associations. You hear the drivel from the members opposite about large corporations. If you think of the retail association, the retail association is predominantly representing small businesses — not big ones, small ones. The retail association in British Columbia has strongly come out in favour of the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You think of the technology associations. The technology association is almost exclusively small business, and yet it's one of the ones that's come out and said: "This is the right thing for our members and the men and women that they employ." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You think of the forestry industry. We've heard much in this House about what could or should or can or would or might be done for the forest industry as it goes through a phenomenal transition in its history. You know, the forestry industry stands to gain $140 million — right back into the operations of the mills and the companies that run them. In a time when the jobs in that industry are desperately wanted by the people who have been in a difficult position of being laid off and the families associated with those jobs are looking for opportunity, I would think the members opposite would embrace something that could put the mills back in operation if they're operating one shift instead of three or if they're actually in a warm idle. I would think this would be embraced, and I find it unfortunate that it is not by the members opposite. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The manufacturing sector in British Columbia — again, almost predominantly represented by small businesses. They are in favour of this. I think the of roadbuilders, the truck loggers — many of those are one-, two-, five-, six-person operations — by their very definition, small business. They are in favour of this. They are in favour of the HST, because it means that they can be more competitive, their likelihood of success is greater, and their ability to retain and grow their employees grows as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If you go away from the associations themselves and you go to a broader level, you're faced with an organization such as the CGA Association. Now, the CGA community — the certified general accountant community — has as their clients almost exclusively small business, and they too were one of the first to come out and say: "For the clients that we have, this is a very important step. Don't delay." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So the notion of a delay being proposed by the motion on the floor at the moment has the CGAs — who are the ones giving advice to the 384,000 small businesses across British Columbia — shaking their heads and going: "What is this NDP opposition thinking? They've got to cut through the emotion." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Well, I'll tell you, one group that's pretty good at cutting through emotion is the economists. They're not known for being particularly emotional. The reports that they produce can be pretty dry reading, but they are saying one after the other across this great country — the brightest minds in the economy are saying — that British Columbia once again is showing the appropriate leadership in moving to this tax measure. They are saying, "You must not delay in this step," as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So they know it's good for the millions of British Columbian workers. We believe that we know what's good for them as well, and I think our track record of job creation over the last almost decade now backs us up on that, as it does back up the notion that the members opposite voted against every major initiative that has created the 400-odd thousand jobs that we're ahead at the moment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, when I think of the various compelling reasons that took us down the path of implementing the HST, one of the key ones is the province of Ontario. We cannot leave the 384,000 British Columbian small businesses at a disadvantage to the province of Ontario. It's not something that I'm willing to stand and have happen, and I'm not willing to stand here and vote in favour of a motion that is designed to delay this implementation of this important measure. I will not vote for something that delays the HST and subsequently leaves the 384,000 small businesses in British Columbia at a state of disadvantage. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1605]
Now, I think we should review here the areas where the members opposite have "taken a stand," the various policies that they've so proudly stood against over the last little while. I mean, the policies that they've stood against since 2001 are policies that have directly helped the economy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They stood against things like the 400,000 jobs since 2001. The tax cuts that put about 200,000 additional dollars in the pockets of the average British Columbian, they voted no, and they were wrong. The 25 percent tax cut in the first day that this government took office, they voted against that, and they were wrong. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The hundreds of other tax deduction measures that we've put in place since 2001 were voted against time after time after time by the NDP. And despite the fact that we have 400,000 extra jobs to show for our efforts, despite one of the worst recessions we've seen in 40-odd years, they still voted against it and still believed that they understand the economy. It makes me shake my head. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The gateway investment — $14 billion. The twinning of the Port Mann bridge is absolutely something that they were voting against, and we were absolutely voting for it — right? They voted against it, and they were wrong. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When the small business tax rate was dropped from 4½ percent down to 2½ percent, 384,000 small businesses in the province stood up and cheered, and the members opposite in the NDP stood up and voted no. When it was going to be reduced from 2½ percent to 1½ percent and then proposed and now committed to be eliminated in 2012, the 384,000 small businesses in this province stood up and voted that that is a great idea. They cheered. And the members opposite in the NDP stood up and voted no. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I guess where I stand is that I will not support a motion that is designed to stall the $140 million being eliminated in the small business cost infrastructure that they're currently spending filling out duplicate forms for GST and PST. For collecting, administrating, remitting and reporting all the things one needs to do as a law-abiding small business is costing them $140 million a year. You can hire a lot of people for $140 million a year, so I am not going to vote in favour of something that delays that step. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm not going to vote against something that frees up $2 billion of job-creating cash flow that's inserted into the lifeblood of the small business community of this province — $2 billion, $880 million in the construction sector. One of the key measurements of job creation is our construction sector, and $880 million of that $2 billion is going to be injected into the lifeblood of those small businesses. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
And $210 million in transportation. I mean, transportation covers so many different industries, because if you manufacturer something, you've got to get it from point A to point B. If you're in the forestry sector, you've got to move those trees. The bottom line is that the $80 million in the mining, oil and gas sector…. I'm not going to vote against something that prevents or slows down the injection of that job-creating investment into that area. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So at the end of the day, I think where I stand on this is pretty obvious. I am not going to vote in favour of this motion. I will vote and I will continue to vote for measures and policies and the steps that are taken, the bold steps that are often needed to ensure that the British Columbia economy…. It has enjoyed a place of leadership since 2001, to the astonishment of a lot of economists to see how quickly that came back from one of the worst performing economies to one of the best performing in the country. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I am not going to vote for anything that would put that in jeopardy. I am not going to vote against something that would prevent us from retaining our standing as the top economy in the country, and I am not going to vote against something that has proven to attract jobs. As the MLA for my community and for the Minister of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development, job creation is job one. This motion works against it, and I will vote against this motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Thornthwaite: Madam Speaker, I want to request leave to make some introductions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Leave granted.
Deputy Speaker: Proceed, Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Introductions by Members
J. Thornthwaite: I have four school trustees, actually, from Richmond, friends of mine as well as past colleagues on school board: Linda McPhail, Donna Sargent, Debbie Tablotney and Grace Tsang. I would like everybody to welcome them to the House. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1610]
Debate Continued
S. Fraser: I'm happy today to stand up to debate the motion that's been put forward, and I'll read the motion into the record. "Be it resolved that Bill 9" — just for those tuning in, Bill 9 is the Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act, which is actually the HST act — "not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be forwarded to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and further that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberation." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, I saw this as a friendly motion — friendly, certainly, to the Liberal members, who are in some trouble now over bringing in Bill 9, over bringing in a tax that they said they would not bring in before the election. This motion actually allows them some leeway. It's like an olive branch to Liberal members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Believe me, anyone in this province, unless they've been sleeping for a very long time, knows that this tax is a job killer, and I'm not talking about the thousands of people that can lose their jobs in the restaurant industry or the thousands of people that can lose their jobs in the tourism sector. I'm talking about: it's a job killer for B.C. Liberal MLAs, who are in big, big trouble right now because they said they would not bring this tax in. They said that it would be damaging to the economy, and then days after the election ministry staff were already working on bringing in this tax. The public is angry over this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, the motion being proposed is a very benevolent one, I think, from the opposition to the government members, allowing them potentially a chance to recoup some of their reputation, maybe some of their integrity that they lost during the election process over a huge, huge flip-flop about what they said before the election and what they said after the election. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Before I continue with where I was going to go with this, I have to make comments on the Minister of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development, who spoke before me. The minister said, and this is a good one…. As everyone knows, the HST will take $1.9 billion out of the pockets of British Columbians, average British Columbians and families, on everything from haircuts to vet bills to restaurant meals and hockey helmets and ice time. So it's going to cost…. The way the minister put that cost was he said: "This will be almost $2 billion freed up and injected into the lifeblood of the economy." What a wonderful spin. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As the average British Columbian, who's already being faced with massive increases to hydro, to MSP payments, to ferry rates, to park fees — you name it…. All these public things that should be part of what's paid for through taxes are going up as fees. While British Columbians are facing those increases, they're going to have to pay 7 percent more — what amounts to $1.9 billion more — on a whole bunch of things. And the minister says that that's $2 billion that's freed up. It's $2 billion that's picked out of the pockets of British Columbians. That's the fact. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is a friendly motion to go and talk to the people, the public. This is something that the government didn't do. They did do it. They said they wouldn't bring the tax in. At this point, the outrage by the public should be quite clear to the members as they head back to their constituencies. The fact that not only did they say they wouldn't bring in the HST and are now bringing it in — a misrepresentation, if there ever was one, to win an election…. This is an opportunity for Liberal members in a committee, a bipartisan committee, to recoup some faith and some face here. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1615]
Liberal members, government members, ministers, have been talking about myths and misconceptions about the HST. Well, what a wonderful opportunity to actually consider talking to the people of British Columbia. This motion would allow for that to happen. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Madam Speaker, it's been noted that you are a member of the legislative Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture. I, too, was a member of that committee. We have, certainly, a tried-and-true mechanism for addressing things of public interest, for getting input from the public, for clearing up myths and misconceptions, if that's the case. Then let the chips fall where they may. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Right now, that is an option that is being offered to the Liberal members here. The Liberal members need that because they are in trouble here. They have a big problem. It was Einstein who said that no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it. Well, the level of consciousness that created this problem was saying one thing to win an election and doing the opposite. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That mindset has to change, I would suggest, for the Liberal members. This motion allows the opportunity and the mechanism to create that change, to actually consult with the people of British Columbia. Now, I don't know which polls to look at, but somewhere between 88 and 98 percent of British Columbians are against this tax. The minister before me and other Liberal members quote some corporate leaders, business leaders, that claim to like the tax, who may be a beneficiary of that tax, but they do not represent British Columbians. They're a very select group. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, I believe that all governments, no matter what their political stripe, even the extreme right wing, as we have here in this province…. Any government should listen to the people, not to a select group, a group that has the government ear. Because shifting $1.9 billion onto the backs of British Columbians, the families, to benefit a few corporate sectors is a big, big change — probably the largest tax change we've ever seen in the country and in the history of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It would not be outrageous to consider talking to the people of British Columbia about that, especially if you're going to do the complete opposite — like this government did — of what you said you would do during the election. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The real poll is an election, and this government won an election saying that they would not bring in this tax. Now, the people of British Columbia voted in good faith, I would suggest, based on the fact that the government wasn't going to bring in this tax. It was in writing, so to do the opposite days after the election — to start the process of bringing in the tax that they weren't going to bring in — is fraught with problems. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is the solution, because the least the Liberal government can do is to talk to the people, to consult with the people about what this will mean, what it will mean for hockey parents. We know that ice time will now be taxed. In some municipalities, some regions, this will mean a $50,000 increase, say, for minor hockey. That's on top of a tax that's going to do everything…. It's going to tax not just ice time; it will tax hockey helmets for kids. How ludicrous is that? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When you create a tax that can take away the ability of many families to afford hockey for their kids, when you're going to bring that in, you might want to consult with the public first before you do that or with the municipalities that have fixed costs around these rinks. They may lose the business of minor league hockey, because some of these minor league hockey organizations will not be able to weather that increase, especially when the Liberal government has also cut grants to sports and for children. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1620]
So it is a very reasonable and reasoned approach to talk to British Columbians, which is what this motion is about. The minister before me called this a stalling motion. That's an appalling statement from a minister of the Crown. To consult with the public on the most fundamental and radical right-wing shift in taxation in the history of the province — to consult with the public on that as somehow being a stall tactic is ridiculous. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There's been talk of fearmongering. Well, for me, this is a very simple topic. Talking to the public, consulting with the public, about whether or not there is the stomach to weather a $1.9 billion tax increase — that's a very worthwhile thing to do. To talk to the public about that is not a stall tactic, not in any way. This is something the public deserves because this government has no mandate to bring in the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Their mandate is to not bring in the HST. They won an election on that promise. Considering that the Liberal government doesn't have a mandate to bring in this tax, it is certainly not outrageous for them to consult with the public, to inform them about all the things that are going to go up in price. There hasn't been that level of consultation, not from anyone. There's been no consultation, nothing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'll quote from a letter here. "The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs strongly opposes implementation of the harmonized sales tax, HST, in British Columbia. It is a regressive tax that will greatly increase the financial burden of First Nations families who are living in poverty, including the working poor." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It goes on to say: "As directed by the UBCIC resolution 2009-41, we have repeatedly contacted both the federal and provincial Ministers of Finance to address impacts and lack of any substantial consultation process for the proposed HST." This is on First Nations families and communities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would think that this represents the position of most British Columbians. This is from Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, but it's cosigned by Chief William Charlie and Chief Robert Chamberlin also, on behalf of the members of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. Their opposition to this tax and their concerns about the lack of consultation that this motion will address are the concerns of British Columbians — the vast majority of British Columbians. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We've seen way too much when this government makes policy decisions based on contributions, on people that have their ear, on insiders. You know what? They have not done their homework. The minister before me and Liberal members speaking on this issue, on this motion, have suggested that this is going to increase employment. Where are the statistics on that? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
For ten years this government has been cutting corporate taxes. When they hired Mintz to do the report on the HST, the 12 pages for $12,000, they should have hired him to quantify: has there been any benefit to British Columbians? Has there been any benefit in creating jobs or investment in the ten years of cutting corporate taxes in this province? They should have had him do that study, because they're talking in the wind. They have no statistics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They know it's actually been a dismal record. The low corporate tax regime that they brag about…. They're still bragging about it. They're running a multi-billion-dollar deficit, the largest deficit in the history of the province of British Columbia, and they're bragging about how low they've been able to cut the tax rates. They've cut the tax rates to the point where there is not enough money in the treasury to pay for basic services. If I were government, I wouldn't be bragging about that. That's bad management. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1625]
The total employment across the B.C. economy grew by an average of 2.1 percent per year under the B.C. Liberals. The total employment across the B.C. economy grew by an average of 2.1 percent per year under the B.C. Liberals. It was 2.4 percent the decade before. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The billions of tax breaks this government has levied have left us, the treasury, in a deficit position. With all of that, the growth in the job rate in the economy has dropped in the last decade. Manufacturing employment grew by 1.6 percent per year under the NDP, the previous decade. It fell by 0.5 percent per year between 2001 and 2008. With the loss of 25,000 manufacturing jobs in 2009, the province has sucked out an average of 1.9 percent of its manufacturing jobs each year of this Liberal government's reign. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So when the minister talks about, "This will be a $2 billion injection into job creation," it's hogwash. It's based on nothing. The facts state otherwise. The minister finds himself, once again, on the wrong side of the facts. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If the public were allowed to have a discussion about this tax, then we could have this debate openly. The public could be informed and involved. They could make the decision of whether or not to bring in this tax. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The people did make the decision, and they said not to bring in this tax. That's how they voted in the election, because this government said, as an election plank, that they would not bring in the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjection.
S. Fraser: "That's not true," the member for Parksville-Qualicum states. Well, I don't know if the member for Parksville-Qualicum has been reading any of the letters to the editor lately in his newspaper, but they don't buy his position at all. The people of Parksville-Qualicum feel betrayed by this member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, for this member to suggest that talking to the public about this tax that they promised not to bring in to win an election…. If he has a problem with talking to the public, then he's got a problem with his constituents, because they want to talk about this. The last I saw, they have received over half of the petitions required under the Vander Zalm initiative, so obviously, there is a problem there for the former Minister of Agriculture and Lands, the current member for Parksville-Qualicum. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It really was too bad that they did not hire Mintz to actually analyze what corporate tax breaks, endless corporate tax breaks, do for the economy. I would submit that the public would be up for the task of a debate and a discussion about how much tax they want to have increased. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The $1.9 billion a year for average British Columbians is a lot of money. If that money were to go, say, into protecting health care and education — which was another broken Liberal election promise — I'm sure British Columbians might have that discussion. They could weigh whether or not they could afford to pay $1.9 billion a year. They would like to have that discussion, I think. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Or if they could see that it was going to create jobs — for instance, if the government had negotiated with those corporate sectors that are going to be the beneficiaries of this $1.9 billion of largesse. If the Minister of Finance had got some kind of a deal saying: "Look, you have to create jobs with this, or you have to invest in technology and innovation to prepare us for the future." But they haven't done that. It is a faith-based massive shift of wealth from those that can afford it the least. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
S. Fraser: Oh, this is good. I love it when I get heckled, because it means that they're listening. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1630]
You know what? They have to go back to their constituencies and explain why they will vote against discussing this tax that they promised not to bring in. They're voting against discussing it with the public, consulting with the public. They're calling that a stall. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would suggest that discussing this with the public by having Liberal members vote for this bill would be to their benefit. It's not that I'm feeling sorry for them, because I know the beating they're taking in their constituencies. I know it's probably difficult for them to go home. But if they were to open the doors to discussion about this tax, it would go at least some way towards re-establishing some credibility as government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know what? It doesn't help any government or opposition or politician when the credibility of a government is questioned to the extent that it is with this taxation shift. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would note that, as the member for Parksville-Qualicum was making comments earlier, in the Parksville–Qualicum Beach News we've got a letter from Duane Round. He's the building chair of the Parksville Lions Housing Society. This is his letter to the editor. Sorry, it's an article from the Parksville–Qualicum Beach News: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
"Building chair of the Parksville Lions Housing Society spoke to council during their committee of the whole meeting Wednesday about the development cost charges that had recently come up. 'We really appreciate all the assistance from the city,' Round told council, but explained that with the unexpected additional $100,000 cost of the HST and the fact that their funding from B.C. Housing is a set amount to construct the affordable housing component, they could be looking at a serious stumbling block."
I would suggest that Mr. Round would like the discussion with his member, and that could be facilitated and should be facilitated and would be facilitated if a sufficient number of Liberal members.... I think it would only take seven to vote in favour of this friendly amendment, this motion, that would allow discussion about the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Bill Rollier is a store owner, small business owner. Parksville–Qualicum Beach News again, April 12, says the Premier and our MLA "should be very afraid of their political future. I learned something today, and that is how angry people are and how fed up they are with both of them. I have heard people call them cowards and liars. They will not survive this, and they should not." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Deputy Speaker: Member, you can't.... Please withdraw that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Fraser: I beg your pardon? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Deputy Speaker: If you cannot say it, you cannot quote it, so please withdraw it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Fraser: I withdraw it. I apologize, Madam Speaker. Thank you for your guidance on this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I guess suffice to say that there are a lot of angry people out there. It is about a $1.9 billion tax shift onto them, but it is more than that. It is about a feeling of betrayal. It's palpable. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm the critic for Community and Rural Development. I've been travelling the province to various municipal association meetings, and it doesn't matter where you go in the province, there is a certain solidarity. It's not a left- or right-wing issue. It's a right or wrong. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is a government that is bringing in a tax that they suggested they would not bring in. They won an election based on that. The fact that these members and these ministers of the Crown would consider a motion to discuss this tax that wasn't supposed to be brought in with the public.... How could that be seen as anything threatening to this government? It cannot. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would welcome to hear that explanation from government members as they stand up. I'll hand it to government members. They are standing up, and they are speaking on this issue, so that's a good thing. What they need to do is expand that to speak to the people of British Columbia in a committee system, which we are suggesting here, because we can hear this over and over again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1635]
The people of British Columbia on the ground want to know what this tax is going to mean, what this $1.9 billion tax shift is going to mean. They want to know why they may not be able to have their child take part in hockey, in minor hockey leagues, or in soccer on the soccer field, because this will affect the fees there too. So it could have dire effects on families, and that discussion should happen. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This friendly motion is an olive branch to the Liberal government members, who are in an awful lot of trouble. There's been no representation from the public to bring in the HST. There is no mandate. This is truly taxation without representation, and that is why I think the outrage is there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If the public were ready for such a tax shift, if they thought it was going to be good to pay $1.9 billion more.... To get what? Well, to get less than nothing, because this actually reduces the treasury. It's between $100 million and $200 million a year that the treasury of B.C. will be out because of this tax, because of some of the exemptions for some of the larger organizations that manage to get an exemption. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It actually means that for the opportunity to spend $1.9 billion more a year out of our pockets, we will have to lose between $100 million and $200 million worth of services. The public wants to maybe weigh those options before making a decision that they want this tax or before changing their minds, because the public has already spoken on that. They said they don't want this tax, and they voted based on that. They voted Liberal because the Liberal government said they wouldn't bring in the HST. It's not even on the radar screen. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Here we are, months later, debating this. I mean, the bill is already coming forward. It looks like it's a done deal. It is not a done deal. The public can stop this. The public has the right to discuss whether or not this is a good tax. If it is a good tax, as some of the members from the government side are saying, then they should have no problem with the open discussion with the public. As a matter of fact, it would be to their benefit. If they're so sure this is a great tax, great enough to bring it in as a complete 180 U-turn before and after the election, and if it's so good, then why won't they allow a discussion with the public? Why won't they do that? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The fact that this government is not speaking in favour of this friendly motion to bring this to committee for discussion so the public can be involved, the fact that they're fighting against that brings more suspicion to the government members. They aren't willing to go to the public with this issue. They're willing to quote some of their friends in business and stuff in corporate land that are going to actually be the beneficiaries of $1.9 billion, but they're not willing to discuss it with the other 80 percent or 90 percent of British Columbians. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Those are the people that matter, because they represent the public, and this is a public interest issue. This is the largest tax shift in the history of the province of British Columbia. It is part of a concerted pattern by this government to concentrate the wealth into the hands of very few at the expense of everybody else, and everybody else deserves a voice on that. They were denied that voice through the election process. They voted in good faith, believing that there would be no HST brought in. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That was one of the main reasons many people cast a ballot, and they deserve their chance now to address a parliamentary committee, a legislative committee, that is being suggested through this motion. It is about democracy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1640]
P. Pimm: I will also stand and take my position to oppose the amendment that's put forth in front of us on this bill. It's very interesting to listen to some of the discussion that's taken place to this point. Some of the opposition members…. The member before me explained how we're afraid to go and address the public on this issue. I think I want to give you my experience, what I've just gone through myself, actually. I'll put that forward to you. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I don't need to go through a committee stage on this. I want to go to the public myself directly, and that's what I actually did on the weekend. There's been all sorts of information out there now, and a lot of misleading information — in fact, a lot of it very close to mistruths, to be quite honest. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This weekend I had the opportunity to go and meet with an entire trade show in my community. There were probably about 12,000 people that went by that I had an opportunity to talk with and discuss the HST with. It was my sole reason for being there, to go and address my constituents and see what the major concerns are. Certainly, there are concerns. No question about it. As you probably all well know, I've got lots of opposition to this in my area, and part of that is how it all came about and where it comes from and whatnot. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know, what I found…. Over the weekend I had an awful lot of people that came up to me and said: "It's nice to see you out here and defending this position. I'm glad that you're out in the front and on the front line and talking to us about it." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In fact, I did a bit of a presentation where I had done up a little PowerPoint, and I had that rolling as we were going. People would stop and have a look at it and see some of the facts that were actually out there. It was quite interesting. They would watch for a couple or three minutes, and that was long enough to get a little interest, and then we'd get a chance to talk about it. It was amazing, as we talked, how things changed a little bit. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As they started to get a little more information and some truth around the matters and how it was going to affect them, it was actually quite nice to see how they went from being pretty disturbed to being not so bad with it when they started understanding the whys — why we have done things — and the different changes that came into effect to allow us to move forward and to make some decisions around this sort of thing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One of the things that I want to just state before you go too far…. I'm assuming that back in 1948, when PST was first brought in, I bet you there were all kinds of petitions against PST, because nobody likes a new tax. Nobody likes a tax of any description. They don't like a tax that changes anything or anything at all like that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But it's pretty easy to get a petition going. All you have to do is have some people with opposition to it, send some misleading rumours out — that it's going to cost people $2,100 per household, that sort of thing — and then get an opposition member that maybe doesn't like you. He gets a pretty good campaign started, and the next thing you know there are a lot of folks that are out there spreading misinformation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When you actually do get your chance to have your turn…. And I had my chance. I have to tell you that the trade show went on for 24 hours this weekend, and I spent 19 hours of them there talking to my constituents. I must say that by the end of that 19 hours I actually felt like I had gained a lot of ground, and I think that a lot of people went out of that knowing a lot more about the HST and the information surrounding it. So I did deal with those folks one on one. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When they started to hear the facts, their minds definitely changed. When they started to hear about the myths that are out there, and when I told them to think about what that $2,100 actually means, to get to $2,100 worth of expenses…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1645]
The people in this room, all the opposition members, know that you can't get to $2,100, because the last time I talked about this, I gave them an invitation. If any one of them could get to $2,100, I'd take them out and wine and dine them at their favourite restaurant. I haven't even had anybody come back and ask me about that. Obviously, they don't like to go to fine restaurants, or they know they can't get to $2,100 — one or the other. I'm not sure which one it is. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Anyhow, to get to $2,100, first off, you have to spend $30,000 worth of PST exemptions — items that are presently PST-exempt. You have to spend $30,000 additional dollars. Anybody can do the math on that — it's very simple — but when you just say it fast — $2,100. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You'd be surprised how many people came by my booth and said: "The reason I can't support you and can't support this decision is because you're charging me $2,100. You're going to cost me $2,100." You start talking to them about it, and they realize: "Holy cow, I can get a golf membership. I can go to a restaurant, $1,000 a month. I can go to gyms. I can go to curling. I can get all the memberships for everything I want, and I couldn't even get up half of that — anywhere close to half of that." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
All of a sudden they start responding in a different manner, and they start saying: "You know, maybe this isn't so bad, and maybe I will get a little more information from you." You give them more information, and you talk to them for a little while. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You start to reason with them, and pretty soon they're starting to think: "Hmm. Maybe some of the arguments you're putting forth aren't so bad, and maybe they're actually accurate. Maybe there's some truth to all this stuff that you're talking about. If there wasn't some truth to all this stuff that you're talking about, why would you be at this trade show taking it on the chin in front of 12,000 people?" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Well, you're there taking it on the chin because — guess what — it is the right thing for British Columbia. It is the right thing for our constituents, and we're there to defend it. I had no problem defending it, because it is the right thing to do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I have a presentation to do tomorrow, in fact. I did some research on this presentation for tomorrow. It's in a care home in my community, and I'm going to be going to the care home tomorrow. I had the operators of the care home come in last week, and I got some information. I talked to them a little bit about how many people would meet the $20,000 threshold so that they could get their full rebates. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It was interesting enough. The executives that were sitting at the table said: "Oh, well, very few people would actually meet that threshold." But the manager actually said: "Really, that's not quite right. About 95 percent of the people in the care home would meet that $20,000 threshold." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So I decided, because I'm going to this thing tomorrow…. I thought, well, why not go out and do a budget and get their budgets and do a budget calculation so that I know exactly what I'm talking about, so that they know they're true numbers and they know it's going to be accurate. I got some numbers back, and a typical person in this care home gets $17,721 a year on their pensions. That's what a typical pensioner at a care home actually gets. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
After all is said and done, they end up with $143 a month left in their pocket. That was all the expenses that they showed me. They gave me a list of expenses. These are their numbers; these are not my numbers. They actually took the budget challenge. No one in here would take the challenge, but they took the challenge. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Lo and behold, when the numbers were all run through this with the added HST on these things — $237 was going to be additional HST costs. By the time they got all their rebates back, that single person in the care home is actually going to be $107.78 ahead. That now means that that person has got $107.78 in their pocket due to HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now I'm wondering who's going to tell them that you'll have to take that money out of my pocket now. Because we're bringing in HST, they've got money in their pocket, and I'm going to be able to prove that to them tomorrow. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Another girl came by during the trade show and she said: "Boy, oh, boy; $2,100 you guys are going to cost me for this tax. I'm disgusted with you." I said: "Well, pay attention, and let's go through." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1650]
She took the time, and she listened to this, and guess what. She was a single mother, she had three children, and she's going to get $230 rebate for each one of her children and herself — $920. So I said: "Okay, now that we figured out that you're going to get a $920 rebate, why don't you sit down and take this budget challenge with me, then?" She said, "Okay," and so off we did. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We went and did the budget challenge. By the time it was all settled, she ended up with a rebate of $625. It's what she is going to net. So she says: "Well, I have to go down and get my name off that petition. I just signed that petition on the other end of the rink." So my question is: who is going to come up with the $625 for that gal? Who's going to pay her now if we get rid of this HST? I don't think that any of the members here are going to pay her. The bottom line is that you're definitely going to do better with the HST implemented, for the lower-income people. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But that wasn't good enough. A lot of the folks still had some discussion. They said: "Yeah, but you guys didn't present this properly. You didn't tell us the truth. You fudged the whole thing, you know. You just didn't bring it in right." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Okay. I said: "Well, you know the truth is that things do change." I said: "Take a look at what happened through the budget process." We ran a budget that said we were going to be $495 million in deficit. Guess what. Things changed. All of a sudden the resource revenues go down by $2 billion. The price of natural gas goes from $11 to $2. Guess what. You're not going to have the money in there. So there are a couple of things you can do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You can have a deficit budget. That's something that this side of the building doesn't agree with. Or you can initiate a few different things. So the Finance Minister gets a chance to go over to the first ministers conference, and they start talking about it. Guess what. HST happens to come up. Well, HST doesn't come up. It's always on the agenda with our Finance Committee that goes around the province every year. They talk about HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As the member for Chilliwack explained to everybody in this House earlier, every year HST has been on the agenda. Every year the B.C. Chamber of Commerce has endorsed the HST as part of the budget presentation. Every year they endorse it. They've been endorsing it since 2001. Every year they've endorsed the same thing. It's been their position, and they're not going to move off that position. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Every year our Finance Minister takes a look at it. "Well no, everything is going along pretty good. Really there are not too many reasons to make any changes." All of a sudden you get a drop in your revenue, and now maybe we do have to do something. Maybe we do have to change. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When you're at the conference, the federal government's…. We all know that Ontario is coming on. They announced in March that they're coming on stream for July. The minister says to all the provinces: "Well, if you all want to come on board at the same time, we'll sweeten the pot a little bit for you. We'll make it interesting. We'll make it so that…. You know, it makes it better for us as feds to sweeten the pot because we're doing it for Ontario, and it only makes sense we do it for as many others as we can at the same time." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When you start thinking about it, they always said: "No, it has to be 13 percent." Now they're going to change that. They're going to allow the flexibility to make it 12 percent, or whatever number you want to pick. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Previously it's GST. HST is going to be the same. Whatever is exempt for GST will be exempt for HST. But no, now this year around they've changed it a little bit. We were allowed to take 5 percent of the total package and customize it the way we wanted. It allowed us to exempt the gasoline, diesel fuels, home heating fuels, children's car seats and books, women's hygiene products and children's clothes. We were allowed to tailor it for our own needs, and that certainly makes a big difference. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Then, of course, also to sweeten the pot and to finally make it to a point where it's worthwhile bringing it to the caucus and to the rest of the members, they throw in an additional $1.6 billion. Well, that's a whole year's deficit. You have to take that into consideration. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1655]
I mean, with all these facts — and this is what I was explaining to people in the trade show — that are put in front of you, you've got to look at it at least. That's what our Finance Minister did. He looked at it. I give him credit for looking at it, and I supported him on it as well. I'm going to continue to support him, because I think that it's the right thing to do. It's the right thing for us now, and it's going to be the right thing for us in the future. It's definitely going to be good for B.C. in the long term. No question about that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Then the next discussion I had with the folks in the trade show…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Deputy Speaker: Member, if I might remind you to talk to the amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
P. Pimm: This is to the amendment, hon. Speaker, because the urgency of it is…. When you get out to talk to your constituents, it allows you to show them the urgency behind this. That's exactly what we were doing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So they told me: "Well, there's one more fact that I really don't like, and the fact is that it's going to be an additional tax. Whether it's $200 more or $500 more, it's going to be an additional tax." I said: "Well, you know what? I do agree with you on that. Any additional tax is something that this government doesn't like." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I went through that a little bit with them. I said: "You know, this government has a pretty good record on tax. In the 1990s the corporate tax was 16½ percent on corporations, all the way through the '90s. On small business that tax was 10 percent all the way through the 1990s. Meanwhile Alberta was sitting there at 5 percent. Well, guess what happens. It doesn't take long to figure out that if you're paying half the tax in Alberta, you're starting to move. That's what happened. The businesses started moving out of our area just by the droves. They were moving over to Alberta." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They said: "Okay, well that's great. You looked after the big corporations, you looked after the business, but what did you do for us? What did you do for this little guy?" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I showed them. I said: "You know what? We reduced taxes for everybody. In 2001 your taxes were as much as 35 percent to 40 percent higher in British Columbia than they were right next door in Alberta." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I said: "Today we are now the lowest. We're the lowest in Canada." If you think about this now, just keeping it in perspective, in the 1990s the business tax and the corporate tax was the highest in Canada — in British Columbia. Tenth out of ten. The highest in Canada. Now, after this next coming year, we're going to be down to zero for small business tax. Corporate tax is going to be down to 10 percent, and so now we are going to be the lowest for corporate and for small business. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
From the worst in Canada to the best in Canada in ten years. That's a pretty good tax record to stand behind. It really is a pretty good tax record to stand behind. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But I said it goes further than that. Individual taxes too — same thing. Here we are in 2001 — and I had a nice little presentation showing 2001, 2010 taxes, and in every bracket they reduced from at least…. They were 35 percent less, and now in most cases they were as much as 50 percent lower. I showed them that this government absolutely does not like taxes, whether it be on corporations, whether it be on small businesses, whether it be on the general public. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know, they got it. When they saw all the tax reductions that we've had over the last ten years, they understood. They understood that we were doing the right thing for them. They understood that we have gone the right direction, and they understood that: "You know what? They're continuing to try and look after us. They're looking out for us, looking out for the small guy." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They understood that when we reduce the taxes on business and on corporations, you're actually allowing those businesses and corporations to supply you the jobs so that you can go to work, so that you're going to have a paycheque. They understood the urgency. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1700]
It was very, very interesting. It was probably the best weekend I ever had in my life. Was it the easiest? No, it wasn't the easiest. But at least I was there, and I was doing exactly what the opposition was saying: get out there and talk to the folks and deliver the message. I did deliver the message, and they understand the urgency behind it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As we're going through the process, when I started telling them stuff like prescriptions.... Prescriptions aren't going to cost you anything more due to HST. Gasoline in your vehicle — absolutely nothing more. Heating your homes. They couldn't believe that heating your homes is going to cost nothing more, because everybody had been telling them that was going to be one of the things they had to do. There was going to be a tax on groceries. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When I explained the truth to them, it was amazing the outcome and the respect I got for standing there and explaining the truth to them. I think the truth has to be told, and I for one am not afraid to stand up and tell the truth to the people. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is going to be a good tax. This is going to be good for British Columbians. It's going to be good for all of us in the long term. It's going to be good for industry. I know for sure that as we come through this tough time that we've got right now and as the economy starts to pick up, I can assure you that British Columbia is going to lead all of us through the tough times. We are going to lead the parade into the next go-round here, and that's starting to happen already. With that, Madam Speaker, I'm going to call it good enough. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Routley: I rise to speak in favour of this referral motion. The motion seeks to refer the content of this bill to the Finance Committee for further consideration, and it might then even be able to be debated and discussed by British Columbians. That would be the purpose of this referral. The referral is brought forward as a good-faith amendment in an attempt to give government an opportunity to square things with the people of B.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
George Orwell said that "in a time of universal deceit, to tell the truth is a revolutionary act." So we offer the opportunity for the B.C. Liberals to become revolutionaries by accepting this referral and going to British Columbians and telling the truth. Clearly, in the election campaign, that didn't happen. This amendment to refer to committee seeks to give this Legislature a chance to consider why the B.C. Liberals thought it was necessary to break a promise such as the one they made to the homebuilders of B.C. when they promised not to impose the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They answered a questionnaire from the restaurant industry, which was also offered to our party in the opposition. We answered by saying that no, we won't harmonize the PST with the GST. The government said that no, they wouldn't. Imagine that, Madam Speaker. They gave several reasons why. They expanded on their answer to say that it would cost British Columbians our tax autonomy and that it would be unfair to the disadvantaged, that prices would rise and that it was not a good thing for our economy. Suddenly after the election, mere days it seems, negotiations began to do exactly that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This referral to committee gives the government a chance for sober second thought, a chance for the B.C. Liberals to consider not continuing a pattern of deceit, which included other election promises quickly broken, like: "We will not sell B.C. Rail," quickly followed up by the sale of B.C. Rail; "We will not tear up the contracts of HEU workers," quickly followed up by the act of tearing up those contracts. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[L. Reid in the chair.]
This referral would give the government an opportunity to avoid harming the people of B.C. They harmed the people of B.C. when they broke their promise of not tearing up the HEU contracts, found seven times by the International Labour Organization to be unlawful and found by our Supreme Court of Canada to be unlawful and costing the B.C. purse millions of dollars. That broken promise cost B.C. millions of dollars, and it caused the largest mass firing of women in the history of Canada. Referring this bill and accepting this motion would give the government an opportunity not to repeat that kind of costly mistake. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1705]
Well, as we heard in the old Lucy show, this government has a lot of explaining to do — a lot of explaining to do. They say in politics that when you're explaining, you're losing, and they're doing a lot of explaining. They're explaining why it's the best thing for the B.C. economy. They're explaining who is supporting them and why they took this decision. What they aren't explaining to British Columbians is how they could make a promise not do something and follow that up with a reversal. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Back to George Orwell: "In a time of universal deceit, to tell the truth is a revolutionary act." So be revolutionaries, I say to the government. Tell the truth. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We are told that the PST was such a disadvantage. Well, our neighbours to the south, Washington State, have a state sales tax. They haven't harmonized their taxes. There are several other provinces that haven't. But that's debating the merit of the tax, when I think what is paramount in people's minds is the fact that they weren't told the truth. They were misled. Every Liberal member, every candidate — even who was defeated — went to the doorstep and campaigned with a deceptive set of promises. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They promised the restaurant industry not to do this — in writing. They promised the homebuilders that it wasn't on their radar screen. The Premier campaigned against harmonizing sales taxes for ten years. Suddenly this epiphany when they're faced with the massive $3.2 billion deficit: they needed cash. They needed cash to fractionally make up for their other broken promise during the election campaign — that the deficit would only be $495 million. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We've heard that this will free up $2 billion, and yet we're told that it's revenue-neutral. What it will do is free up $2 billion from the biggest corporations and hand it into the pockets of their shareholders. Maybe forest industry owners, Third Avenue, all those New York shareholders will benefit, but what about the people of B.C.? The people of B.C. will be the ones who pay for that benefit. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again and again and again we see this philosophy from the B.C. Liberals to transfer the wealth of this province upward to those who least need it and off and away from those who most need it through the cutting of programs, through the increasing of fees and taxes to ordinary people and to the relief to their funders and their donors and those huge corporations that are the base of the B.C. Liberals. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have been told so many things about this. Clearly, it's a regressive tax. Clearly, it impacts people who are on the margins more than others. I think that was recognized by Gord Fuller when he wrote to the Nanaimo Daily News. He said: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
"The Premier and the B.C. Liberal's push to implement the harmonized sales tax is yet another kick to the posterior of the poor and disadvantaged in British Columbia. After cutting funding to children and families, then removing gaming grants from many programs that offer services allowing people to move forward in life, the HST shows an utter contempt and disregard not just for the poor but for all citizens of B.C."
Now, that's one of our voters speaking, friends. You…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Deputy Speaker: And the member is speaking to the amendment? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Routley: Yes, Madam Speaker. I am giving the government the reasons they need to step back and reconsider, because in reconsidering, in referring the motion, these very people would have a chance to address our Select Standing Committee on Finance. These people could have a chance to have their views heard. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They didn't get that chance during the election campaign. In fact, they were misled by those promises not to do this, not to bring in a harmonization of our provincial sales tax with the GST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So here we have Gord Fuller pointing out how unfair this is. Gord Fuller would have a chance to come and correct the government's perception of what they're doing, remind them of who they work for, who they actually represent — the people of B.C. Yes, corporate success is important, but their first obligation is to the public interest in this province. This referral would give them a chance to remind themselves or be reminded of that fact. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1710]
It was recognized by June Ross when she wrote to the Nanaimo News Bulletin. She says: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
"Of course, the HST will benefit the large corporations. Can someone tell me how it will benefit this retired senior citizen? The last time I added up the charges that would now be levied, I believe my pension will shrink in the realm of $1,000 per year."
That should remind the last speaker of the budget test, because this person has obviously taken it. She sees $1,000 a year in increased expenses. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
"This tax will wreak havoc on seniors, the disabled — mentally and physically — families, the poor and small businesses. The struggle will become how to pay for the rent or mortgage or to choose eating or purchasing medications and paying bills."
That is a voice of a British Columbian. That is an accurate portrayal of the way people are feeling about this deceptive and cynical move. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Then, also addressing fairness, Ken Johnson writes to the Parksville-Qualicum Beach News: "People, please wake up. The consequences of the Liberal government bringing in the harmonized sales tax will be catastrophic to the disposable incomes of the middle class, the lower middle class, the poor and the disadvantaged." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
These people are not to be dismissed with the shaking heads on the other side. Their supporters, the heads of the hugest corporations which will benefit…. Of course we would expect them to say that it's a wise move. They're the ones benefiting. But the people paying the price are the ordinary people of British Columbia, and they're calling out. They're crying out, and this government isn't hearing them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Fees and taxes to ordinary people have been driven up. This transfer of the burden of supporting our society and our services has been loaded onto the backs of ordinary people, and those who have been the biggest donors and those who have taken the most benefit from our province are running away to the bank. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
MSP premiums — the most regressive form of taxation — have risen, doubled, and more than doubled now. Ferry fares, which we all depend on, on our coast, for economic development as well as just an equitable right to travel in our province, to have healthy communities. Health fees. All of these have gone through the roof, and these are the things that affect ordinary people, the people of B.C., the people this government should be representing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is why we need to refer this bill to committee. This is why these people deserve a voice. They didn't have that voice in May during the election. Now we find out that three days after the election the negotiations began to impose this tax on them without their approval. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
All of this points to a lack of fairness and a lack of principles, a lack of integrity, a government that operates without integrity, a government that has lost any shred of credibility when it comes to trustworthiness with the people of B.C. This leads to cynicism. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Cynicism is a booming commodity in British Columbia. It grows in between the words of unfulfilled and broken promises. That's what's caused the cynicism in this province and the disenchantment with public process. This kind of cynical betrayal of the voters of B.C. is what we are trying to prevent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We are trying to give people the voice they need to convince their government, if their government is listening, that they do not want this HST to be imposed on them. That is the bottom line, and that bottom line needs to be met by this government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There's an anger growing, and we see it everywhere throughout the province. There's an anger that our democracy isn't working for us, that we are not being represented accurately and honestly. We cannot accept in a democracy a government that is won through deception. We cannot accept that. Democracy has its remedies. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Thankfully, that cynicism hasn't come to the point where people are resigned to accepting a deceitful presentation by a party seeking government. Thankfully, that anger reminds us that British Columbians still care enough about democracy that they are prepared to respond when they are not told the truth. When they are misled, they rise up in anger. We see it in the 82 percent to 90 percent rejection of the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1715]
That rejection isn't going to be convinced by all the explaining that's being done by the government members. That can only be convinced once this government honestly stands before the people and has the discussion that they failed to have during the election campaign. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This government, with its philosophy of transferring wealth upward in our society…. That's okay. If that's your philosophy, fine, but present it to the people. At least have the courage to present it to the people, and let the people vote knowing what they're voting for. It's a system of picking winners and losers. It was recognized by Pirjo Raits, who writes to the Nanaimo Bulletin. I apologize to Pirjo Raits, if I have mispronounced his name. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
"People feel disenfranchised and unheard." The raw material of cynicism — isn't it? "They are becoming increasingly frustrated at the lack of accountability on the part of government and the lack of a public consultation exercise. When they see the distance between those in power and those on the ground, it leads to a feeling of helplessness, probably not unlike the peasants just before the French Revolution." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I mean, it's pretty clear. The members in the government, with their lofty connections to the heads of corporations who are benefiting from this and their contentment with their approval, had better get ready for the distinct expression of disapproval in this province as resistance to this betrayal grows. It's not going away, Members — not before you go away. It's staying, but you're not. This government is not staying, because democracy has its remedy for deceit. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Then our Finance Minister says that he didn't know about Ontario. He didn't know that they were considering the HST. He didn't know that they were consulting with the entire province of Ontario. Well, that's an admission of incompetence. So pick your poison. It's either dishonest or it's incompetent — one of the two. Either way it's a condemnation of this government, and people are condemning them. People are condemning them for what they've done. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They didn't have the discussion. The deficit, $495 million — boom! — over $3 billion. Now we find out that the Premier was warned about plummeting revenue. These are things that destroy people's faith in our system, and referring this bill to committee would give the government a chance to hear from people and consider changing their direction. The homebuilders and the restaurant owners were betrayed. This is the action of a weak government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A weak government fails to protect the people from harm. This government is exposing the people to harm. We need to refer this bill, and we need to support this motion so that the government can consider welling up enough courage to do the right thing. It's a weak government that only satisfies the demands of those powerful corporations that have supported it and ignores the pleas of the people it is elected to represent. That's a weak government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This as a tax policy is regressive. It affects the most vulnerable. We had the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts say: "Well, I was lobbied by McDonald's, and I told them, 'Well, what is 7 percent on a $7 meal? It's no big deal, 49 cents. Who won't go there?'" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
He rewards the corporate leaders with a 1 percent gain, and that's supposed to be the magic panacea for investment in British Columbia. They pat themselves on the back. They wave flags: "Look what we've done. We've incented investment." Yet when it's ordinary people who are having to spend $7 on a meal at McDonald's, somehow 49 cents isn't going to impact their choices. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's ridiculous. That's a ridiculous statement. You know what? If you have that philosophy that tax policy will incent investment and that tax policy will disincent investment, then apply it to the people too. You've raised so many fees on people. You've raised their taxes so much. But the people don't have a choice, do they? They don't have the voice of the forest industry. They don't have the voice of the government's friends. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1720]
Well, Susan Barcham, the director of corporate development for Oak Bay Marine Group, recognizes it. She says: "Everybody knows it's an incredibly uncertain time financially." Noting that the HST was brought in without consultation, she explained: "Profit margins are already very slim, and Oak Bay has been attending meetings talking about what resorts are going to be open next year." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
She said that the announcement demonstrates a lack of sensitivity to tourism, just as the Tourism Minister displays a lack of sensitivity to tourism and to people who eat $7 meals, as though 49 cents doesn't mean anything to them. That's really sad, and we see this disconnection from the people, which was referred to by Mr. Pirjo Raits, that in fact they've lost touch. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The government has completely lost touch with the experience of British Columbians. They not only have lost touch, but they are fearful of British Columbians, because they know that if they displayed the truth of their agenda they would be swept out of power. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If they had stood at the doorsteps and told British Columbians, "You know what? We're going to do this to you — okay? After the election, we're going to take $2 billion from the biggest corporations. It will benefit mostly shareholders in New York, London, wherever. We're going to transfer it onto the backs of mostly the middle class and lower middle class and small business," how do you think that would go over? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
"Are you going to vote for me?" No. Over 80 percent of people have rejected it, in large measure because it was hidden from them. It's the ultimate hidden tax. It was hidden from the people — amazing. So if the government doesn't have the courage of its convictions, it can defeat this motion. If it has the courage of its conviction, it will stand before the people and have a discussion about what this really means and listen to the people of B.C., listen to all these people that I've read here, to their words. They deserve to be heard. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Tourism. Well, we just held the Olympics, and everybody is proud of what Canadians did. But this government…. We had a Premier, who so wanted to own the Olympics, stalking the torch around B.C. It was disgraceful, really. It was disgraceful that the Olympics, the most…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
D. Routley: Oh, we were the ones who applied for the Olympics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Deputy Speaker: Member. Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Routley: Madam Speaker, I believe we, the NDP, were the ones who made…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Deputy Speaker: Member, I will bring you back to consideration of the amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Routley: Absolutely. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Tourism. The Olympics were meant to benefit tourism, and what do they do? They turn around and put a burden on the tourism industry. How much sense does this make? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It doesn't make any sense unless you come from the perspective that it's a government that didn't tell the truth about this tax or about the deficit and then was faced with the horrible realization, before the election, that the deficit was going to be much higher. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They needed to cushion that blow. So they decided that they could do it by harmonizing the sales tax and by furthering this agenda to transfer costs onto ordinary people, the same people who have suffered under their policies when it comes to resource management. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's why we need to give this government a chance to hear those people. We need to let them be heard. They weren't heard when the government deregulated the forest industry, so they lost the benefit of their resources. We need to let them be heard before more costs are transferred onto their backs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Yes, a government that would take these actions, that would decide that it's permissible and acceptable…. They even called it the best thing they could do, to make this transfer from those who benefit the most onto those who face the biggest struggle. It marks the face of a weak government. We have a weak government in B.C. that needs to take another look. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We on this side stand with the people of B.C., and we are trying to give this government a chance to reconsider. We want to do more than that. We want to give the B.C. Liberals a chance to save themselves. Imagine. I'm sure that they're surprised. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1725]
We want to give our Premier a chance to save himself. What a surprise. What a surprise, because I'm sure they've read the polls. The Premier — 72 percent of British Columbians say that the Premier is arrogant; 56 percent of British Columbians say that the Premier is secretive; 55 percent…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Deputy Speaker: Member, are you addressing the amendment? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Routley: Absolutely. The amendment would give a chance for the Premier to reverse these numbers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Deputy Speaker: I will draw you back to consideration of the amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Routley: Absolutely. The Premier — if he came into this House — as soon as I sit down — and takes the floor and says, "You know what? We're going to support this amendment because — you know what? — 72 percent of the people think I'm arrogant, and I need to turn that around…." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know, the amendment would give the Premier this chance in one move to come in here and say to the 55 percent of British Columbians who think he's dishonest, "No, I'm truthful, and I will truly give you a chance…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Deputy Speaker: Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Routley: Yes? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Deputy Speaker: Parliamentary language is what I expect. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Routley: Absolutely, and I think the dishonesty…. I'm not making an accusation, but the people of B.C. have judged, that 55 percent, that they feel that the Premier is…. The Liberal Party — 64 percent of British Columbians believe they're arrogant. So we could make a one-day turnaround. The people of B.C. could, in one moment, turn around…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Deputy Speaker: Member, I've now cautioned you three times. You do know that you're not able to do indirectly what is not possible directly in this chamber. There will be no further warnings. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Routley: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Let's look at some more numbers, then, in order to support the notion that this motion needs to be supported. Support the notion that the motion should be supported. Some 82 percent of British Columbians, as the smallest measure, are opposed to the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We live in a democracy. This motion of referral would allow the government to meet the test and would allow the government to listen. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have a circumstance here. When do you have 82 percent of people on one side or another of the issue? And that's the smallest number of any poll. I've never seen it. Have any of the members on the other side seen it? Maybe in their own ridings 82 percent of people might be opposed to them now. This motion, if supported, would give the government the opportunity to answer 82 percent of British Columbians —at least to stand and explain. It would give them a chance to communicate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One of the Coquitlam–Port Moody members on the other side said that the purpose of this place is to communicate. Well, the ultimate communication should have occurred during the election campaign. It didn't. That's why people are so upset. Any amount of explaining of the merits or demerits of this tax or that tax won't answer the core question. It won't address the real problem. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We want to give the government another chance to address the real problem, and that is deception, betrayal of an election promise. Once you've done that and once you repeat that and it becomes a pattern, then the people become cynical, angry and disengaged, and you threaten the value and the health of our democracy by taking such a cynical act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This motion, if supported, would give this government at least one more chance to listen to the people of B.C. — the tourism industry, the restaurant industry, the seniors of the province, the people who advocate for the disadvantaged in our province, those without housing. These are the people who need to be heard in order for this government to come to its senses. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This government has lost its sense. This government has lost its sense of democracy. It isn't good enough to just stand in front of people and say: "We know best." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1730]
If you believe you know best, then your job in a democracy is to convince enough people that you do. Hiding your plans doesn't suffice. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This motion would give them another chance, albeit belated, to speak to British Columbians, to allow British Columbians to speak to them — for them to hear the 82 per cent minimum number of British Columbians who are opposed to this tax. And then, perhaps, give them that explaining time — that time when they can perhaps convince enough people that this is a good idea. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So far, they have failed miserably. They have displayed themselves to be a weak and arrogant government — out of touch. We need to give them the opportunity to rescue themselves. Supporting this motion would give British Columbia the opportunity to rescue its democracy from betrayal. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Sultan: I'm delighted to speak on the motion of the opposition member for Port Coquitlam amending Bill 9, the Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act of the government. Just to remind us all on the motion, which we all try very hard to speak to: "Be it resolved that Bill 9 not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be forwarded to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and further that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberation." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So what are we debating here? We're debating an amendment to the law eliminating the provincial sales tax. That's what we're debating in this House. We are not debating the adoption of the harmonized sales tax. That decision was made six months ago in a capital city about 2,500 miles that way by the Parliament of Canada, and it's now the law of Canada. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Whether we pass Bill 9 amended or whether we pass the amendment to Bill 9, will it make any difference to the federal government? I don't see why it should. If B.C. wants to double its sales tax and not pass this bill, they'd probably say: "Well, that's your decision out there on the west coast. We always wondered about you folks." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So what we're debating is whether to remove a 7 percent sales tax in B.C. That's the debating point here — or whether, as has been proposed by amendment, it should be sent to committee for, shall we say, an indefinite consultation with the public. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Apparently, the NDP doesn't like the idea of eliminating the 7 percent sales tax. They want to take that decision to the people. I suppose the question for the consultation they propose could be, for example: "Do you or do you not favour reducing the provincial sales tax to zero?" That would be a pretty clear-cut question. I think I can predict what the answer would be. It would be almost unanimous, I think — higher than some of the polling numbers that have been cited earlier in the House on a different question. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If the public and the NDP say, "No, no, no; we want to consult the people about a federal law passed six months ago in Ottawa" — well, they can take that idea up with their Member of Parliament. But it's not really a subject to debate it here. That law belongs to somebody else. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Furthermore, I find it faintly offensive that the NDP would urge us to take a consultation on a fundamental matter of economic policy of the people such as reducing the PST to zero when this is the people's palace. This is the House of the people. This is the forum with democratically elected people of all points of view, and I find the idea that we're incapable of debating this matter right here and now but have to take it into the ballrooms and high school gymnasiums of the province faintly offensive. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1735]
On the amendment. Here's why I think that defeating the amendment would be a good thing — what I advocate. Three good reasons. If the amendment succeeds, it might just keep the PST, so we would end up with double taxation. I don't think that's a very good economic plan. Secondly, if the NDP plan succeeds, it would cast in doubt the extensive simplification of the point-of-sale tax collection. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Clearly, for many months now, since it was clear that Ottawa had put the HST into law, companies and organizations, retailers and indeed tax accountants throughout the province have been at work sorting out the procedures of adopting this new simplified tax to be collected at point of sale. The rationalization of our own internal government organization and the diminishment of the wage bill around here, paid by the taxpayers to the tune of $30 million to $50 million would halt. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
More importantly, it would bring to a shuddering halt the estimated rationalization of the duplicate tax system — GST and PST — now operational in the world out there, a duplicate two–tax return effort that's been estimated to cost small business people, large business people and others $150 million a year — a straight, deadweight loss in inefficiency. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We would revert to a sales tax system with some 150 different categories. As my faithful assistant tried to sort out what it actually meant — as, rightly, so many people asked — and as you start digging into each of those 150 categories, you can easily find 50 or 60 pages of instructions. It has, through the accumulation of well-meaning tax-twiddling over the years, become an administrative nightmare. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's no more nightmarish than for the retail clerk who by law is to make all these complex decisions as to whether that piece of clothing of child size is being sold to a small adult woman, illegally, or as to whether the miner's helmet is tax-exempt but not the safety lamp on the miner's helmet or as to whether a safety coat which is orange is non-taxable but one which is yellow is. Or maybe I have it the other way around. How is a high school graduate clerk supposed to remember all that stuff? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When we went around the province with the Small Business Roundtable, we heard over and over again: "Please let us escape from this nightmare of administration complexity that you've created." That is, of course, what the harmonization would accomplish. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Finally, if the amendment succeeded in stalling and perhaps even eventually killing this bill, it would be effectively a 40 percent marginal tax increase on business machinery. That is the extent to which the tax cut which is due to kick in on July 1 would be forgone. A 40 percent increase in the marginal tax of business machinery and equipment investment certainly would be no help for the forestry companies and communities of Quesnel, Terrace, Yale, Lillooet, Port Alberni, Powell River, Sunshine Coast on and on and on. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It would be no help for the mining companies or the communities of Nelson, Creston, Prince George, Kamloops, and I could go on forever. It would be no help for the truck loggers, who have come through a hellish period. Let's not try and gild the lily in terms of the economic circumstances that they've experienced in the last few years. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The example here that struck me was that a long-haul Titan logging truck by Mack, base price estimated between $148,000 and $238,000, will now show HST savings of up to $16,500, or if you include the federal portion, $28,500. So you're going to say: "I'm sorry, you're not going to get that $16,000 tax break after all." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1740]
So the cost of rebuilding our primary industries, generally resource-based, is going to get a great big kick in the gut if we do not pass this tax. I think, at the core, that is the supreme economic benefit of the value-added tax for this province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There are other industries, of course, that are very enthusiastic about the prospects. We had the film industry come to see us — I believe it was yesterday — a $1.3 billion industry. They're very enthusiastic. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If it fails, it would be no help for Kitimat, the member from Kitimat-Terrace. I am told that given the further economies now in sight with the value-added tax, the HST, the $2 billion Kitimat smelter expansion will probably go ahead with Rio Tinto. In short, it would be a body blow to business. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On the amendment, which of course aims to stall the HST…. Why was the HST itself a good idea in the first place? Well, fairness, and the fairness argument really played itself out a decade or two decades ago in the Mulroney GST fight. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In those days it was even more dramatic. The federal government was funding itself with a manufacturers' sales tax, and services escaped taxation completely. But meanwhile over the decades, the world had turned increasingly to becoming a service economy, so the tax burden of running the economy — paying for health services, paying for education, paying for national defence and so on — was unfairly imposed on the manufacturing sector, which was gasping for relief. And to rub salt in the wounds, exports were taxed but imports weren't. We were subsidizing import competition. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So the GST fight was won, although not without great political damage. It's very hard to tell people that what wasn't taxed is now going to be taxed, and of course, we see a playing out of that same scenario today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think it's essential that the manufacturing sector of B.C. receive assistance, because we see the hollowing out of the mill towns of Quesnel, Powell River. I think Nanaimo Forest Products has seen its share of difficulties. Woodfibre is gone. I used to look up Howe Sound and see the smoke plume. It's not there anymore — going, going, gone. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What happened to the high-paying union jobs that these mills represented — the core support group of the members opposite — lifetime jobs, lots of fringe benefits, even pensions? These are disappearing, and as they point out to us frequently, it's hitting these families in the breadbasket, destroying families. They need help. A lot of their jobs and what they're trained to do and maybe the thing that they do best are, in fact, the jobs in mining, in the pulp and paper industry, in the forest sector and so on. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I look at these towns in B.C. struggling, and I've seen it happen before. When I first got out of school, I worked in Buffalo, New York — a wonderful town. They had the Lackawanna steel works on Lake Erie there. It stretched for about ten miles of great big smokestacks and steel mills. Costs got out of line, and they didn't reinvest. You go down there today, and it's a wasteland. Detroit — the same situation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If you want to be a tourist, go around New England and look at all the mill towns up the Connecticut River, which were the bases of the immense surge in prosperity of New England in the 19th century. You see row upon row of wonderful red brick buildings powered by water wheels in those days, and they're tourist attractions now, if they haven't been torn down. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We don't want to see that fate for our heavy industry in British Columbia, and one of the most important things we can could to make sure it doesn't happen is to make sure that we adopt the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The opponents on the other side of the aisle have made some interesting arguments. The member for Victoria–Swan Lake said: "Well, what's the excitement about the value-added tax? The Americans don't have one." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1745]
I thought: "Now I've heard everything." The Americans, the NDP Antichrist, are now being held up as the economic model we should emulate. I don't think we should. I think that on this one, the Americans are way behind the rest of the world. That's no argument for us to follow them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Another reason is the fact that the experts are almost unanimous in recommending the HST value-added tax. With an eye on the clock, I think it would be foolish for me to try and read all those names. It ranges from Michael Smart to Jock Finlayson to John Allan to a whole roster of people, Dr. Jon Kesselman, etc. You don't find many economists who say this is a goofy idea. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Another good reason for not delaying the adoption by adopting this amendment is transparency. Few of us realize that when we buy a piece of capital equipment for our own personal use, like an automobile or a pickup truck, we are, in fact, perhaps paying today a sales tax in the range of 9 or 10 percent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We say: "Wait a minute. That can't be. The sales tax is 7 percent." No, no, no. There are 2 or 3 percentage points of hidden sales tax in that car or that refrigerator. You just don't see it. It's not reported. It's not shown on the price tag, but it's there. It will be erased with the passage of this bill, and it's why it should not be delayed by the amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Another good reason is that it's been endorsed by the very best NDP thinkers in the land. I'll quote two of them. Art Charbonneau. I think somebody else read this letter, but it's too good not to read it again. This is Art's letter to the Kamloops Daily News: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
"It appals me" — Art says, Art Charbonneau of the NDP — "that the NDP is standing with Vander Zalm to block the HST. Are the NDP and Vander Zalm also recommending higher income taxes to offset the loss of government revenue? I don't think so."
He has that a little wrong, but we'll excuse it.
"I can understand Vander Zalm's position, but darned if I can understand the NDP's, unless they're just jumping on the anti-tax bandwagon like a bunch of Johnny-come-lately Reaganites because they know it will garner votes. It can't be because they want to protect the poor, because with the HST the poor will receive an increased quarterly credit, just like they receive a GST credit right now.
"So I'm puzzled. How do people think we can fund education and health care at all levels we desire unless taxes are there to pay for it?"
I'm interpolating a little bit from Art's language. I apologize for that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
He says: "Tommy Douglas must be spinning in his grave." I like that. Have you thought about it? Tommy Douglas, every time he hears what you're saying — and I'm sure Tommy is up there and not down here — is spinning, saying: :"Oh my god, these are my progeny. These are the people I've tried to indoctrinate in good social democratic principles. They've jumped into bed with this guy. I can't believe it. It's terrible." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, a more analytical source of commentary is my favourite target, and I've said very unkind things about them, very impolite and rude things, and I should take them back. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. You may recall my saying that CCPA reminded me of those Russian tanks clanking across Red Square all the time. Well, that was a cheap shot. I shouldn't have said that, particularly when they have funded a paper by University of Toronto economists Lightman and Mitchell, saying: "The net distributive impact of the combined personal income tax rate and credit changes in the HST…." It concludes that for the most low-income households, the tax and credit savings offset the HST increase. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, they're talking about Ontario, but I'm sure the impact is very similar to British Columbia. It contradicts directly the point of grinding the hungry faces of the poor, made so eloquently just now by the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan. The CCPA, the brain trust of the NDP party, says: "Hey, it's neutral. There's no impact." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1750]
Then, the most interesting thing, if I have time, Madam Speaker, is the flip-flop that's occurred. Much of the anger which has been vented by members opposite says: "You didn't tell the truth" — in fact, they would be so bold in this House as to use the "L" word, but you won't catch me saying that — "and you knew you were going to do it [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
all along. You didn't tell the truth about the budget, etc." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Well, there's now been a big flip-flop in the media and in the arguments presented in this Legislature. They didn't know about it, it appears, but as soon as the election was over, then there were a lot of briefings. The officials said: "It appears we've got a real problem, but by the way, we have a solution." That's how officials think. They hate to be the bearers of bad news without a solution. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The solution is a $1.6 billion pot of cash that they can get from Ottawa if they just go along with the HST thing, which has been kicking around for a long time without much enthusiasm. The officials said: "By golly, you're right. Let's do it." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It did indeed become a decision that I think was made post-election, not pre-election. All this folderol about conspiracy, mistruths, concealment, "they didn't fess up," fudge-it budget, smudge-it budget.... Well, cut the ground out from that argument. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now it is: "They made the decision too quickly after the election." You know what? I'd agree with them, because if ever a pretty basic change in the taxation kind of had a — well, I have to choose my words carefully — less than professional rollout, it was this one, folks. That's why we're having this debate today. Because it wasn't explained very well at all. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
I tried to explain it the other day to a group of 85- to 90-year-old ladies using my Harvard charts and value-added.... I realized: "I've got to get out of here real quick. This is a hard thing to explain." I'll forgive the government for not doing a very good job in explaining it. Nevertheless, everybody who hates taxes immediately passed the word in the absence of the facts, so I had people in my office saying: "Why are you charging HST on my food? I cannot afford that." Somebody said: "Why are you charging it on my heating bill?" Somebody said: "Why are you charging 12 percent on a $500,000 house, $60,000 tax on a half-million-dollar house?" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A lot of them think it's a 12 percent tax on everything brand-new. No wonder they're upset. I mean, signing up people on a petition saying: "Would you agree that we shouldn't charge a new 12 percent tax on everything...?" "Okay, where do I sign? I'll go for that." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Well, to put it kindly and parliamentarily, there was a certain amount of distortion going on, and now we reap the whirlwind. Meanwhile Tommy Douglas spins and spins and spins. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So my final plea. I see the Speaker is giving me the eagle eye. We've had a lot of very heartfelt pleas to save ourselves, particularly from the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan. It's a chance for the Premier to save himself by unwinding it. It's a chance for the member for West Vancouver–Capilano to save himself. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I have a quotation to put back to you. It's from William Shakespeare, The Tempest: "Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows." The misery of the NDP party has acquainted the NDP party with a rather strange bedfellow from the past, a man who took a wonderful forty-year track record — competent, careful, prudent, thrifty Social Credit Party — and destroyed it in four years, put it out of business. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would suggest to you that if you continue to follow the flag of this gentleman.... I won't be so unparliamentary as to list the cash in the brown paper bags at 3 a.m. at the Bayshore hotel. I would never bring up that subject or the fact that he wanted to restrict access to the right to life for women. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
R. Sultan: I didn't vote for Bill. I wasn't here. Well, you shouldn't follow those people. Believe it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1755]
Now the Opposition House Leader is giving me the signal. I rest my case. There's still time to save yourself. Abandon that cause. It's a losing cause, and it may cost you your party. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Sultan moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday morning. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Hansard Services
publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.
TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule
Copyright (c) 2010: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada