Hansard — House Blues — Tuesday, April 27, 2010 p.m.

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.

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

HOUSE BLUES

TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Hon. G. Campbell: It gives me great pleasure to welcome back to the precinct Rick Thorpe and his beautiful wife, Yasmin. They continue to make major contributions in their community in the South Okanagan. I hope the House will make them welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

D. Thorne: Today it's my pleasure to make an introduction on behalf of the member for Vancouver-Kensington, who is not in the House. I would like to introduce the grade 6 students and their six parent chaperones, along with their teacher Miss Laurie Cassie, from David Livingstone Elementary. I would like the House to make them very, very welcome on behalf of the member for Vancouver-Kensington. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Bennett: All of us have met characters in our lives and people who are interesting and people whose image always kind of sticks in your mind because they're so colourful, and they're just interesting people to know. Well, there's one of those people in the gallery today that I've gotten to know and, actually, many of the members have gotten to know, probably from both sides of the House. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

He is an electoral area director from the regional district of Central Kootenay. He's also the chair of the regional district of East Kootenay hospital board. He wears a black cowboy hat, and his name is John Kettle. Please help me make him welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Fraser: Visiting in the gallery today are Joan Larson and Paul Smith. They're constituents of mine. They live near Coombs. They own and operate Creekside Studio. Joan's an amazing artist. Please make both Joan and Paul feel very, very welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. S. Bond: I am delighted, on behalf of my colleagues from Nechako Lakes and Prince George–Mackenzie, to welcome to the gallery today our mayor from Prince George. He's down today to share some of the vision that he and his council colleagues have for our city. We were excited to hear about those today. I know that he's also celebrating several achievement winners tomorrow at the Community Achievement Awards. Please join me in making our mayor very welcome in the precinct today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Mungall: I'm very fortunate today to have two guests from my constituency, hailing from Nelson. They're avid skiers and history buffs, Frances and Ron Welwood. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I would be remiss to sit down and not say a special hello to my good friend John Kettle. As the Minister for Community and Rural Development alluded to, he has a nice big black hat, and I actually got one of those big black hats sitting in my office in Nelson because I won the election. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. S. Thomson: I've a special guest here this afternoon, and I'd like to take a moment to pay tribute to an outstanding public servant who has joined us and who is with us here today, and that's Erik Karlsen. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Erik is a professional land use planner. He's had a distinguished career in public service. He's got a long career in sustainable development, and he's worked in all levels in government, including 29 years working for the province of B.C. He's held many consultant and advisory roles. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

More importantly, for the last five years Erik has served as chair of our Agricultural Land Commission, and he is retiring in just a few days, at the end of this week. I want to recognize and thank him for his work with the commission, supporting agriculture and supporting the preservation of farmland. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

He's also joined here today by his wife, Hazel, who has joined him. I'm sure she's quite happy to have Erik back towards full retirement. I know she's looking forward to it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'd ask the House to join me in welcoming them both here today and in thanking Erik for his years of public service to the province of British Columbia and his five years with the Agricultural Land Commission as chair. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. P. Bell: Old age is a terrible thing. The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, I have to remind, is about five months older than me. So I know what I have to look forward to, unfortunately. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I forgot to mention that the wonderful mayor of Prince George's name is Dan Rogers. I would ask that the House please make Dan very welcome again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Reid: It is indeed a pleasure this afternoon to introduce an eminent guest. The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, the hon. Paul Delorey, is with us. Speaker Delorey is the member for Hay River North, and he has served three distinguished terms in his House. We are most pleased to have him with us, and I invite all members to make our guest very welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

D. Hayer: We have some very special guests here today. They are from the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board, and they were here discussing some very important issues to realtors and homebuyers, with the government MLAs as well as the opposition MLAs. They also hosted a very good reception and dinner for MLAs on both sides. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Some of the very special guests from the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board are Deanna Horn, president; Jim McCaughan, past president of Fraser Valley Real Estate Board and regional director of BCREA; Rob Philipp, CEO; Rick Wood, assistant executive officer; Sukh Sidhu, president-elect; Brenda Lee, government relations committee member; and Scott Olson, vice-president and chair of the government relations committee. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Other members of the government relations committee are Jasbir Cheema; Gina Cowx; Monika Grant; Bernadine Jensen; Bettina-Marie Reid; Brian Rock; Sergio Tassone; AlNoor Teja; and Debbie Jay, communication coordinator. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: I rise to ask that the House reflect on the passing of Dick Heath, who had been the Vancouver Island regional manager of environmental stewardship and of parks and protected areas. He passed away on Sunday. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Dick served this province well for over 25 years in both the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests and provided important advice to me as minister on a variety of challenging issues over the last few years. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As a professional forester, agrologist and biologist, his broad understanding of the natural resource sector proved invaluable to ensuring sustainable development of our shared resources. But perhaps he will best be remembered as a people's manager. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Dick was extremely hard-working, unselfish and a trustworthy manager, well liked and respected by his staff and peers and very supportive of all of them. He was an incredible family man and very proud of his wife, Cheryl, and his kids, Jessica and Andy. There has been an extremely sombre mood around the ministry the last couple of days, as everyone knew how tirelessly Dick worked on behalf of the environment and the public service. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There will be a get-together on Saturday at Rathtrevor Provincial Park, a place that was very special to Dick and his family, as staff and members of the family get together to reflect and remember the life of a remarkable man, who was truly a gentle spirit. He will be greatly missed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: On the day that I just reflected on the passing of Dick Heath, it is my honour to introduce Bill 15. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2010.

Hon. B. Penner: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: This bill contains amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act to continue this government's expansion of British Columbia's parks and protected areas system, with a net addition of 13,218 hectares. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This bill carries forward the work that has gone into the balancing of environmental stewardship with economic development, based on collaboration that has taken place between many stakeholders. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The provisions in this bill include the establishment of six new class A parks and additions to two existing class A parks in the Lillooet region in accordance with the Lillooet land and resource management plan; the establishment of a new class A park in the Kamloops region in accordance with the Kamloops land and resource management plan; the establishment of a new conservancy protecting the Erie Creek watershed near Pemberton, following an agreement with the Lil'wat First Nation; and adding land to ten existing class A parks around the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

If passed, these amendments will bring the number of class A parks established in the province to 611 and the number of conservancies established in the province to 144. In addition, minor boundary modifications are being made to seven existing class A parks and two existing conservancies. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Finally, a change to the name of one existing class A park is included in this bill as a result of discussions with the Wet'suwet'en First Nation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Bill 15, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2010, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

S. Fraser: There are times in our communities when greatness shows itself. I believe that what I am about to describe falls into that category. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Recently I was invited to Creekside Studio near Qualicum Beach, owned and operated by artist Joan Larson and her husband, Paul Smith, who are visiting us today. Joan is arguably the best equine artist in the world. A proud Canadian, Joan grew up in a small prairie town until moving to Vancouver Island as a child. She worked tirelessly at her craft, perfecting her art, and was awarded the designation of Premier Pastellist with the Pastel Society of Canada. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

She is embarking on a series of paintings celebrating the RCMP Musical Ride. When I visited her gallery, I was quite frankly in awe. I recall seeing the musical ride when I was a child, and this brought it right back to me. The quality of this work is phenomenal. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Joan Larson's depictions of this Canadian iconic event are simply magnificent. Her and Paul's vision is to take this series on tour to any and all communities that are interested and that have never been able to have the opportunity to host or sponsor a series of paintings of this magnitude or the musical ride itself. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In 2007 Joan began the first of her planned series of 20 paintings depicting the life of the RCMP Musical Ride. Last summer Creekside Studio created a special poster commemorating the B.C. tour of the musical ride. Proceeds from the sale of this poster during the ride performances went to a charity helping fund local B.C. communities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Joan's ultimate quest is to showcase the series at the National Gallery in Ottawa and bring these marvellous paintings of this major part of Canadian history past, present and future to the Canadian public. I urge everyone to check out her work on the website www.canadarides.ca. The collection is destined to be known as a significant statement of Canadian heritage for generations to enjoy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Slater: Last week we celebrated National Volunteer Week to show our gratitude and support for the millions of volunteers who donate their time and energy. Not only are volunteers essential to the operation and success of community services; they are a driving force behind progressive change and the overall betterment of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I would like to recognize one of the many volunteers in my riding who 14 years ago started and is still the driving force behind the junior golf program at the Osoyoos Golf and Country Club. Bob Blount, who is an avid golfer, found that after retiring from teaching, he still wanted to have input and access to young, eager minds. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The program runs from mid-June to the end of August and finishes up with an adult-junior golf tournament that includes an awards banquet. The program is open to boys and girls aged seven to 16 years old. When it started, enrolment was 30 students. Now it's up to 55. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Bob, through the junior golf program, also oversees a memorial scholarship for graduating students from Osoyoos Secondary School. There are three guiding principles that personify the individual that the scholarship honours, and they are a high interest in education and scholastic achievement, qualities of leadership and involvement in school clubs and community, and demonstrates athletic ability combined with sportsmanship. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The scholarship has been given out for the past seven years to students who represent their school and community just like the namesake did. In closing, I would like to extend my personal gratitude for the time he donates and especially for overseeing my son Chris Slater's memorial scholarship. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

H. Lali: Aboriginal people comprise about 4½ percent of the population of British Columbia. In my constituency, first nations are a very important part of our social and cultural mosaic and have a huge impact on the economy, specifically in forestry and agriculture and also in politics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In Fraser-Nicola there are 26 Indian bands comprising 23 percent of the population. Since 1991, I have had the honour of representing aboriginal people belonging to the Stó:lô, Okanagan, St'at'imc, the Secwepemc or Shuswap, and Nlaka'pamux. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The Nlaka'pamux are the largest group, and their traditional territory includes parts of the North Cascades region of Washington State. The Nlaka'pamux head Chief David Spintlum, who lived from 1812 to 1887, described the posts or boundaries of the Nlaka'pamux territory for ethnographer James Teit as follows. I would add that the language is a bit dated. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"One post up the Fraser at Fountain, one down the Fraser at Spuzzum, one up the Thompson River at Ashcroft, one up the Nicola River at Quilchena, one down the Similkameen River at Tcutcuwixa, near Hedley. All the country between these posts is my country and the lands of my people. At Lytton is my centre post. It is the middle of my house, and I sit there.

"All the country to the headwaters of all the streams running into the valleys between these posts is also my territory, in which my children gather food. We extend to meet the boundaries of the hunting territories of other tribes. All around over this country I have spoken of, I have jurisdiction. I know no white man's boundaries or posts. If the whites have put up posts and divided my country, I do not recognize them. They have not consulted me. They have broken my house without my consent.

"All Indian tribes have the same as posts and recognize boundaries, and the chiefs know them since long before the first white man came in the country."

In the Merritt area, the Nlaka'pamux refer to themselves as Scw'exmx and speak a different dialect of the Thompson language. Together with the Spaxomin people near Douglas Lake, they are collectively known as the Nicola people or Nicolas, hence the name Fraser-Nicola. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

T. Lake: It is well known that of all the factors that can influence students' success — including class size, teaching method, technology and textbooks — the most important by far is the quality of the teacher. Kati Haycock of the Education Trust cites research that shows that kids who have two, three or four strong teachers in a row will eventually excel no matter what their background, while kids who have even two weak teachers in a row will never recover. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We can all think back to our school or post-secondary experiences and think of those teachers that had such a positive impact on our education — the teachers who had a passion not just for their area of study but for teaching itself. That passion made us hungry to learn while we were at school and in our later lives when the formal exams were long finished. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This recognition of the value of teaching excellence is the underpinning of the attempt by our neighbours in the United States to pull up an education system that lags the rest of the western world. Great teachers and principals are being rewarded by President Obama, who understands the critical need for an educated society in our ever-shrinking and ever more competitive world. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In Canada and particularly here in British Columbia, we are blessed with an abundance of great teachers. I am proud of those in my family who teach at both the elementary and the secondary level, and I know the tremendous positive influence they have on their students. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

For me, teaching at Thompson Rivers University was a great honour, as I was fortunate to have colleagues like Dr. Wayne Hollingshead, a recipient of a TRU Master Teacher Award, who passed on his skills through faculty instructional skills workshops. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

While our education system in B.C. is viewed as among the best in the world, it is not primarily due to the buildings, the governance or the computers, although all of these are important. It is our great teachers who deserve our thanks and respect. So today, as students start to think about the delicious summer holidays that are tantalizingly close, I would like to take the opportunity to say a big thank-you to the teachers of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

D. Black: Last week the New Westminster Chamber of Commerce recognized the contributions of two amazing women in our community. Lori Pappajohn received the 2009 Bernie Legge Cultural Award. Laurie is a renowned Celtic harpist who has built an international reputation performing throughout Canada, the U.S., Britain and Chile. New Westminster is truly privileged to have someone like Lori sharing her musical talent within our community and around the world. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The 2009 Citizen of the Year award went to Mona Forsyth, coordinator of New Westminster's food bank. I am awed by Mona's energy and commitment. At 85 years of age, Mona leads a team of about 35 folks at the food bank, completely on a volunteer basis. She receives no payment for the work and service she provides. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Many food banks are not able to offer bread to their clients, but Mona goes more than the extra mile for people in need. She personally picks up donated bread from local supermarkets, a job that means collecting up to 500 loaves of bread daily. Because of her hard work, the New Westminster food bank feeds 500 people in our community every week. In ten years of volunteering with the food bank, Mona has only been absent for one day. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This year Mona's job has been even tougher because of an increasing demand for food bank services. Despite these challenges, day after day, month after month, Mona Forsyth selflessly provides outstanding service to those people in our community who are most in need. Although she wasn't expecting to win this award, it was richly deserved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I am very pleased to congratulate these two women. Mona's energy and commitment and Lori's incredible talent make me proud to be from New Westminster. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

R. Sultan: What do ABBA, Ingrid Bergman, the Sedin twins and dynamite have in common? Sweden, of course. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Swedes have a long history in this province. My own parents came here before the turn of the century — the 19th century, that is. I learned a lot sitting on the hard front benches of the Swedish Lutheran Church. "Thou shalt not do this. Thou shalt not do that." It prepared for me life in the Legislature. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Swedes played a major role in building this province. In logging, for example, my brother-in-law Pete Holmquist could push a bucking saw through a three-foot log faster than anybody and proved it by winning the world championship. Mining, fishing, hardscrabble farming — if it took sweat and muscle, the Swedes were there. My father frequently quoted the Bible to us: "Work, for the night is coming." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Two weeks ago I accompanied the member for Burnaby North to the Scandinavian Community Centre in his riding for the opening of a historical exhibit. To many Swedes living in the Vancouver area, the Sweden House Society is their way of maintaining their Swedish roots and Swedish friendships. The member discovered an ancient photograph of me hiding behind a six-year-old, bringing back memories that this young girl was the person I first tried to kiss — very unsuccessfully, I might add. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The social democratic tradition of Sweden transplanted easily. Inspired in the 1930s by Marquis Childs' Sweden: The Middle Way, our political life was influenced by his argument that governments of the day did not have to choose between the extremes of communism or capitalism. There was a middle ground. Canadian politics is still skirmishing for that middle ground. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm going back there this summer to learn more about the probable future shape of our Canadian health system. Anticipating that trip, let me practise on the Legislature my entire Swedish vocabulary. Mycket bra. Var sa god. Tack ska du ha. Skol! [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

C. James: During the election campaign the B.C. Liberals said they had no plans to bring in the HST. After the election, in the middle of summer, they announced exactly that. They were bringing in the HST. "On July 1 start paying more for a whole number of things," they told British Columbians out of the blue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Well, now it gets worse. They're forcing people to pay more starting on May 1. My question is to the minister. Why are British Columbians being forced to pay more for the HST two months before the implementation date? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. C. Hansen: Goods, generally speaking, if they are ordered after May 1 but before July 1, for delivery after July 1, are then going to actually be working in an HST world. But I take exception to the member's comment that most things would cost more, because, in fact, most things are going to be exactly the same or less in an HST world. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

C. James: I have to say to the minister that even Carole Taylor doesn't agree with that statement coming from the minister. Yesterday, when asked about the public reaction to the HST debate, the Government House Leader said: "People will think what they're going to think." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This is what the people of British Columbia know: the B.C. Liberals didn't tell them the truth about the HST. That's what the public knows in British Columbia. The government certainly didn't tell them they'd have to start paying it May 1, two months sooner than they told the public. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Whether it's gym memberships, home improvement, flights, arts and entertainment, British Columbians are going to start paying next week. The list goes on and on. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Again, my question is to the minister. Will the minister stand up in this House and tell the people of British Columbia why they should start paying more for the HST on May 1, a tax that they snuck in, in the middle of summer, a tax that they're slipping in without public consent in this province? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. C. Hansen: The transition period from May 1 to July 1 is to make sure that British Columbians do not get faced with paying both PST and HST on goods and services in British Columbia. That is exactly why it is important that this Legislature get on with passing Bill 9 — to make sure that British Columbians are not faced with a PST system still in place when the additional 7 percent HST comes into effect. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

C. James: I don't know how many ways this minister can describe the difficulty that the public is going to have in paying the HST. Now it's a transition period, just another way to say that this government is taking more money from the people of British Columbia and didn't tell them about it. That's what transition period means. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

People have been put on notice. Advertisements and flyers are advising the public to pay by May 1 to beat the HST. Here's the kind of advice being offered: "Beat the HST on 2010-11 season pass prices available until April 30." "Book your golf getaway by April 30. Beat the HST." "All subscriptions received after April 30 will be charged the HST." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Again, my question is to the minister. Why should British Columbians have to pay more for the HST two months before the implementation date, and when will the B.C. Liberals listen to the people of British Columbia and say no to the HST? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. C. Hansen: I can tell you what ads we'd be reading in the paper if the NDP had won the last election. It would be the small business community saying: "Closing out sale. Moving to Alberta." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. C. Hansen: I, too, have seen some of the ads. I heard one on the radio the other day talking about a condominium project that had condominiums that were valued from $279,000 up to $489,000. It said: "Buy now and beat the HST." Well, guess what. Condominiums and homes in British Columbian valued up to $550,000 will, in fact, be cheaper after HST is introduced. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

B. Ralston: Tickets for sports events are just one of the many things that will cost more after May 1. An advertisement for the Prince George Cougars hockey team says this: "If fans purchase season's tickets for next season and pay in full by April 30, they will avoid paying the incoming HST." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That's just one of the many things, despite what the minister says, that will cost more after May 1. Can the minister explain why, after failing to tell British Columbians before the election that the Liberals were planning to bring in the HST, they didn't disclose the facts about when it would come into effect? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. C. Hansen: There is no secret. It comes into effect on July 1. If someone is to buy goods or services that are going to be delivered after July 1, then they will have to be working in an HST world. But I also don't see the ads out there that are saying things like: "Wait to book your hotel room, because it's in fact going to be cheaper after July 1." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You've got the whole small business community that is actually looking forward to PST costs coming out of the goods and services that they buy, so they will actually be looking to save money, which will mean that the products and services they offer to their consumers are, in fact, going to be less. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We know that the elimination of the provincial sales tax and the adoption of the harmonized sales tax will mean more jobs in British Columbia, more money in people's pockets and more opportunity for people to enjoy a dynamic economy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

B. Ralston: Well, small businesses will no longer be earning the PST commission, and it will take $1.1 million in revenue for small businesses to make up the lost PST commission. For most small businesses, it's a negative impact right away. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

B. Ralston: That's a quote from Shelfspace's Mark Startup, who knows something about retail. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This government hid the truth about the HST every step of the way. Now they're forcing people to pay more on May 1. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Again to the Minister of Finance: why does he insist on punishing people here in B.C. by bringing the tax into effect on May 1 for many items? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. C. Hansen: The tax comes into effect on July 1. That is the date that the PST is eliminated and is replaced with a 7 percent provincial portion of the harmonized sales tax. The transition rules are to make sure that consumers get the benefit of having the PST removed before the HST is applied. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. C. Hansen: If you look at the vast majority of goods and services in British Columbia, they are either not affected or they actually result in reduced prices. The transition rules are set up to make sure that all consumers and businesses in British Columbia are dealt with fairly. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Kwan: Give me a break already. The fact is that what the minister is talking about are services that are PST-exempt already. They don't have the PST that would apply to them without the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The facts are this. The Liberals said no to the HST prior to the election. Now after the election they announced their HST agenda, but they didn't mention a thing about the April 30 deadline. British Columbians are now put on notice that effective April 30…. That is the last day that they have to buy the goods and services if they want to avoid the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Kwan: Here's an ad by a home improvement company. They said: "For the month of April we'll help you beat the taxman. But act quickly. This offer expires April 30." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Why should homeowners who want to fix their leaky roof in the summer be forced to scramble around now to get that work done in order to avoid this hated sales tax? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. C. Hansen: Today if a homeowner is having a roof repair done, they will be paying PST — the builder, the contractor will be paying PST — on all of the materials. They will also be paying GST on all of the materials. The GST they get back; the PST they have to pass on to the consumer in the final purchase price. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Issues like that are why the transition rules have been set up. The fact exists that if somebody buys something today…. It makes no difference as to whether they buy it now or whether they buy it in May or whether they buy it in June if they take delivery before July 1. If it's something they're taking delivery of after July 1, then they have to make sure that the transition rules are in place so they're dealt with fairly. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Kwan: So now it's the home improvement companies that are telling mistruths. The Liberal government misled British Columbians and brought in the HST. They hid the truth from British Columbians about the actual implementation date. July 1 all of a sudden became May 1. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As a result, people are rushing around to do repair work, buy maintenance, buy services, plan their vacation or even buy their funeral burial plots in advance, well in advance of their time, in order to avoid this hated sales tax. Instead of forcing British Columbians into this frenzy…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I have a straightforward question for the Premier. Will the Premier finally do the right thing, apologize to the people of British Columbia for misleading them and scrap the HST? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm not going to apologize for the fact that over the last ten years, British Columbia has become one of the most dynamic economies in North America. I'm not going to apologize for the fact that we got rid of the corporate capital tax in this province, which means there are more jobs created in British Columbia as a direct result. I will not apologize for the fact that in the last 8½ years, we've taken this province from being one of the most highly taxed jurisdictions under the NDP government to being one of the most competitive tax regimes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know what has resulted from that, Mr. Speaker? What has resulted from that is a net increase in the number of people working in British Columbia — 390,000. The elimination of the PST and the adoption of the harmonized sales tax is going to mean that there will be even more tens and hundreds of thousands of jobs created in this province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

B. Simpson: Mr. Premier, there's a reason why over 80 percent of British Columbians reject this tax and reject this government's rationalization of the tax, and the Minister of Finance is proving it every time he stands up today. Here's the logic: $1.9 billion taken off the backs of businesses, supposedly revenue-neutral. But somehow that $1.9 billion isn't going to be a burden on consumers. Every time the minister stands up, he says it's not a burden on consumers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

B. Simpson: The minister said today that everything is going to be less. Stuff is going to be less after the implementation. Well, the Quesnel and District Chamber of Commerce is advocating to their members that they pay their membership fee in advance of April 30 so that they avoid an increase in their membership fees on May 1. If everything is going to be cheaper post–May 1, why is everybody going to such great lengths to avoid paying the HST? If it's cheaper, why aren't they putting up billboards saying: "Pay later"? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. C. Hansen: I think it demonstrates how little that member understands about a value-added tax, because all of the small businesses that belong to that chamber of commerce basically can get a full input tax credit for all of the HST that they pay. But I will put our tax policy up against the tax policy of the NDP government of the 1990s any day. Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you how…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. C. Hansen: I can tell you how the public voted on the NDP tax policy of the 1990s. They voted with their feet, and 50,000 people left this province to go find work in other provinces in Canada. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We hear the member for Cariboo North talking about the need for government to take action to support the forest sector. Well, what the forest sector is telling us is that the single biggest thing that we can do is the harmonized sales tax, which will result in $140 million of costs being removed from the forest sector. That means more jobs for forest workers and forest families in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

B. Simpson: In 2009 if this government had been straightforward with the people of British Columbia, then the people of British Columbia would have had the opportunity to vote on this government's real tax policy, which they weren't allowed to do. Again, the minister can rationalize…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

B. Simpson: Again, the minister can rationalize all he wants and suggest that people don't know what they're talking about, but I'll tell you this: consumers know exactly what they're talking about. They're not getting input tax credits. They're not getting the benefits. The burden is shifting onto their backs, and that's why they're rebelling. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

My question is to the Premier. The voice is loud and clear. The people of British Columbia are telling this government, every member on that side, that they don't want this tax. The avoidance of this tax, as demonstrated by the Quesnel and District Chamber of Commerce and others, is another clear signal that the people of British Columbia are rejecting this tax. Will the Premier do the right thing and not implement this tax, and certainly not implement it on the backs of British Columbians two months in advance of it coming into existence? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. C. Hansen: I didn't say that the public didn't know what they were talking about; I said that the member didn't know what he was talking about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think we've all had the benefit of some great conversations with representatives of the B.C. Real Estate Association and some very good material that they provided to members. If the member hasn't already received one, I'm sure he will. It actually shows that real estate prices in British Columbia for homes up to $550,000 will in fact come down. So the consumers do get the benefit of the input tax credits in the form of lower prices. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Mungall: In my constituency Whitewater Ski Resort is posting an advertisement that says that the HST comes into effect July 1, but that season's passes will only be HST-exempt if purchased before April 30. The HST will make it harder for resorts like Whitewater to compete. Passes, food at the resort, ski school — all of this is going to go up by 7 percent, and they're concerned that this is just enough to put them over the edge of affordability for B.C. families. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

To the Minister of Finance: why is he making families and businesses struggle two months earlier than July 1, and why is he hurting the tourism industry in my constituency? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There seem to be a number of other members that want to ask questions, so we'll just wait till they're finished. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. C. Hansen: As a result of the shift to the harmonized sales tax, we will in fact see more jobs in British Columbia. We will see employers that will be able to afford more pay raises in British Columbia. There will be more job security. The member can actually reassure her constituents that when they've got jobs and they've got more paycheques coming in, they will actually be able to afford to go skiing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Chandra Herbert: Arts and culture organizations have already suffered a huge blow because of this government's cuts to investments. Now starting this Saturday, the B.C. Liberals are putting a tax on arts and culture with the HST, making it so that fewer can afford to purchase tickets to the local community play, the gallery, a concert, a festival. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

To the Minister of Finance: we've heard of the no-fun city in Vancouver. Why are the B.C. Liberals so dedicated to making our province a no-fun province with the HST? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. C. Hansen: If you look around the world, 130 countries around the world have adopted a value-added-tax system like the HST. You can actually just take a look at London. I know the member has had the opportunity to visit London and enjoy some of the tremendous arts and culture that they have there. Well, guess what. They have a value-added tax, and it has in no way stifled the arts community in those countries that have a value-added tax. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

If any British Columbian goes out a week from now and buys a ticket for a theatre performance next week or the week after, they will not pay any HST. If they buy a ticket for a performance that's going to take place after July 1, then they will be paying HST on that. But there is no HST charged on any product that is delivered prior to June 30, 2010. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

R. Chouhan: Constituents of mine with a Costco membership have already received renewal notices with HST on the bill and the 7 percent increase in fees factored in. These are hard-working families trying to save money, and they're getting hit with a tax increase two months before the HST implementation date of July 1. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Why is he in such a rush to make these B.C. families struggle more? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. C. Hansen: B.C. families struggle when they can't find jobs. The HST is the single biggest thing this government can do to make sure we stimulate the economy and create jobs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I can tell this member that there will be more jobs in his constituency as a direct result of the harmonized sales tax. There will be more jobs in every single corner of this province as a direct result of our eliminating the provincial sales tax with the adoption of the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Farnworth: The biggest thing that this government could have done for the province was to have told the truth before the last election. The former Finance Minister got it right. She said this is a tax shift from business to consumers, and consumers are mad because they know they're going to be paying a lot more. That is the truth. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The minister can quote who he likes, but I'll put my faith in leading families in this province who have sat down, done the numbers and know it's going to cost them more to take their kids to a hockey game, to buy a bike for their kids, to go on vacation with their kids, on so many things that this government won't enumerate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So will the minister just for once stand up and tell British Columbians what they already know — that this cost is going to cost them more as of May 1, let alone July 1? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. C. Hansen: We know from the great work of Jack Mintz that this adoption of a harmonized sales tax is the…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. C. Hansen: We know from the great work that Jack Mintz did in analyzing the effect of the HST on B.C. that it will create literally 113,000 net new jobs over the coming ten years. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We had the benefit of an analysis that was done by SFU economist Jon Kesselman just last week, and in there it actually points out that low-income families in British Columbia will in fact be if not better off, at least no worse off as a result of the harmonized sales tax. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Farnworth: We know from the hard work done by families in British Columbia who have done the math that the HST is going to hurt them, because we hear about it every single day. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Farnworth: The bottom line is clear. B.C. families have done the math, and they know the HST is not for them. That's why over 85 percent have said "No thanks" to this government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

My question to the minister is clear. Will he recognize that the former Finance Minister is right, that B.C. families are right, and withdraw the HST? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. C. Hansen: I can tell you what B.C. families want in northern British Columbia. They want jobs. They want job security. This delivers that. What B.C. families on Vancouver Island want and what B.C. families in the Interior want and what B.C. families in greater Vancouver want is jobs, and that is exactly what the HST delivers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Karagianis: The Child and Youth Committee is convening a poverty forum. In advance of that, the Clerk's office has been compiling a reading list for us. I have inadvertently given that to the media before the committee has had a chance to read that reading list, and for that I apologize to committee members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. P. Bell: I rise to table the 2009 annual report for the Forest Appeals Commission. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

D. Thorne: Mr. Speaker, I might be premature. I'm speaking on Bill 9, on the motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. de Jong: I want the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville to pay attention. Get ready to go. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education — and, in this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 9. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. McIntyre: Mr. Speaker, I had reserved my right to continue my remarks from before lunch, and I would actually like to start where I left off. It did appear that I struck a nerve with opposition members, a big nerve as it appeared. Basically, I was exposing them and calling out the NDP for their defence of the PST, which has been recognized as antiquated. It's an embedded tax. It's been recognized as the single biggest impediment to economic growth and increased productivity in this province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The NDP has not been telling the whole story to the public. They've clearly not been telling the whole story, because they're not ever talking about: "Why PST?" Nobody is saying why they're defending PST. We haven't heard a word about their defence, nothing at all. They've never said why B.C. should remain, along with P.E.I., Saskatchewan and Manitoba, on an embedded, cascading tax. It's actually been a detriment to economic growth. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville herself, while she was heckling this morning, revealed a lack of understanding of the basic economic fundamentals. She didn't understand that a competitive tax regime, oh my gosh, equals investment and equals jobs — jobs, just as our Finance Minister was talking about in question period today. British Columbians want jobs. HST is a big step for that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The B.C. Liberals have chosen to stimulate the economy to help us get out of this great recession with a range of tax breaks all the way from businesses down to individuals. We are choosing to tax at the point of consumption. Economists recognize that is a healthier, better way. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The NDP is just continuing to show political opportunism at its best. They're trying to confuse the public. They're trying to spread misinformation. Even their questions in question period today showed a fundamental lack of understanding about the transition period. They acted like it was a big surprise that all of a sudden — woo! — it's May 1. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Well, read the bill. Do your homework. Read the research, and you'll understand what that's about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We also had the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake early this morning in, I thought, a very interesting twist of events. She was defending the interests of the wealthier end of the scale, new-home buyers. She was also dismissing the works of renowned and respected economists — she who purports to be an expert in social policy and in public policy, dismissing the works of these economists. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

She called the work of Dr. Jack Mintz of the University of Calgary "shoddy." Shoddy — that's what the NDP calls work of economists. Jon Kesselman, who is the chair at SFU in public policy, in her home community of Burnaby…. I wonder what her SFU students think about Jon Kesselman. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Interestingly, we also have a quote from the member for Cowichan Valley during his discussion. He says: "The reality is, in listening to the Liberal speeches, that we hear the same old tired and failed trickle-down economics. It's the same kind of philosophy that has failed North American business. We've had a crash…." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"We've had a crash because people believed in all of these economists and all these modern-day witch doctors that somehow if you just give away enough money to the big corporations, they're going to take care of us." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Well, that is the level of public discourse that the NDP would like us to engage in by deferring this bill. They want to defer it. They don't want to bring it in. That's the kind of healthy public discourse, where people will get to know and understand what this tax policy is about, when they call economists "witch doctors." Well, that's really healthy and really respectful to the debate that we're trying to have here. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

If that's what the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake wanted when she was trying to encourage further discussion, then I think the public would be shocked if they understood the level of understanding of the opposition here and what we're actually trying to do. The NDP, day after day, reveals a fundamental lack of respect and understanding of tax policy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. McIntyre: We have been telling. We ran on a campaign to make tough economic decisions for tough economic times, and that's exactly what we're doing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Let me continue. We have the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville and the other NDP members wanting to refer Bill 9 to the Finance Committee, which they sat on, where they already heard from the public, who wanted to rid the province of PST. That was the recommendation. It's been the recommendation for several series of Finance hearings in the fall, because they heard from the public, which wanted to get rid of an embedded, cascading, antiquated tax. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Even the Finance Committee member from Juan de Fuca was very excited by the prospect of harmonization because it would support his spouse's small business to avoid the waste of time and effort of dealing with two bureaucracies. He was quoted in Hansard as being supportive of it. But now political opportunism raises its ugly head, and we hear from the other side of the House that all of a sudden it's not such a good thing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I just think that, clearly, this NDP amendment to defer this at second reading is nothing but a delay tactic. They are playing out the clock so clearly in their bid, in effect, to support the PST — right? They want to talk about it, yet they are not talking about why we should have PST. I have not heard one member of the opposition, I don't think, in question period or in their speeches telling British Columbians why we should retain the PST. I am not hearing anything about that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

They are not telling British Columbians the whole story, because by not supporting Bill 9 and by wanting to defer it and send it back, they're not saying that that means we're going to retain PST. They're not. They're not telling people, and they're not giving anybody a cogent reason why we should have PST. Instead, they're out there fomenting anger, causing confusion, misinformation and making it more difficult for the public to understand what is a difficult and complex tax issue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, with the few minutes remaining left to me, I'd like to talk a little bit about our income tax policies, as I started to earlier today, because we have spent a lot of time making sure that British Columbians have more money in their pockets. Now that we've been in office for nearly a decade, the changes are staggering. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Those who made about $20,000 — sort of on the lower end of the scale — back in 2001 when we took office, are now saving nearly a thousand dollars in income taxes. That is a lot at that scale. You take somebody at the $60,000 level, and they're now saving $2,400 on their income taxes. When you get up even higher to $100,000, they're saving over $5,600 in income taxes — money that they can choose to use on things that they may in fact have to pay a sales tax on, but they get the choice because we have decided to leave money in people's pockets. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We've made very, very significant progress on that front. That gets lost in this debate. You don't hear the NDP ever telling people that in fact, they've got a lot more money in their pocket to buy the very things out there. No, we don't hear about that. I think it's just very clear that people today are a lot better off than they are under the NDP's tax-and-spend policies. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The public is asking: why HST? Why now? Although the idea of this harmonized sales tax has been around for years and, as I've said, has even been supported by the all-party Finance Committee, it's only this past year that the federal government finally made it attractive and flexible. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As I pointed out this morning, we now had the flexibility after the election. We learned that we could bring it in at 12 percent, which is what our combined GST and PST is already, and we decided that this was the time. With the economy in the severe downturn, this was a much better time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

These incentives now allow B.C. to set its own tax rate. It's the lowest in Canada at 12 percent. It also allowed us to provide that series of point-of-sale rebates and other measures to offset the impact, including for those at the lower end of the income scale. And the federal government has already started to provide British Columbia with part of the $1.6 billion in transition funding. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

With Ontario introducing the HST on this July 1, it became very apparent, first of all, that it was going to be a matter of when we introduced it, not if. But it was very, very important, especially at this time of economic recovery, that we didn't want to lag Ontario. We did not want to have the investment dollars that were coming into Canada and looking around about where to go funnelled into Ontario, when of course we have such a wonderful province here and a competitive tax regime that we are trying to attract business with and create the jobs I was talking about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As of July 1 there will be no old-style PST, the type the NDP is supporting with their amendment to defer the bill to a committee. There will be no old-style PST anywhere, except for Saskatchewan, Manitoba and P.E.I. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I believe this is the right step to take for B.C.'s economy even now, but particularly in the longer term. It will encourage a competitive business climate here in the province and make our exports more competitive abroad, and it will significantly reduce administrative costs and the compliance burden on businesses and government. When you remove administrative duplications — just as the spouse of the member for Juan de Fuca has recognized in her small business — it will reduce costs for businesses, time and effort, to the tune of what we now estimate to be about $150 million annually. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We're also going to be saving $30 million in administrative costs, because the federal government will be administering the HST at no cost to our province. Immediately, that sends $30 million right to the general revenue, where we can spend on health care and education and, of course, social assistance. So there are many, many long-term benefits. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'll go back to one of the quotes from Dr. Jack Mintz, too, because in his quote — and I think this is very, very important when he talks about HST being a change for the better for this province — he says: "Without a doubt, British Columbia's sales tax harmonization will be a game changer" — that's a game changer — "promoting capital investment in the province and providing an opportunity for the private sector to create jobs and pay higher wages to workers." It increases and enhances productivity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I was at a conference, the 2020 Outlook conference, last Friday with our former Finance Minister, Carole Taylor, and Jock Finlayson from the B.C. Business Council, hosting hundreds of people who are involved in the business community. They talked, unfortunately, about Canada lagging in productivity — and also B.C. in particular. It was said loud and clear on the panel that HST is a huge step to increasing that productivity, and that's why we're doing this. It is for the benefit of British Columbians and for job creation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As I've said, this embedded PST has been recognized by all sorts of experts as the biggest single impediment to economic growth and productivity in this province. It just shows that the NDP's opposition to this, and this amendment to try and defer it and not pass this bill in this session, is just going to further delay a return to economic prosperity in this province. They are actually working against the interests of British Columbians by opposing this. I don't think the public totally understands and appreciates that, because again, they're not talking about why we should have an embedded PST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This HST is going to save millions of dollars across this province, and it will make the difference, actually, between some businesses even staying open or not in this time of economic recession. Every time one of these businesses decides to stay open, it's providing jobs and incomes for British Columbia families. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It's been said before, as I said in my earlier comments to Bill 9, that there are dozens of associations representing hundreds and thousands of British Columbians who are all supporting this tax measure and no doubt asking us not to defer, the way the NDP is. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

D. Thorne: It's my pleasure today to stand in this House to support the motion to refer Bill 9 to committee for further consideration. I feel that this motion was not only timely, but it was the right thing to do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

However, my side of the House, the official opposition, has made that point now clearly, articulately, many times without any support from the government, from the other side of the House. Now in the dying hours of democratic debate here in this Legislature, I feel that I'm one of the fortunate people to be able to get up and say a few more words about Bill 9 and about this whole issue before debate ends this afternoon. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Before I move on, I have to say, as I think my House Leader said yesterday, that I think it's outrageous that a democratic debate is being stifled, being stopped this afternoon and that this bill, Bill 9, is going to be rammed through by this government in the next several days in the face of overwhelming, I think — anecdotal, no doubt, but overwhelming — opposition by the people of British Columbia to this bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Last night we saw a motion passed in this House. I'm just going to read a little bit of it: "…all proceedings relating to the second reading of Bill (No. 9) intituled Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act shall be completed and disposed of on or before April 27th, 2010 at 6 p.m. At 5:45 p.m. on the date mentioned, the Speaker shall forthwith put all necessary questions for the completion of second reading stage of the said bill without amendment or debate." Outrageous — in the face of the kind of opposition that we are seeing in every town and city across this province of every size. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The government can ignore this. They can boo the official opposition. They can ignore us, but they should not ignore the people of British Columbia, the people who vote in this province. It's outrageous. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Nevertheless, unfortunately this side of the House does not have as many votes, and we could do nothing about the outrageous behaviour of our government. It's a democratically voted government that sits on the other side of the House — perhaps, as many have said, a government that misled the voters in the last election. Perhaps had they brought forward — I have to be careful how I phrase this — more information to the voters, it might be a different story. But that didn't happen. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The rest is history, and tonight at 5:45 we will be finished with the democratic debate. We'll move into, I'm assuming, third reading where we'll look clause by clause at this bill, and I would think some other relevant points will be raised by the official opposition. But wide-ranging debate like we've been having for the past few weeks will be over, and the people of British Columbia — not the official opposition — will be stifled once again in this place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now that I've made my feelings just a little bit clear on that point, I'm going to move on to some more general comments about the HST and what I'm hearing from my constituents. I like to tell the people in this House, the people that are listening on television and my own constituents who are interested in my feelings and what other constituents are saying…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Madam Speaker, I'd like to just tell you that over the weekend one of my very youngest constituents asked me what the HST stands for, commenting that it sounds like the sound a snake might make. Now, I'm not going to go there. I know the rules in this House, and I'm not going to make those HST sounds. But I think we can all do it and imagine, and I do think my young friend brought up an interesting point. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We know that the harmonized sales tax is masquerading in this House as the Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act, but perhaps it would be more accurate to call it by some other names. Let's see. How about the "horribly stupid" tax? The "height of sneaky" tax? There is no shortage of "h" words that describe this tax. "Heinous," "ham-handed," "half-baked," "hellish" and even "hanky-panky" seem appropriate. Moving on to "s" words, we have another selection. How about "sabotage," "scandalous," "scallawag," "sellout" and "shabby"? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: Member, are you speaking to the amendment? If not, please do so. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

D. Thorne: Yes, I am. I'm speaking to the motion to refer to committee for further debate. Mix and match with "h" words. Add a "t" word or two — how about "tacky" or "tarnished" to start with — and you have an accurate definition of the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Who opposes the HST? Pretty much everyone, I'm finding. The latest group to come out in opposition is the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, who say it is a regressive tax that will greatly increase the financial burden of First Nation families who are living in poverty, including the working poor. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The chiefs said in a letter to all MLAs, both sides of the House, that recent research highlights that income inequality between aboriginal peoples and the rest of Canadians is stubbornly high. In 2006 the median income for aboriginal peoples was $18,961 — 30 percent lower than the $27,097 median income for the rest of Canadians. The majority of First Nation families in B.C. live off reserve and are subject to full taxation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Clearly, the proposed HST is of great importance to B.C. First Nations, who already experience a highly disproportionate level of poverty. The chiefs say they have repeatedly contacted both the federal and provincial Ministers of Finance to address impacts and lack of any substantial consultation process of the proposed HST on First Nation families and communities. To their great frustration, neither level of government has agreed to meet or speak with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs or any other First Nations group, despite the pressing and serious nature of this issue and the government's legal duty to consult. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The chiefs point out that Canada has recently announced its support for the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples and that Canada must be called upon to uphold the true spirit and intent of this declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, which highlights the need to obtain free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples when issues such as the HST affect their rights. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Specifically, article 19 affirms that: "States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As one would assume, the HST is really going to affect them. The letter ends with the plea to all MLAs to please vote against the proposed HST because the content and implementation process of this proposed tax will not improve the economic reality for many of the First Nation families in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Let's look at some of the other groups in B.C. that are opposed to the HST. The Restaurant and Foodservices Association of B.C. and of Canada calls the HST "a 7 percent meal tax." They say that it will cost the industry $750 million each year in lost sales, or nearly $50,000 per restaurant in British Columbia. This translates into jobs, in spite of what the government has been saying on the other side of the House, as about 7 percent of B.C.'s workforce works in the food industry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We also have the Council of Tourism Associations of B.C., who say that the HST will cost up to 10,000 tourism-related jobs. It will also lower tourism industry revenue by up to $545 million per year and reduce government tax revenues for all three levels of government by up to $157 million. Many people have said that those are very, very conservative estimates, which is very frightening. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Then we have the Federation of Community Social Services of B.C., a group that I know well, having been a full-time worker in community social service agencies prior to my becoming a city councillor in 1996 in Coquitlam. This group says that the HST will cost non-profit social service agencies, even though they have been offered a rebate level of 57 percent. If it is not increased to at least 75 percent, the tax will not be fiscally neutral. Along with the other cuts that have come recently in the last year or so to this sector from this government, it could be the death knell for many, many smaller community social service agencies. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We all know that they do the work of government. They do it on a shoestring, and they do it very, very well. This is really going to be heartbreaking for communities across this province if they are so affected. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Yesterday we had a visitation, both sides of the House, by the B.C. Real Estate Association, which says that the HST will increase the cost of new homes and all professional services such as appraisals, inspections and realtor commissions. We were all given the same information, so I'm assuming I'm speaking to the initiated here, that everybody knows the facts about how this HST is going to affect the new-home sector. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There have been many, many stories in the home sections of our daily newspapers over the last few months about developers who are shelving huge construction projects that they were intending to start this year or early next year. They are putting them on the shelf because they are afraid that they're going to be stuck with inventory that may sit there for a long, long time, and heaven only knows what will happen to it in the end. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

They're not going to take the chance. They're not going to build the houses. They're not going to build the subdivisions. They're going to, well, do other things. I don't know what they're going to do because they don't talk about that, but they're not going to be building houses. They're not going to be paying for permits. Moneys will be down municipally from lower permit dollars, as will PST money to the government. So all levels of government, once again, will suffer because of the new homes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

If somebody has the opportunity to buy a house, I would think that it's not rocket science to assume that if they can buy a used house, an older house, they will do so and save the HST dollars, which might put many, many first-time buyers — young families and seniors — over the top in terms of their ability to get a mortgage or get financing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We're looking at 12 percent as opposed to 5 percent, a 7 percent increase, with rebates only up to $525,000, which — somebody said earlier in the House — might affect somebody who is buying a condominium in British Columbia. They might not suffer the consequences, but anybody buying a single-family new home, for instance, in Coquitlam in the Burke Mountain area…. When it's built out, it will be probably bigger than the city of Port Moody, probably the first- or second-largest housing development in the history British Columbia. The only one I can think of that even compares in size would be British Properties. You're going to see huge changes in Burke Mountain. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Westbuild and other big developers like that, which I worked with for years when I was on city council, are terrified of what's going to happen because of the HST. It's really going to affect everybody in the province when it filters down. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Then we have the Rental Owners and Managers Association of B.C., which says that the HST will increase costs by up to 3 percent or $300 per rental per year in operating rental buildings. We all know who's ultimately going to pay that cost. It'll be the tenants, who can little afford it and who already suffer from a lack of affordable rental housing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

If we think about subsidized housing for the working poor or even for the middle class, we have thousands and thousands of families waiting for subsidized housing on the waiting list at B.C. Housing, which we all know and which I know very well from sitting on the board of directors at the GVRD, now known as Metro Vancouver. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We have municipal governments who are also very, very nervous about the HST, because everything from recreation programs to cemeteries will increase in cost. Municipalities are working hard to keep their budgets under control and avoid extreme tax hikes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Shortly after I made my first comments on the HST in this House, which was at the very beginning of the debate, I've actually had many e-mails, more than I would have expected, on the speech. I had one from a woman called Sandra who is in the rental property business. I guess she would know better than a lot of us who are not in that business. She says: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"Thank you. Great speech. I'm one of your quoted constituents, and I hope that what I had to say made a difference. Also, where this is going will make a huge difference to the rental property business, of which I am one.

"I have been watching the evening news over the past few nights, and rental property owners are speaking out about what this new HST is going to cost all of us for property improvements, etc. They are now adding to the incidence of slum landlords and poor quality rental properties, perhaps even dangerous rental properties, because owners will not be able to afford the improvements. They will put them off or do them in the long range."

I imagine she means in the future. So they won't do them this year or next year. They'll do them the year after that, making for dangerous rental accommodation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That's from Sandra, who actually owns a property that she rents out, and she's very, very worried. Those are some of the groups. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I wanted to go over some of the changes, some of the costs that consumers will be taxed each year because of the 12 percent HST. Before I read those out, I wanted to say that on the government website it's very interesting that there's a huge list of all the things that won't have the HST, like groceries, for instance — real groceries, not processed foods, right? There are four items that are stated as having the HST applied: cars, clothing, furniture and, of all things, haircuts. Those are the four examples that are given for the products and services that will see the HST added to their cost when they're sold. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I would like to suggest that it might be a good idea to have as fulsome a list of items that will be subject to the HST as the opposite. I just think it would be very helpful to the general public, who are trying very hard to figure their budgets out for the next year. Most of them, a lot of them, unlike the members of this House, who are very well paid, have to make up a budget for the next year, unlike probably most of us. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

According to the documents that I have sought out, these are the kinds of things that consumers will be taxed on that I would like to see on the website, clearly stated for the general public, and this would be a generalized figure for the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

At least $55 million more will be paid by the consumer for school supplies, $82 million more for basic telephone and cable service, some portion of $63 million more for newspapers and magazines, $8 million more for bicycles, $5 million more for hybrid electric passenger vehicles, $23 million more for energy-efficient appliances and building materials, $11 million more for conventional fuel-efficient vehicles and some portion of $991 million for food. While basic groceries will still be exempt, restaurant meals and prepared foods, as I mentioned earlier — like candy, coffee and deli food — will not be exempt. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The bottom line for individuals and families across this province is that they will pay more. Costs will go up, but wages will remain the same. We're not even going to talk about jobs that might be lost, for instance, in the restaurant business. The HST does indeed transfer $1.9 billion in taxes paid now by big business onto the backs of consumers and ordinary working people. I think of my own children when I say that phrase. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Throughout B.C. we are all hearing from residents who are unhappy with this tax grab, both sides of the House. Petitions are brought in by members on both sides of the House almost daily, signed by hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of people that are unhappy with the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The member across the way laughs. I'm glad she thinks it's funny. My children don't think it's very funny, because they can't afford 12 percent added onto anything. They can hardly afford groceries as it is. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It's a good thing I'll die probably in the next few years and leave them some money, because with the HST added onto their barely hardscrabble life as it is, they're going to need it. They're going to need me to leave them some money, if there's anything left after I pay the harmonized sales tax on my funeral costs. Of course, I'm being facetious now, because we all know we're well paid in this chamber. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm going to continue on until you stop me, Madam Speaker. I'm going to keep reading all of the quotes in the newspaper articles and all of the things that the general public are saying — people in my riding, people all across British Columbia. You know, I don't want to give my opinion. Who cares what I think? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

D. Thorne: The member for Juan de Fuca cares what I think, but most people have never cared what I think. The member for Nanaimo cares what I think. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know, it's the single mothers and the handicapped people and the people across B.C. that are so upset. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The member for Juan de Fuca is basically telling me to snap it up. Other people want to give their opinion also, which probably none of us really care about. But let's hear from some of the people in British Columbia. We do care about them because they vote for us. We have jobs because of these people, or we don't have jobs because of these people. So I think they're important. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This is from Art Richards from 100 Mile House, who says — this is somebody who makes up a budget, I'll bet you: "According to my monthly bills for the last 12 months, my electricity, phone and TV will cost me over $175 more under the HST. If not for heating as much as possible with wood" — something none of us in the city are allowed to do anymore, I might add — "my electric heat would drive that number well over $200." That's pretty stunning when you think about it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I have a couple of letters that I just in the last couple of days cut out of the Vancouver Sun. These are people from West Vancouver and North Vancouver who have very strong feelings about the HST. Olwen Harris from North Vancouver says: "I am one of the 82 percent" of British Columbians who apparently don't understand the HST. "This is what the HST will mean to me. I will be paying about $80 a month more in tax for fixed expenses and discretionary spending combined, for an approximate total of $960 per annum. This amount is what economist Jon Kesselman calls slightly higher living costs." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I guess Olwen Harris from North Vancouver feels it's a little more than a slight cost. "Businesses will save 'an unnecessary $150 million of tax compliance costs every year.' As well, the 'embedded taxes will disappear through rebates to businesses for the taxes they pay on their inputs.' I now know that my $960 will be going toward covering what businesses will be released from." It sounds to me like Olwen Harris understands very well what the HST means to the people of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Mr. Anand from West Vancouver says: "I am amazed that our financial pundits are again pontificating on the virtues of the HST. Most of these so-called experts were at the helm of our world economy when it crashed and burned, so why should we believe their nonsense economic theories now?" I like that one. "Further…." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

D. Thorne: And yes, my friend back here likes it as well. It's something we actually haven't talked about much in this House, the day that the world economy kind of crashed and burned, and the economists and all the people who said: "Lower taxes, and everyone will survive. Do this; do that. All the big companies will put all the money back into providing jobs, and everything will be wonderful if we lower taxes." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Well, we certainly know that didn't work in British Columbia in the last eight or nine years. We've lowered taxes, and have the companies reinvested the money in B.C.? Have we seen the unemployment rate climb in British Columbia? If you ask me, the only things that have grown in British Columbia are the unemployment lines and the food bank lines. Let's not forget the food bank lines. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Madam Speaker, I digress. Let's go back to hearing what people in B.C. think of the HST, before you shut me off. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: As long as you are speaking to the amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

D. Thorne: I am speaking to the amendment, because I believe in democracy. I believe that we should be allowed a continued debate. I believe that this issue should have been sent to a committee to travel across British Columbia and hear from these people in person. Then I wouldn't have to be standing up here bending everybody's ear all the time reading it out. We would have heard it firsthand from the people in B.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

School district secretary-treasurer Mark Lee said this in the newspaper in Abbotsford: "Costs are definitely going to go up…we've got different stories about what would be subject to the tax. It's not like our budgets will go up to allow for these costs. We have to absorb it through existing…grants, and to the best of my knowledge, these will remain flat in the next couple of years." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Being one of two Education critics right now in this House, I've learned a little bit about education and grants and funding and money over the past few months. I would say that Mr. Mark Lee, secretary-treasurer in Abbotsford, is a very optimistic man. He says that grants will remain flat. I personally think grants have gone down, and districts are in much more distress now than they were even a few months ago. I think Mr. Mark Lee is going to be sorry he wasn't more definitive when he did his interview with the Abbotsford Times. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Dr. Braune in 100 Mile House says in the Free Press up there that he's concerned about seniors because they often have very fixed incomes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The Abbotsford Minor Hockey Association president, Rick Stewart, also said in the newspaper: "We've got some people who are going to be able to cut the cheque and say, 'Here you go. Carry on.' But how many kids is this HST going to push out of our minor hockey association? It's going to affect some families to the point where they will no longer be able to afford hockey." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Alan MacKinnon of Nanaimo — I'm just picking these out at random now — says that the black tax is the HST, and if it's imposed, years of pillaging the public's purse will be happening to profit a few. As George Bernard Shaw said: "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." Interesting. Something worth thinking about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Then there's Trevor Ritchie of Burnaby, who says that the HST means he'll have to become more reliant on private vehicles since even the price of bicycles will increase because of the HST. "Food costs will increase as the HST affects the price of my groceries, meaning that I will be forced to eat less healthy foods. Both of these changes will have a direct negative impact on my physical health, possibly meaning that I will have to use more health care resources and cost the government even more money." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Fred Ludwig of Burnaby says:"With the HST…7 percent added to restaurant meals, haircuts and so on, will further hamper seniors and the disabled from experiencing the best place on earth." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"Of course the HST will benefit the large corporations," said June Ross to the Nanaimo News Bulletin. "Can someone tell me how it will benefit retired senior citizens?" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm being given the windup here, Madam Speaker, so I'm just going to close by saying that I hope the government members can sleep well at night. Some 95 percent of people, and in my riding it's higher — it's 98 percent in my riding; I would bet on that — do not want the HST. Thank you for letting me share the opinions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

R. Cantelon: Let me start by saying I'm speaking to the amendment and wish to rush it forward. But something I'm sure all members of this House do not wish to rush forward is the demise of the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In her remarks she said that she may have to hurry to her final resting place in order that her children may benefit from the effects of her estate because of the imposition of the HST. Certainly, Madam Speaker, that is something both sides of this House fervently hope will not be the case. We wish her long, good health and her presence here in the House for many years to come. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As acrimonious as these debates may from time to time become — interesting and perhaps acrimonious — certainly that is not an effect we wish to have on anybody in this chamber. That is for certain. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This has been a very good and interesting exercise in democracy. I think — in fact, I'm pretty certain — that virtually everything that can be said has been said by most members of this House. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I stand here, as this debate winds down towards the late afternoon, at the risk of repeating not just myself but repeating some other comments that have been made in the chamber. Not risk, I dare say, but certainty that some of the comments I make will be repetitious to some ears. Therefore, I don't intend to take up the full slate of my time. I give way during these last, brief few hours to other members who wish to comment on this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So the opposition wishes to delay this motion, delay this Bill 9 — the abolition, actually, of PST. They wish us to hold off and delay the entire process. Yet faced with the inevitability at this point of the fact that the federal government will indeed be marching forward — as the opposition well knows, as both sides of the House well know — with the new harmonized HST, basically an expanded GST, to incorporate and scoop all the revenue that would have been raised for us on the PST…. So to delay would only cause grief and more unnecessary burden of increased taxation, perhaps, on the taxpayers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, as this came forward…. I think it's been an interesting exercise in democracy. I think the opinions have been expressed quite fully and freely by members on both sides of this House, some passionately and some relying on facts — as they see it, at least. I think it's been a very good exercise. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As we began this debate, I know that the member from Coquitlam, the leader opposite on the other side of the bench, would certainly have been happy to see the HST debate generally begin because there were no other issues. Anybody who stood here and witnessed question period recognized that the members opposite were bereft of significant criticisms of the members on the government side of the benches. They were certainly straining credulity to press for specific issues to challenge the ministers on this side of the House. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The ministers are very capable. I don't only credit them with their competence. Indeed, it is a reflection of a government that has been and continues to be well run. And that's exactly what we ran on. That was our platform, and we stayed by that platform. Our platform was to continue good fiscal responsibility, to continue an economy and a climate that encourages job creation and prosperity for all British Columbians. That's what we're about on this side of the House, and that's what we intend to pursue — those goals. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

On the opposite side, we looked to see what the opposition's policies and platforms are, and the answer came. There are none. So it was with great joy…. I know that the House Leader opposite was given during these debates to Shakespearean allusions, to Shakespearean quotes. I thought that was quite entertaining and quite interesting, his approach, and I thought that it lifted the debate somewhat. At least it aspired to a higher standard of language than we're usually accustomed to. I was waiting for a few rhyming couplets, but they never came forward. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

He mentioned a few plays, but I would think that in approaching the debate and preparing his side for question period every day, it would have been more like a line from what I think is one of my favourite lines of Shakespeare, "Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow creeps in this petty pace from day to day," as he tries to cheer his side to ask piercing questions of this side. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It was, indeed, an onerous task for the member opposite. I know he smiled and delightfully stood up to use these Shakespearean allusions or whatever to try and stimulate and enliven debate. Then, just as he was given this mighty club on which to thrash us, to beat us on the head with, another hand grasped that deadly club. Another hand was on that club. It was like a hand from an old horror movie, because that hand belonged to, of course, none other than Mr. Vander Zalm. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So now they struggled with the club. Who was going to be the victim? Certainly, right now, in the realm of the public mind, it's not certain who it's going to be. Who is going to be bashed with it? At this point I would say that the club has been wrested from the opposition's hands — or maybe not. We'll see. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In any case, I think it's certainly worthy of an extension of the drama that the Opposition House Leader alluded to — that we're seeing a bigger drama unfold outside this chamber than just to do with HST. It's all about control and whose agenda will prevail, and I would say it's very, very much in the air. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Much has been said, and I perhaps will repeat it. I know there are concerns, and there have been concerns expressed on the side opposite about those at lower incomes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I see the member has entered the chamber. I'm sorry you missed my speech wherein I praised your Shakespearean knowledge and gave you some more Shakespearean thoughts to think about as you enter the chamber and we close this debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

R. Cantelon: Well, I think King Lear would have been appropriate, for him to have said that as well. I think the member opposite makes another good potential…. Perhaps Richard III, as he approached this session, knowing that he had little ammunition with which to use. "Now is the winter of our discontent" might have been an appropriate phrase to express as he approached his caucus meetings. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

R. Cantelon: Well, we'll see which side gets beaten with the mighty club. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

My specific point is towards people who are in the lower income and, I would say, modest income in our society. It's been suggested that they're going to be left hurt — and hurt worse, perhaps — by the imposition, by the introduction of the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Again, I would like to comment that, actually, we're removing the PST and simplifying the collection and the procedures, certainly, widely for businesses. The administration is going to be significantly simpler for them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Of course, people with the moderate incomes…. I'll suggest a senior couple, perhaps — and I'm taking it from our budget book — with a joint income of $30,000 will receive the B.C. HST credit. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The B.C. HST credit begins for a single person at an income level of $20,000, and they would receive a $230 tax credit and an additional tax credit for each child and/or spouse. So a couple at $25,000 would then begin to receive it, as well, and at $30,000, though it declines, would still receive $130 each, which is a total of a $260 tax credit that they would receive annually. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

If you do the math…. I know it may be a challenge. I'll try to do this slowly. It may be a challenge for some members on the opposite side. I'll try to work this through. So $230, basically, if you divide by the current PST tax, dealing with just the incremental portion of it, would buy you a considerable amount of goods and services not covered — approximately $3,700 worth of things that are not taxed currently, things like a golf club membership, things like a haircut. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I would think to say that $3,700 — which is more than 10 percent, about 12 percent of the income of somebody at a $30,000 level — is certainly an ample cushion for people at that income level to be covered against any possible increase that HST might have for them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think, again, if you look at all income levels, if you can deal with, for example, a family of four at a $30,000 income, they'll of course receive virtually the full benefit of $762 annually and would be money ahead, frankly, in terms of their disposable income to deal with these pressures. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think we've certainly been consistently and continually conscious of the burden that moderate income families have. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville — I know a very famous town as well, noted for its French Canadian composition, as is the city of Nanaimo, may I add — mentioned about restaurants. Certainly, I had a coffee the other day with one of the more notable restaurateurs in Nanaimo. We go back — I hate to say it — a long way, to the '80s. We remember those days when no one was going to restaurants, and the main reason was there was no economy. That's in sharp contrast to what we have today, where people can afford to go out and the restaurant business is thriving. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

However, the members opposite think that they should, in consideration of their current prosperity, increase the wages of all the staff. If you think that the HST might restrict the amount of tips being given to waitresses…. If they think the wages are going up considerably, they might well say: "Well, they're being paid enough. There's no need for me to compensate them." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Our entire approach, though, philosophically and what this is all about…. I think this is a very essential part of how we approach this, and this is why we need to move forward with it as urgently as we can. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We're in the business of creating wealth. We're in the business of creating the platform on which businesses can build, which entrepreneurs can build businesses, create businesses, create employment, create opportunity and absolutely boost the economy by opening up the opportunity for people — young people, particularly. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As we know, it has been the case that the forest industry has not done particularly well lately. The members opposite, of course, attribute it to management, ignoring the fact that housing starts in the United States, our primary market for dimensional lumber, have absolutely dropped virtually off a cliff. They would rather attribute it to our management, which I think even a reasonable observer of the situation would say is quite patently incorrect and false. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Our approach has been to put more money in the hands of people. Certainly, people moving to my area, to places like Qualicum Beach, which is a popular retirement area…. It's not uncommon for someone to come with a pension income of $70,000 from a place like Saskatchewan, where they would be paying $7,274 in provincial income tax to the province of Saskatchewan. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

They're quite delighted when they complete their tax returns here and find that instead of paying over $7,000, they're paying less than $4,000 — $3,800 to be exact. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We have, in fact, the lowest tax regime in Canada. That's one of the things we plan to do — put the disposable income in the hands of people so that they can make the decision. This has been a conscious direction and philosophy of this government since 1980. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Again, to use that same income figure…. I was using this relative number while I was having an interview with the representatives of the B.C. Teachers Federation, and I pointed out that at that same level in 2001, a $70,000 wage earner would be paying $7,000 in provincial tax. That has now been reduced to $3,800, a 45 percent reduction and nearly a $3,200 tax reduction. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So our philosophy on a personal level is to put money into the hands of people and allow them to make the decisions rather than taking it off the top as they earn it. We apply that, as well, to corporations big and small, and we continue to do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We're all about creating wealth, creating opportunity, and that's exactly what this bill is about. As we continue to revive the forest industry as it finds new markets in China, which inevitably we must do, we are going to lift some of the burden and enable them to be more competitive with companies like the Scandinavian companies that basically ate our lunch in the Japanese market, by removing the tax on tax on tax. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

If you follow the value chain up the way through the loggers, through the forest mill and right into the man who's buying the truck to go to the log site, we remove the provincial sales tax from all of those and remove the burden of tax and make them extremely more competitive. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Of course, when you go tax on tax on tax, the second iteration is 14 percent. The third iteration is 22 percent. The fourth iteration, as you layer tax on tax on tax that's embedded, goes as high as 30 percent. That's caused us to lack competitiveness in these outside markets, because generally speaking, we still are and remain price-takers to a large extent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The value of our wonderful woods is valued, but it has by and large become a competitive commodity-type market. So this will enable our industry to revive. There certainly is hope. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Vancouver Island continues to be a great green island, continues to be a great place, probably the best place in the world to grow high-quality wood fibre. We're diversifying those products. This will enable the diversification and manufacturing of a wider range of products to be facilitated. It will encourage new investment in machinery, new investment in plants. Certainly, we need new investment in sawmills and new plants. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This will encourage all of that. It will encourage the entrepreneurship that made British Columbia strong. I'm certainly confident that this is the right thing. We ran on creating jobs. This was a tough decision. We were elected to make the tough decisions, and we did. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

With that, I would urge that we delay no further — in fact, I will end my comments right now so I won't personally delay this further — and move past the amendment and on to the main motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to be on my feet again speaking to, in this instance, the amendment to Bill 9, the convoluted-titled bill that will enable the harmonized sales tax here in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Before I start, I want to just acknowledge for those at home who weren't able to read the daily press today…. I'd like to give a little bit of context, if I might, to why I believe this amendment, this reasoned amendment from the member for Port Coquitlam, if I'm not mistaken — always reasonable, the member for Port Coquitlam…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I want to set the context, for people watching at home and for people in the gallery who didn't have an opportunity to review the headlines today, for just what the people of B.C., our constituents, are seeing as they wake up to have their morning coffee and healthy bowl of fruit before they run their 10K and hop on their bicycles and commute to their places of work. At least, that's what we do here on southern Vancouver Island. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: I don't know what happens at White Rock. I'm sure I might hear about it later on. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

If we picked up the Vancouver Sun today…. I'm sorry. Let me start with the Vancouver Province. One of the headlines in the Vancouver Province today: "Liberals Get Set to Cut off Debate on HST." If you picked up the Province, if you're a regular reader of that august journal, you're faced in the morning with the prospect of an end, a cessation of debate over a tax that was not known to voters prior to the election. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In fact, it wasn't until after the election that we learned about the plan of the Minister of Finance and the member for Vancouver–Point Grey to bring forward this consumption tax. So that's what you see in the Province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

If you picked up the Globe and Mail, often called Canada's national newspaper by those people who live in Toronto, the headline was "Former Finance Minister in Campbell Cabinet Joins Outcry Against HST." In the Times Colonist, "HST Creates Anxious Moments," and of course, in the Vancouver Sun: "Carole Taylor Won't Join Former Colleagues Drinking Hemlock from the HST Punch Bowl." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It's that headline that I'd like to pause and reflect on for a moment, because I certainly don't want to…. I know the former speaker from the Nanaimo region wished good health to all of us in this place, and I wish good health to members on the other side as well. So I want to urge them to resist the hemlock, just as their former colleague Carole Taylor did. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Don't drink the juice, Members. Leave it on the table. What they're promising you may not come to pass. Good things may not flow from that juice that's being provided by the Minister of Finance and the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

With respect to Carole Taylor's comments, I know they were read into the record yesterday, but I feel it's incumbent upon me to read them again, particularly for the Forests Minister. The former Finance Minister was speaking on national television. She was asked: "What's going on in British Columbia?" Again, most British Columbians — those in the gallery, those watching at home — have probably been seized with the debate over the harmonized sales tax, but Ms. Taylor was asked to educate and advise people in the other parts of Canada, mostly central Canada, on just what was going on. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

She said the following: "One of the reasons, of course, that nobody likes new taxes…. This particular tax takes the tax off businesses. It takes $1.8 billion off businesses and puts it on consumers." That's the end of the first quote. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So here we are. We heard the Minister of Finance today go on at some length about how good we were all going to feel after we paid a little bit more and businesses, mostly large — the mining sector, the forest sector, other resource extraction or resource-dependent industries — had PST removed from their activities and had that placed upon the backs of consumers. Somehow there would be peace in our time, and all people would be grateful and thankful for the minister's benevolence. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I go back to the hemlock in the punch bowl. I don't believe that's what I'm hearing in my constituency. I know it's not what other members on this side of the House are hearing. If the members on the government side spent some time in their ridings talking to people other than those who continue to tell them what a great job they're doing — talk to the broader audience — I think they'd find a different story altogether. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In fact, there was a poll out recently; 85 percent of British Columbians are opposed. More people believe Elvis is alive than support the HST. That's a staggering statistic. Now, of that 15 percent, 2 percent strongly support the HST. This is the largest cabinet in B.C. history, but it does not, thank goodness, make up 2 percent of the B.C. population. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We've got the members of cabinet who are obliged to drink the Kool-Aid, to take the hemlock, or they give up their corner offices. Then we've got those who want to have the corner offices further down the back bench, and then those members on the back, back bench in the far corner, who would desperately like to leave that perch and move into one of the corner suites. Well, what do you have to do to get there? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: Member, are you speaking to the amendment? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: I am speaking to the amendment, hon. Speaker. I'm going to be getting to the value of committees in one moment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Before we can do that, we have to establish first and foremost just who this 2 percent is that supports the harmonized sales tax. One of the ways we could find out who they are — beyond speculating, beyond the 49 people sitting on that side of the House — is to take this bill, this legislation, and put it to the Finance and Government Services Committee, as suggested by my colleague from Port Coquitlam. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm a former member of that committee. For three years I travelled around the province, in September, gathering information from British Columbians trying to shape and inform the deliberations of the Minister of Finance. In fact, the Minister of Finance found an opportunity to read back some of my quotations. So for no other reason than to have more of my comments on the record for them to read back to me, I would think they would support this opportunity to take this bill and put it to committee. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I want to talk about the value of committees. Quite often I think back to my time as a staff person here in this Legislature and the remarks of the former Leader of the Opposition, the now member for Vancouver–Point Grey. He talked about revitalizing the committee structure, making it more robust so that all members of the House, both sides — Liberal, New Democrat, independent — could have some positive impact on the activities of the people of British Columbia, as we are led to be expected to do by the people who sent us here. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I've droned on about this subject almost every time I take to my feet, trying to get across to the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, trying to remind him of those days when he had positions that were widely embraced — rather than only supported by 2 percent of the population, supported by a large number of British Columbians. Take pieces of public policy, put them into a bipartisan arena, and see what comes out of it. Invite the public in. Invite the informed public, invite the uninformed public to have a discussion about the policies of import to the people of B.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I can't think of a better opportunity for the government to have a mulligan. Hon. Speaker, I don't know if you're a duffer like I am, swinging a golf club now and again. I'm going to have to pay a little bit more to do that, but I'll probably continue to do it. My colleague from Swan Lake and I regularly get together and swing a stick and chase a little white ball around on finely manicured lawns. In that great game of golf, if you stick one into the bush, you can say "mulligan" and pull it out and have another swing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm offering, as my colleague from Port Coquitlam is, a mulligan to the Minister of Forests. This is an opportunity to members on the other side. Let's have a do-over. Remember back in grade 2. Do you remember back in grade 2 when we're on the playing field? Let's have a do-over. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Bob Skelly wanted a do-over, and I think we all support him on that. A little bit of self-deprecating humour for the former member of this place from Port Alberni. Let's have a do-over. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

W.A.C. Bennett, who the member from Point Grey was desperately trying to emulate just last week, was renowned for taking a second look. His mentor from Alberta, the former Premier Ralph Klein, also, when he stepped in it, would acknowledge that his foot was covered in something, and he would change his shoe and say: "Let's try this again." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

A do-over, a mulligan. This is an opportunity to take Bill 9, put it to committee, as I'm speaking to the amendment. Take this legislation, put it to committee, and let's try again. Let's start over. Let's inform the public what this bill really will do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

To assist in that regard, before the government agrees with the opposition and we move this along, I want to read from a column today by noted Victoria Times Colonist columnist Jack Knox, who I find most refreshing. I know my friend from West Vancouver–Capilano will rush to his clippings to pick up Jack Knox to read the entire submission that he made today, but it's headlined "Four Days to Beat the HST's Early Deadline." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We had some discussion today about that — that we were advised when the HST was foisted upon us without any consultation and without any reference during the election campaign, that it would be implemented, take effect, on July 1. Well, we learned over the past number of days that there is a phase-in period of two months, 60 days. Starting May 1, we're going to have to pay for any services or goods that we're going to get after that date. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Jack Knox had some interesting observations, as he always does. Those in the capital region will know him well. I don't know if there are any in the gallery that would know Jack Knox, but he is a humorist in the Mark Twain vein, and he was making reference to the fact that there's not a lot of information about exactly what impact the harmonized sales tax will have. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We are trying to advise people. I'm going to be reciting a list of services and goods that will be affected shortly. I'll try and keep the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke on his toes. But Jack, in his column today, was trying to shed some light for his readers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"If all this makes your head hurt, you're not alone. Even provincial bureaucrats familiar with B.C.'s tax laws must now learn federal rules, too. Take 'Revenue Canada Agency as a second language' classes or whatever.

"Businesses are also befuddled. 'There's not a tonne of information out there,' says chartered accountant Linda…Brougham. The so-called transition rules covering this stuff can be found on line, but they are almost impenetrable."

So we have a noted columnist trying to assist his readers, trying to break through the morass of misinformation that allegedly is coming from this side of the House but is not rebutted with a thorough and comprehensive list on a website that can be accessed by ordinary folks. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That would open up the doors to the reality of this tax, as Carole Taylor has already advised us — a well-respected member of the Vancouver business community. Apparently she goes to Toronto periodically to have events. For what purpose? Who knows. We can only speculate on that. But Carole Taylor has already advised us that it's a shift, an ideological shift from business to consumers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, that's fine. If those on that side of the House want to put their seats on the line in the defence of a waning forest sector and a fledgling mining sector in some parts of British Columbia, bring it on. Call an election. If this is such a great policy and the single most important thing we can do to revitalize the economy, let's go ask the public one more time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I would advise members to see if they can recruit Elvis to run on their campaign, because more people believe he's alive than support this tax, so a winning strategy. I don't usually give political advice. That's beyond my simple means. But you might want to recruit some candidates that haven't touched the hemlock yet. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I looked through the people who have spoken to the bill, hon. Speaker and, of course, as the Deputy Speaker, you haven't spoken to the bill. The Speaker hasn't spoken to the bill. I noted that the Government House Leader has not offered up his opinion on this matter, and I've also noted that the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, the author of the demise of his colleagues, has not yet brought forth his views on the matter. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

He may well have spoken eloquently in caucus. I can only imagine what that speech was like. I can only imagine. But I can't wait. I desperately wait for the opportunity to sit here in this place and hear from the member for Vancouver–Point Grey on why this is the single most important thing we can do for the B.C. economy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I suggest to him: take the mulligan. My colleague from Port Coquitlam often — in fact, almost always — offers useful suggestions to the government. I can't think of one more useful than bowing your head, admitting you made a mistake, calling up Stephen Harper, telling him to rescind the HST legislation, withdraw this bill, and let's start over again — the best thing they could possibly do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, I know members on this side of the House…. I see some of my colleagues still smiling at the prospect of hearing the caucus discussion about this on the other side. It's not like me to not take the opportunity to have a bit of sport with members on the other side. I'll be brief, and I know the members in the gallery are focusing on the importance of debate. I want to talk a little bit about the consent of those who are governed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In my studying of parliamentary systems…. In my worklife, in my recreational time I read about other jurisdictions, other systems, how they conduct their affairs in an evolving and ever-changing world. I think that's appropriate for us as citizens and also, most importantly, as legislators. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Without the consent of the public, it's very, very, very difficult to bring forward policy that will have any meaningful impact on the people in this province. In this instance, I cannot think, in my 25 years of observing political and public life, whether it be in Ottawa in the House of Commons, whether it be here, whether it be as an elected representative…. I have never seen an issue galvanize people so much toward hostility rather than support. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I understand the members on the other side. "We're making tough choices," and I guess if that's all you got, you pretty much have to say that — don't you? "I'm being brave. I'm being courageous, because these are tough choices." Well, they may well be tough choices. Not so much, apparently, for the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, although we may well hear about how tough this is for him in the very, very near future. But for people in our constituencies across British Columbia the words are fairly, fairly simple, and they're ringing, ringing, ringing very loudly across this province: "Rescind this tax. Rip it up. Let's start again." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I've had a glance at a spreadsheet that's making the rounds, hon. Speaker — I don't know if it's come to your attention or not — about just how successful this petition initiative under Elections B.C. has been. I don't want to dwell too much on the figures, but it's staggering. I think that's the only way you could describe it. Nine weeks to go, and it's virtually done. It's almost over. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

These recall and initiative pieces of legislation were designed in the 1990s. They were deliberately set with very high standards. The recall initiative, for example, was tried several times. I know the member from Cloverdale — I think that was his first job out of high school — was running a total recall campaign somewhere in the Lower Mainland. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: He's 47. Is he really? Who knew? It must be all the work that's been done. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Anyway, to get back to the point, these bars were set very high. There were committees, and the legislation was taken to a committee, as we are suggesting with this bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The only time I've ever seen anything come remotely close to this was a chappie from Nanaimo who was penning letters under a different name, and he would have most assuredly been recalled had he not resigned. But that was what the bill was intended to do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It was designed for those egregious situations, those situations that were beyond the pale. The situation that that individual found himself in was most assuredly that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This instance, this harmonized sales tax brought in with deception, with intent to not allow the public to understand what was going on, is another such example. So mulligan is here. Here's your opportunity. Do over. Let's send it to committee. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Why do we send it to committee, hon. Speaker, and why the Finance Committee? As I said to you earlier, I've been a member of that committee three of the five years that I've been here. Some very, very good work gets done there. I don't see at the present time any of my colleagues on the other side that have been on the committee. But relationships are established, bipartisan relationships, so that you can look at issues not from an adversarial perspective, which is the essence of our British parliamentary system, but as colleagues. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What's in the best interests of British Columbians? That, again, is what our constituents expect of us. I know that my colleagues, because we speak freely…. I don't know what happens. I can't imagine what it's like for members on the other side, certainly the member for Comox. My goodness, he must just love going home. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

When you go home, your public says to you: "What exactly are you doing down there? We don't want you to proceed in this direction. Can't you work it out?" We're 85 adults sent here, elected by constituents right across British Columbia — north, south, east, west, coastal, interior, mountainous, flat. You name it. We're here representing those geographic areas and the people that live there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What do they want from us? It's fairly simple. Act like adults. We don't see that during question period, so they tend to associate all of the work we do with the hectoring back and forth at that time. As the member for Vancouver–Point Grey so adeptly put it, as a member of the opposition, in committee real work gets done. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Representatives from both sides of the House can look at controversial issues, can put aside their political flags. They can leave them at the door, and they can meet the public — expert witnesses, ordinary citizens, stakeholders, non-governmental organizations. You name it. They have access to the Finance Committee. They bring forward their ideas. Members deliberate. They think about it. They talk about it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I know there's a member of the committee over there now. I haven't sat with him, but I'm sure, had we travelled together, we would have developed a relationship and a bond. I would have had a better understanding of his views; he, a better understanding of mine. Most importantly, we would have been able to take what we learned in committee and bring it back to this place. That's where the good work happens. That's where the good work takes place here — not during question period. Not even close. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: My friend from Langara is saying: "Really? Is that right?" Regrettably, her introduction to this place was getting beat over the head with a stick. But there are good things that happen here. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

My friend from Port Coquitlam is giving you a great opportunity. Take it. Apparently, we're going to be voting on this very soon. The Government House Leader has advised us that although the opportunity to have fulsome debate here about the substance of the legislation is going to be taken away from legislators, the opportunity still exists for members on that side of the House to recognize a golden opportunity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

A teachable moment, I think, is what we're at here. My colleague the former educator from Columbia River–Revelstoke.... If ever there was an opportunity for members on the other side — my friend from West Vancouver–Capilano, a lifetime learner. Take this opportunity. Seize it. Seize it, Member, and join with the opposition to support moving this bill to committee. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I have a couple of other points. I really didn't spend enough time on Carole Taylor's comments — did I? If I could just remind members, those were the good old days. Those were the good old days when the treasury was flush and resource revenues were coming in, in very large volumes. We were able to meet everyone's needs and, of course, make statements and commitments about election promises prior to the election that, sadly, didn't come to pass. Nonetheless, these were the golden days for the B.C. Liberals — that magical moment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There have been so many deficit budgets from the B.C. Liberals. They don't like to fess up to this, but there were really only four balanced budgets out of nine that they've tabled, and we're projecting two more into the future that are also in deficit. These are the good managers that were headed up by their champion at that time, Carole Taylor. This is what she said about the way the HST was brought forward. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It goes as follows. The member for Vancouver-Langara will want to hear what her former seatmate said. "But I think the bigger issue is that just before the election, he promised that they would not — they would not — do the harmonized sales tax and then right after the election decided to do it." Now, that is the nub of the issue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

She goes on to say: "There's a feeling of being deceived by the government that people elected, and it's quite brutal. The numbers are very negative. The B.C. Liberals are sure on the losing end of this." Now, that is a prominent citizen, former Finance Minister, former B.C. Liberal, potentially future B.C. Liberal — who knows? That might explain all of her visits to Toronto. That's her view on the matter, and 49 of her former colleagues sit here today having to ignore the common sense of the former member for Langara, the former Finance Minister. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

They have to touch the hemlock. They have to drink from the bowl, because that's what the member who has not yet spoken in this chamber on the importance of this bill…. That's the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, who, among the other 15 percent of British Columbians, believes that this is good for B.C. and that Elvis is still alive. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I talked at second reading, prior to the tabling of this amendment, about the impact on families. But I received a very interesting letter, among the many that I receive daily from constituents. This one is from a constituent in Metchosin, one of the more idyllic portions of the riding of Juan de Fuca. I'd like to read into the record some of the suggestions that were made by that constituent. I won't name him. That's not necessary. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"Sorry about the closure that has been enacted by the government. My primary concern with the HST is that it taxes the things governments want us to do, like join a club to get fit, take yoga lessons, send kids to summer camp, all of which are good things for our health and well-being.

"I would appreciate if you would take this and ask the government why they are increasing taxes on things that they want us to do and why things of a sport and health nature couldn't be exempt."

That is, again, the root of the challenge we have with the harmonized sales tax. My friend the Finance Minister yesterday was reading back into the record comments that I had made at a committee meeting, the Finance Committee, about my wife's view on dealing with two sets of public servants. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

She at no time ever said to me…. And she made it very clear to me last night that if she gets audited, I'm in a lot of trouble. She made it clear to me that she at no time supported the harmonization of the sales taxes. She supported less bureaucracy. I think we're all uniform in that, if it's in the interests of growing the economy, but not shifting…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

At no time did my wife or myself or anyone associated with me encourage the shifting of $1.8 billion from businesses to consumers — at no time. I'm certain that the Minister of Finance is canvassing the spouses of all the other members. I'm sure he's as anxious to know what their views are as he is to know what my spouse's views are. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What my constituent is trying to draw to our attention here — and it's the teachable moment — is that until we gave up our authority, our autonomy, our ability to set taxation on consumption, we were able to pick the things that we wanted to encourage and tax the things we wanted to discourage. By transferring that autonomy, giving that authority over to the federal government, we're no longer able to do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

My colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake, again, has spoken very aggressively in our community here in the capital region about the loss of the opportunity to exempt energy-efficient appliances, for example. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We want to encourage a consumer society. We want to reduce our consumption of energy, and one way to do that — to my colleagues on the other side — is to allow the province to set taxation on those items, to reduce the cost of those items by reducing the tax, not increasing it. This is the counterintuitive part of the harmonized sales tax that my constituent is writing about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

He goes on to say, in his own instance: "Instead of having a hip replacement, which my doctor feels is inevitable, I go to the local community gym for exercise, yoga to keep limber and massage therapy to improve circulation and reduce pain. This costs a lot, and the new tax will make this cost even more, which will probably then lead to hip surgery, which will then cost the province more than it would otherwise." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Here's a citizen. Here's a representative example of the people across B.C. who are taking matters into their own hands, trying to improve their health and well-being. Instead of supporting and encouraging that to reduce health care costs, the HST, according to this constituent, quite rightly is going to increase the costs of fitness, and it's going to have a negative impact on our health care budgets. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Soccer balls should be exempt; basketballs should be exempt. I know my colleague from White Rock would support that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: Golf balls. Yeah, more mulligans for my member. I lose a lot of those. That'd be nice if they were exempt. Definitely lacrosse balls. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What I want to leave with, Members, as we get close to the end of my time…. I know that my friend from Swan Lake is going to tell me exactly how much time I have left. I want to leave people with the inventory that I talked about earlier: ice rentals; field rentals; funeral services; bikes and bike repairs; health memberships — we've talked about that; accounting services; financial services. This is one that I want to end on: wedding planners. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

My goddaughter — I mentioned this in my previous speech — Kara Linden Booth is marrying Sean Walsh this summer in Nanaimo, in July, so the HST will be in effect. They're going to bungee jump. They're going to jump off the bridge into the Nanaimo River or just before the Nanaimo River. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now they're going to have to pay more to do that, and I as a godparent find that to be wrong. I think what I'll do is offer up as a wedding gift that I'll pick up the HST for the wedding planner. I'll pick up the HST for the bungee jump to go along with any other gift that we may get. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I don't know if other members want to follow suit. I don't know if other members want to talk about family members or loved ones who are being adversely affected by the HST and offer up opportunities for them to reduce their costs, but I certainly offer that up to Kara and Sean today as a little wedding present, a little bit of Juan de Fuca exemptions for my goddaughter as she gets married this summer. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

With that, again, one more opportunity, Members on the other side. Stay away from the juice. Wait for the member for Vancouver–Point Grey to stand in this place and try and convince us to support this bill. I don't believe it's possible, but you just never know. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: The member for Kelowna–Lake Country has the floor. [Applause.] [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

N. Letnick: Thank you to my colleagues for that round of applause before I even started. A square of applause. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I stand to speak against the motion to send Bill 9 to the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee has been touring the province for years upon years, and every year small businesses and large businesses have been advocating for the abolition of the provincial sales tax and the adoption of the harmonized sales tax. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I see on your face that you have a question for me. No? Just keep talking? Okay. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In fact, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce has been proposing that we move to an HST going back to the mid-'90s. The Certified General Accountants support a harmonized sales tax, and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia are supporting the harmonized sales tax. The reason for that is because it's good for small business. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Last year, as a member of the Finance Committee, I had the privilege of touring the province in a limited way. We had a small budget, so we didn't go very far. We went to some places, and we did video conferencing in others. We hosted a lot of people right here in Victoria and in Vancouver. We heard from restaurants, TELUS, realtors, non-profits and regular citizens, and we came up with a full set of recommendations based on what we heard. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Here's the book that we tabled in the House a few months ago. This is the Report on the Budget 2010 Consultations: Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, November 2009. If I may grab my glasses, because at 52 sometimes I need them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We had a series of recommendations on the HST. One of them was to "reduce the current PST audit assessment limitation period to two years following implementation of the HST." Another one was to "accelerate the phase-in of input tax credits ahead of the planned schedule should economic improvement allow." Another was to "maintain the maximum 2 percent additional hotel sales tax beyond June 30, 2011." Another one was to "introduce mitigation that reduces the impact of the HST on those in tourism sectors who, prior to the HST being announced, signed fixed-price contracts well extended past July 1, 2010." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The fifth was to "work with the federal government to address HST inequities between private and public providers of residential care services for seniors." "Develop HST mitigation strategies which result in no substantial negative impact on boards of education, post-secondary institutions and health regions." "Raise the proposed $400,000 rebate threshold for new homes." And the last one was to "announce HST transition rules for all sectors as soon as possible to foster certainty." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As you are aware, Madam Speaker, and as the members of the House are aware, the government has actually adopted many of these recommendations and has moved forward with the adoption of the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I don't quite understand the purpose of this delay tactic that is being proposed through this amendment when we've already consulted with British Columbians. We already know where they stand on the HST. We've all heard loud and clear. I would propose that these amendments will help to mitigate the impacts of the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Therefore, I stand here to oppose the amendment, and I'd like to speak a little bit about the HST, if I may. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It's already been passed by the federal government. Bill 9 is about repealing the PST and not passing the HST. If we don't pass Bill 9, I believe the public will have cause for even more outrage, more anger, at all members on both sides of the House for potentially causing them not only to be paying the HST but in a lot of cases continuing to pay the PST, and I'm sure no one on either side of the House would like to see that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I fully understand that the HST is a controversial issue. I've never been called so many names in my life. I don't like it. I haven't done a good enough job, I guess, in getting the positive story out over the negative spin. But this is what we are elected to do — not duck and hide or to obfuscate or to use slander to besmirch the good character of one's political opponents, as I see done in this House day after day. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There is enough truth in the events of the past year for everyone on both sides of this House to be held accountable for their actions — and I'm sure we all will be over the course of the next few years — truths like we just went through, arguably, the worst economic downturn since the depression. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It was bigger than the '80s, when I started my family. I married my wife, Helene. We started with our kids, started businesses, and we started when interest rates were over 20 percent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The recession we've just been through and hopefully are coming out of right now was bigger than that, bigger than the '90s, when the members opposite were in government and had a hard time dealing with all the consequences of recession and took the hits to go along with it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This economic correction, triggered by greed and fear, especially in the sub-prime housing market, has brought countries to their knees. Just look at what's happening with Greece right now, having to be bailed out by the IMF — Greece, a country which hosted the Olympic Games not too long ago. Large companies like General Motors. General Motors, which is now owned in large part by the public, by the taxpayers, has been brought down to its knees because of this recession. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Even in the banking heaven, the banking security area of Canada it has brought the country and provinces to their fiscal knees. Ontario is looking at almost a $20 billion fiscal deficit for 2010-2011; Alberta — the place that has gold on the streets, in the sidewalks — $4.7 billion; Quebec, $4.5 billion; the country of Canada, over $49 billion deficit in one year; and B.C., just under $2 billion, with a total estimated addition to our deficit during this recession, as we come out, of about $5 billion before we end up in the black. So it has been a major recession. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Other truths, like our government not wanting to pass on a huge deficit to our children for services we are enjoying today and needing to do everything we could do to kick-start the economy and create jobs. After all, that was the platform we ran on. And after the election — not before or during the election, as some would want the public to believe — we made a change. After the election caucus was asked — not forced, once again, as members opposite like to portray — if we were prepared to change our views on the HST…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Yes, when I weighed the new conditions offered by the federal government — like the $1.6 billion, like the ability to set our own rates, which are the lowest in the country, like the ability to exempt up to 5 percent of the revenue that comes in and all the other flexibilities that were given us that weren't available before…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

When I looked at that and I looked at the world competitive landscape that we were competing against, our companies were competing against, to try to ensure our quality of life in this province; when I looked at Ontario moving forward on the HST; 29 of 30 OECD countries and over 130 countries in all…. When I looked at the consequences, I decided that even though we had said in a couple of questionnaires prior to the election that we were not considering HST at this time, I decided to support our change in position. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I am accountable for that decision, and while it is true that my decision has hurt my political popularity at home, I hope it will be in the short term. In the long term I believe it would help to propel B.C. out of this economic recession — stronger, more competitive and better prepared to tackle the economic challenges of the new millennium and the global marketplace. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It is the best decision for those who rely on a strong economy to sustain our economic growth so that we can continue to pay for the expensive health care system that we have, those who rely on strong economic growth to generate jobs so they can feed their families, build their communities and have hope, and for those yet to come, who can have solace that when we had to make a hard decision, we did what was unpopular and made the decisions as the government in power with the resolve to make them and that had a leader strong enough to withstand the political backlash and had the united support of a caucus firm in the belief that it is better to do what is right than what is politically expedient. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Not for a moment do I blame the opposition for fearmongering. I would be angry, too, after eight years in opposition — day after day, being on the outside looking in, day after day trying to split the political right without success so that they, too, can get the privilege of what we all aspire to in this chamber, the opportunity to make an impact and to make a difference that will benefit the people we all serve. They are now following anyone, any leader who shows any sign of promise to that outcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But let there be no doubt. The theatre bouts of outrage worthy of a Gemini Award, followed by off-camera giggles in the corner, the appearance on stage by a former discredited Premier on a book tour — all this is to serve one purpose only. That's to divide the right and win the next election. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Even now — as the Victoria media, that bastion of all things political, have decreed that the B.C. Liberal Party had no intention of bringing in the HST prior to the election but for many reasons decided to afterwards — the opposition continues to perjure itself in this chamber and extol its virtues and condemn our apparent deceit. Coupled with the misinformation and scare tactics being employed throughout the province by the opposition, their new leader, Bill Vander Zalm, and some industries who believe they will be hard done by, by this move to tax optimization, it is no wonder that we are down in the political popularity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Even now the members opposite continue to spread the fiction that all prices will be going up by 7 percent, sometimes even 12 percent; that people will be paying over $2,000 a year in more tax; that, as one member put it yesterday, "…the HST is here in return for a one-time, $1.6 billion bribe from the federal government, which I guess is the modern equivalent of 30 pieces of silver." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Comparing our actions to those of Judas, who took part in such a heinous crime as the death of my Saviour, is an insult not only to all the hon. members of this House but to those with faith across this land. What concerns me most is that these tactics on the part of the political opponents have served to scare many in my riding, and I find that approach reprehensible. Yes, someday I will answer to the voters on my actions during my term of office, but I am sure my colleagues and I will do so with integrity, honour and fortitude befitting of a member of these chambers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As I was thinking of this outrageous comparison to Judas yesterday, I started to think about the popular film starring Charlton Heston in the Ten Commandments. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I pictured Bill Vander Zalm as Moses standing on the other side of the Dead Sea with his arms waving, saying: "Come on over. Come on over." All the people on the other side were starting to go over, because he separated the water to allow his new followers seated there to begin chanting: "Fantastic. Fantastic. We have a new leader who's going to lead us to heaven, to the land of milk and honey." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But alas, halfway along the journey, while the walls of water were there on both sides, he opened his mouth, and he said: "British Columbia could easily make the provincial sales tax work the same way as a value-added tax. It could apply it to all goods and services, reduce it to 3 or 4 percent and provide input tax credit to businesses." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So there you go, Madam Speaker. The holy grail on the other side of the water starts poking holes in the dam, and all this water starts falling in on these people. All the people that were following go: "Whoa, one second here. We're trying to get rid of the HST, and you're saying that it's going to be applied to everything? Well, maybe we tied our horse to the wrong cart." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm really glad that the member opposite brought up the whole issue of Judas, because it allowed me to have a good moment of laughter at home as I was thinking about Moses. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

For months I've studied this issue — back to some serious notes for a sec — consulted with the citizens and experts alike and in good conscience believe bringing our tax system in line with our key competitors is in the best interests of all my constituents, young and old, rich and poor. The alternative will lead to higher income taxes and a lower quality of life, and I'm not prepared to let that happen. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Decisions are usually best made on science. We make decisions on health care on medical science, we make decisions on our bridges and roads on engineering science, and we make decisions on tax policy on economic science. When it comes to economics, it seems everyone is an expert, especially those on the opposite side of the Legislature. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There is embedded provincial sales tax in the making of most manufactured goods in B.C. For example, in the case of a couch, provincial sales tax is paid by the manufacturer and his suppliers at almost every stage of the supply chain, and this is embedded in the overhead and, ultimately, in the final cost of the good — but not directly on materials incorporated in the finished product, of course. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

For example, both the couch manufacturer and his button, fabric, stuffing and frame suppliers pay provincial sales tax on their delivery trucks, computer systems, warehouse shelving, along with most other input costs. It has been estimated that the elimination of the PST will remove about $140 million in such costs from the manufacturing sector — over $2 billion in total from all sectors in B.C. that consumers are currently already paying for. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That will make us more competitive, business stronger, and a stronger economy will lead to more money for health care, for education and for social services without raising income taxes, which is what the opposition proposes we do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There's only one taxpayer, and Jon Kesselman, who holds the Research Chair in Public Finance with the graduate public policy program at Simon Fraser University wrote in the Vancouver Sun on April 21: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"No country besides Canada simultaneously employs two such divergent forms of sales tax at the national and subnational levels. Retention of the PST in B.C. will leave the province's businesses with an unnecessary $150 million of tax compliance costs each year, which push up product prices for all consumers. Retaining the PST would also leave the provincial government burdened with annual costs of $30 million for administration plus $50 million for vendor compensation.

"Even worse than these financial impacts of repealing the PST, keeping the PST would continue to act as a drag on B.C.'s economic prosperity. B.C. has one of the weakest records among Canadian provinces in growth of investment, productivity and wages, which research studies link to the PST burden on business."

We even have Tom Fletcher, legislative reporter and columnist for Black Press, saying: "The central reason that B.C. in 2010 needs to move to the consumption tax: the baby boomers are retiring. There won't be enough people paying income tax to support them. This is not a prediction. As an engineer aboard the Titanic said, 'It's a mathematical certainty.'" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What does the opposition recommend we do? Do they recommend we cut spending? Of course not. Every question period, every estimates, they're always there. "We need more money for health, more money for education. We need more money for schools. We need more money for roads. We need more money for everything." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Do they recommend we increase taxes? Of course they do. I've heard them many times. "We'll increase taxes on the rich. We'll increase tax on the middle class. We'll increase tax on business. That's how we're going to pay for all our programs." That's what the opposition keeps coming up with. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Do they recommend we'll repeal the HST agreement? Of course they don't. Even the leader says: "Oh, we'll have to look at it for many years." It's already studied. They know as well as we do that even the Nova Scotia government has increased their HST to 15 percent — an NDP government. So for sure it's all about politics, not about real policy on their part. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This is the real truth. Not long after July 1, 2010, it will come out, and we'll see who is at the bottom of the polls once the people recognize they were misled by the opposition fearmongering. Just like Y2K was a dud, so will July 1, 2010, be a dud. My guess is that the opposition will move on from the two leaders they have now, Vander Zalm and the Leader of the Opposition, and look for the next quick fix. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But back to my riding, if I may. Specifically, in the Okanagan we have boat manufacturers who are competing with other companies from around the world. The PST is an anchor on their trying to be successful, and they want us to move to the HST. They will increase the amount of people they employ once they see their sales go up. Those are jobs right in my riding. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We have the aerospace industry in my riding — over 1,000 jobs across the country in Ontario and in Kelowna. Right in my riding I asked one of the owners: "Would you come up and speak on the HST?" The answer I got was: "No, I don't want to be tarred and feathered." So even though there's an obvious benefit to people in my riding to stand up and say the HST is good, they are afraid to do so, and that's a big part of the opposition's campaign — fear. That's what's driving a lot of this out there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We cannot base good decisions, good policy on fear. That is not in the interests of these job creators, and it's not in the interests of the people that I always purport to serve, especially those who need health care. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Look at the forest industry. In my area we have several forest companies, forest companies that are at a competitive disadvantage by using the PST. The HST will help them expand their sales, will help them create jobs right in my economy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We have digital media that are looking towards expanding their sales across the world, and they'll be able to do that more effectively with an HST than a PST, creating more jobs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We have farmers. Farmers had a number of farm input items that were PST-exempt, a specified list. However, many farm input items were not exempt, especially in new technologies. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Farmers can now claim full input tax credits on all farm inputs, an estimated $16 million to $18 million benefit to primary producers. There are many examples of items exempt — farm trucks — that were not on the exemption list, that will not be able to be claimed for ITCs. That is why the BCAC and all farm organizations in B.C., including the B.C. Fruit Growers Association, support the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Many are concerned that the HST will hit low-income people of all ages the hardest. Yes, some previously PST-exempt services are going to be slightly more expensive, but the vast majority of products won't change, and there is no HST on rent, home utility bills, basic groceries or fuel for the cars, items on which low income spend proportionately more money than others do. In addition, if someone's annual income is under $20,000, they will get an extra $230 per year to their GST credit to offset any impact of the tax change. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I agree with those leaders in the economy who say that this is actually going to be a big benefit to people in my riding, for people of British Columbia and for everyone who looks for jobs and looks for social services, health care and education. It's going to mean tens and tens of thousands of new jobs and billions of dollars in new investment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We would hear a big sucking sound of jobs away from B.C. over time if we don't move over to the HST, a value-added tax, from the PST. That's exactly what would happen if we keep the PST. Over time companies would realize that it's more competitive to set up in other jurisdictions. They won't put big ads in the paper. They won't put it on their website that they chose to move somewhere else because they had better tax policies, unlike Bell Canada, which was very honest last year when it was going to invest over a billion and a half dollars in Ontario. One of the major reasons they gave was because they were moving towards an HST system. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It is very important that we are proactive in our tax policies. The same people pay it under an HST system as pay it under PST, and that's the ultimate consumer. When people say that the $1.9 billion is paid for by business and the HST is paid by consumers, they fail to recognize that the PST businesses pay gets built into the costs that consumers pay at the end. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

At the end of the day, it's still the same. The only difference is that the PST is hidden, and the people just don't realize the magnitude of how much is there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The studies that were done in eastern Canada when HST was introduced found that 75 percent of those embedded PST costs came out of the cost of goods and services in the first 12 months alone. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I would argue that we actually have a more competitive economy in B.C. today than those eastern provinces had in the '90s. If you're making a product and you can find a way to bring your costs down, it allows you to bring your price down, and then your company is going to be more successful. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Another example in my riding is a young entrepreneur I was talking to on the weekend. We were doing a walk for charity on the weekend, and I said: "What's your job?" He said: "Well, you know, I'm a fourth-year engineering student, but I'm also working with a small company called Westmould Manufacturing." He told me that Westmould Manufacturing is a rapidly growing manufacturing company in Kelowna–Lake Country. He specializes in EPS moulding for the exterior styling of residential and commercial buildings. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"Over the past five years our business has grown at the limits of plant capacity, from $250,000 a year to $1.5 million. We've expanded and adopted new technologies to keep pace with demand. Our products now reach across the Prairies and the United States border. The growth has continued through the recession, and we are expecting our best year by 20 percent. PST cuts into investment to meet this demand. This is because PST must be paid on many capital expenses intended to grow the business and supplies necessary to produce our goods."

"We are forced to pass on this cost of business to our customers in the prices they pay. As a result, investment is reduced, and our price is increased."

In his humble opinion, he says, the PST is an unfair tax and should be replaced by a fairer HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"Westmould Manufacturing, its employees, customers and the surrounding community will all benefit from the sales tax harmonization. HST will reduce our supply expense, cost of office equipment and technology, investment and expenses. We have been hoping to expand, and the HST could provide us just the incentive we need to build entirely new facilities in Kelowna–Lake Country" — my riding, by the way. "It will allow us to increase our production capabilities to meet demand and decrease our prices to compete with and beat our larger American competitors."

This is Graham Hurlburt, research-and-development contractor. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So there is one more example of how moving from the PST to the HST will help expand jobs right in my riding, which will allow us to expand the economy, which will allow us, therefore, to collect more taxes over time to pay for all those great services that we want to give the taxpayers of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Changing tax is a complicated issue. Even I and some of my staffers sometimes make mistakes on the rules, and I understand that. But that's to be expected. So we can't expect the general public to have all the facts, all the time, right at their fingertips. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

For example, when I received an e-mail from a former mayor in my area yesterday…. It goes like this. "I've just heard that the B.C. government is considering passing the HST legislation this week or next. I have a copy of the 2009 memorandum of agreement concerning a Canada–British Columbia comprehensive integrated tax coordination agreement, " signed by the hon. Finance Minister and James Flaherty. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"It clearly states on page 2 of the document: 'The parties will work toward the imposition of the proposed B.C. value-added tax by the CRA-CBSA on July 1, 2010.'" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

She goes on to say that to "push ahead with this and not allow the people of British Columbia the opportunity to exercise their right to give input 90 days prior will be detrimental to our party. Please do not do this, and let the people have their chance to have their say." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"Thank you for your e-mail and for your service to the people back home. Regarding the HST, the HST legislation has already been passed by the federal government. Our legislation is to remove the provincial sales tax, and that's what Bill 9 will do. If we don't pass it on, we will be faced with both the harmonized sales tax and the provincial sales tax on July 1. I fully recognize that people are signing the petition, and if it is successful, the process afterwards will likely take more than a year. I hope this information has been helpful."

Her answer back to me is to thank me for the explanation and to say she was surprised that the media got it wrong. "What a surprise. The explanation makes sense, and keep up the good work." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know what? That's only one person. Since the HST was tabled in this House, I've spoken to hundreds of people. I've answered hundreds of e-mails. I've had dozens of coffee meetings and teas with many, many people, one at a time, trying to explain how the HST will work, listening to their concerns, working with them to try to mitigate those concerns, touring the province, coming up with a report with my colleagues on both sides of the House. Some parts in here were supported by only the government side of the House, on HST mitigations. I respect the fact that members on the opposite side did not support those mitigations. I respect that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But at the end of the day, we did consult. We did consult with the people of British Columbia. We did go through the whole process of doing this committee work. Therefore, I don't understand why we need to send Bill 9 to committee once again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think we should move on with this. We should respect the process. If the Bill Vander Zalm train gets the 10 percent across the province, then we will deal with that when the time comes, fully respecting the democratic rights of everyone in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I would just say that at the end of the day, this is the best thing that we can do to generate economic activity in our province, to generate the jobs back at home, so that we have the money necessary to take care of those people that depend on us when they get sick, depend on us when they go to school and depend on us when they fall between the cracks and they need a helping hand. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Chandra Herbert: I thank the member before me. I appreciated hearing his comments. I will go into some of the arguments that the member laid out, one of them in particular. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The member made the argument that the B.C. Liberal government did consult British Columbians on this issue, the HST, which is, of course, what we're debating today. Whether or not, in fact, they did this…. The opposition's argument is that we should consult British Columbians on this because they have not been officially consulted on this. I'm referring, of course, to the member for Kelowna–Lake Country, who just stood in this House and said that we did consult them, so we don't need to do it again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The motion that I'm speaking in support of today would bring the HST to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services so that it can do what it should have done, or what it should do, before such a bill like this would come to pass. That would be to actually get out, lay out the facts, talk with people, look at how it affects different industries, have that discussion, develop some studies for the different industries, involve the people and come to a conclusion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That's what this bill would do, and that's what should have happened with such a big decision as bringing in the HST, the biggest tax shift from business on to consumers. Now, of course, that wasn't done. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The basic principle that I'm bringing here is that, of course, we should consult those that elect us. We should listen to our constituents. Who here supports listening to their constituents? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Chandra Herbert: I hear the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast. Who here thinks our constituents should be heard? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Chandra Herbert: All right, so I hear some general agreement on the opposition side. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Who would agree that our constituents were the ones that elected us? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Okay. They're the ones that pay our salaries. They're the ones that elected us. They're the ones who are supposed to be providing us with an idea of where we should be going in terms of governing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

They're the ones that we laid out our principles, our ideas, in the last election in order to get elected. Of course, in that last election, nowhere was there the suggestion that, yes, the HST was the thing to do. In fact, as I said in this House some time ago, in the Liberal platform, they actually very much made a strong argument against the HST, saying that it was not the right thing and that it was a bad thing to do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But now we find, in fact, according to documents, that just three days after the election they moved into seriously examining it and making it come to pass, which we saw them argue in July — that this is what should happen — which led to the bill that we're at today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, I'm opposed to the HST, as I said earlier, but I'm definitely in support of this motion to put it forward to the Finance Committee. British Columbians, as we know, are by and large — I think the latest figure was 82 percent — in opposition to the HST. They feel they've been betrayed. They feel there's been a double-cross, that they were not told the upfront truth in this matter. They were not consulted, and as much as members on the other side of the House, of the Liberal government, will try and say a consultation happened, it didn't. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In fact, what happened was people said: "Well, maybe we should talk about consulting on whether or not this would be a good thing to do." But it's not called a consultation when you say: "We've done this, and we're going to tell you that it's happening. And, "Oh, you can shout and you can scream. You can send e-mails. You can do initiative campaigns and whatever. It doesn't matter anyways" is really what I've heard from both the Premier, the leader of the B.C. Liberal Party, as well as other members on that side of the House. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I remember earlier today I had one of the members on that side of the House talk about hysteria, about how people were hysterical and that they just really didn't understand it and maybe if it was a little clearer that they would understand it. Well, if people are consulted, if people have an issue described and explained and if they're part of the decision-making process in that way, it's very rare that anybody would ever engage in hysteria — as the members on the other side seem to allege that the people of B.C. are engaged in hysteria. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, in fact, if they were feeling they were being democratically represented, that their voices were actually meaning something, that their vote on the ballot actually meant something and that when they voted for something they might actually get it, they wouldn't be so upset. I don't think it's hysterical to be upset at being betrayed. No, I think that's just righteous anger for not being told the truth. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Refer this bill to the Finance Committee. Take that sober second look. Take that time. This is an opportunity for members on that side of the House to do the right thing for their constituents. They can engage. They can have that discussion. They can go through constituency by constituency and look at what it will do for the different people, look at the increased costs for consumers and look at what it does for business. They can have that debate and then make some decisions after hearing from the people of British Columbia — not going into an election saying you're not going to do it and then, right after, saying: "Oh yeah, actually, we are going to do it and tough luck." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That's not appropriate. That's not good government. That's not good decision-making. That is a double-cross. That is a betrayal. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So, now, why should we consult about this? Well, let's think of some of the issues that we've got facing us in British Columbia right now. For example, we have one of the highest personal levels of debt in the country. People are already struggling. We've seen incomes for a number of groups either stagnate or fall. Meanwhile, user fees have gone up. We think about the MSP — should this HST come through. We think about ferry fares, transit fares, tuition fees. You know, the list goes on and on and on. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In my own constituency people are at the breaking point. Housing affordability is a huge issue, and with every other added cost on top of it, it makes it harder and harder. Some of the seniors that I talk to are on fixed incomes. Now, they make enough that they're not getting assistance from government in that sense, but with the increase in fees, they're finding it even hard to pay their rents because of what's going on with this government's continued regressive taxation policies, which add more user fees and burdens on people. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I know that whenever I talk about regressive taxation, the other members on that side of the House get upset. They get concerned. I talk about progressive taxation — they don't understand that. That's because that's what they've been doing for the last eight years: shifting more of the burden onto the middle and lower…. That's the record of this government, and I can understand that they don't want it laid out for all to see. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, we could send this to committee. We could look at the issues that are facing people. Why do we have some of the highest personal level of debt in Canada? Why does child poverty continue to be a huge problem in British Columbia, the worst in Canada? Why? Oh, well, maybe because they don't want to look at the issue, but maybe because of these regressive policies. Those would be issues that we could investigate. We could look at taxation policy as a whole and figure out what we can do to ensure that everybody benefits in British Columbia, not just the very few. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think it would be interesting to continue on this train around having the discussion with the people of British Columbia, and in particular on this HST. But we know that this government didn't want that to happen, so yesterday they brought in a motion or a bill or legislation to force closure on this, so that that debate, that discussion, that investigation couldn't happen. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I know that at the end of the day today we'll be shut down. We won't be able to continue this discussion, this search for truth, this argument for the people of British Columbia, for our constituents, because the members of the B.C. Liberal Party do not want their constituents being heard. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We've heard this again and again, where members on this side of the House have to stand and speak on behalf of constituents of B.C. Liberal members, because they're being completely ignored. In fact, when they're not being ignored, they're being called hysterical and told that they don't know what they're talking about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But then I guess we're only speaking for 82 percent of the population who are opposed to the HST on this side of the House. That side can choose who they're arguing for. I think my friend, the member for Juan de Fuca, said that more people believe in Elvis than those that believe in supporting the HST. I thought that was an interesting comment to add to this debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, when we talk about the need for continued discussion and involvement of the people of B.C. on this issue, I think we should go back to what the Premier said when he was the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the B.C. Liberal Party, when he was talking about a closure motion, a motion which hacked off the ability to debate in the Legislature. He was speaking in the '90s at the time, and in his argument about closure he said: "It is an absolutely disgraceful attack on the integrity of the Legislature. This is the worst kind of tinpot democracy you could find." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

He then went on to say: "This is the most menacing, autocratic and undemocratic assault on the B.C. Legislature in the history of the province." That was about the Nisga'a treaty. That was something that was negotiated with the Nisga'a people to right a historical wrong — something which I know the Premier at the time fought tooth and nail against through the courts, etc., and then proceeded to try to get a referendum on minority rights by sending out a shameful referendum pamphlet across the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

He thought it was okay to actually engage in discussion about a minority's rights through referendum, through the approval of the majority, but he doesn't think it's acceptable to engage people in the debate about the HST. He doesn't think it's okay to actually allow the Legislature to do its work. In fact, he believes we need to have closure and to shut everything down. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, I know some of the members on the other side say: "Okay, we've had enough debate. This is fine. We've been debating it enough; we should shut it down." Then they proceed to talk for another half an hour. In fact, I think that happened for every one of the members that stood in this House today. They said: "Oh no, we've had enough debate. Everything's fine. Let's move on. We've got to allow this to continue." Then they continue to talk and to talk and to talk, debating, because they felt they needed their time to have a debate, after suggesting that there was no more need for debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think the people of B.C. would wholeheartedly agree that this bill needs to be debated now, that it needs to be debated tomorrow, that it needs to be debated into the future, because it's the wrong bill for B.C. The HST is the wrong tax for B.C. at this time. It's the wrong tax because it's hurting the people that we need to have confidence to get us out of this economic recession. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Does anybody understand how increasing fees on people at a time when they also don't have confidence in purchasing — don't have confidence in making big purchases right now — would somehow help the economy? Well, no, my constituents certainly don't. They say they will spend less. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I know I talked to the restaurant owners in my constituency, and they say right now that they too are going to see less spending. In fact, they already have less spending. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I understand that the member from Maple Ridge…. I believe the Minister of State for Mining was the guy who suggested that realtors already have to pay a lot in fees, so really, more fees in there doesn't really matter for people. Just absorb it. Real estate agents don't need to worry about it. People purchasing homes don't need to worry about it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Oh, and I think it was also the same fellow who was submitting a memo to people which suggested that the Liberal government was considering the HST during the election. Then he had to pull a mea culpa and say: "Oh, actually, I meant after the election." That's learning from the member opposite who was shouting just there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think if we want to talk about democracy and we want to talk about respect for our constituents, we need to talk about the HST, because this legislation that is being brought in has brought such concern from constituents about their ability to have a say in how they are governed. They said, "Why the heck did we vote when our MLAs won't listen to us, when our MLAs refuse and make fun of the arguments that we bring?" — as the member from Comox did when he attacked little old ladies in Nelson and bike shop owners. That was the argument there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Again, I guess constituents and the people who elect us, the people who pay our salaries should be respected, should be listened to, should be engaged with. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Chandra Herbert: That's why I believe this should be referred to the committee — so that we can do the proper procedure, get across the province, talk to people, listen to them and figure out what we need to do going forward. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So vote yes for this, Members on the other side of the House. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The opposition fully believes that we need to engage the people on this issue. We need to listen to the people of B.C., and we need to vote no to the HST. Vote yes to refer this to committee. It's an easy out for you guys. The Liberals could say: "Well, we actually went out, we decided to listen for a change. The people that elected us told us loud and clearly, 'Don't do it.' We looked at it. We looked at the hardship that it was going to cause them, and we decided that we're not going to do it. We're sorry to put you through all of this. We realize we made a mistake." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But will we see this? I'm going to wait for the vote. We've already seen they want to slam the doors on second reading debate. They want to slam the doors on the possibility of stopping this HST in the Legislature, forcing the fight out into the streets. I know the fight out on the streets is going very well. In my own constituency they're signing up hundreds and hundreds every day, because people are very upset about this, and rightly so. They were betrayed by this government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, I talked to people in the tourism industry yesterday — had an interesting forum on the approved destination status with China, engaged with those folks. I said: "What do you think of the HST?" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

They said: "Are you serious? We just had an opportunity to show ourselves to the world, and then they bring in this tax which is going to make it more difficult for people to travel within British Columbia." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

They say: "Why, when we've opened the door and said, 'Come to B.C.,' would we then say, 'You'd better bring more cash if you're going to come'? Why would we do that when B.C. is already known as a high-priced destination to visit? Why would we say to tourists that want to come here, 'Well, you want to pay a little bit less on your ski fees? You want to pay less on opportunities to go out for great food? Well, if you want to do that, then Alberta is the place to go, or Washington's the place to go'?" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We've brought in the HST, making it very difficult for our tourism industry, an industry that says it could lose over 10,000 jobs because of the HST. They would like to see this referred to committee. They would like to have the opportunity to discuss this issue. They would like the opportunity to have this government face up to the facts and say: "Okay, we didn't tell the truth in the last election." They would appreciate that. That's humility. That's being able to admit you were wrong. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I talked to ski hill owners. I talked to tourism officials in — who was I talking to recently? — the Rocky Mountains. What did they say to me there? They said: "Don't you do it. Don't do the HST, because you're going to hurt our businesses in a time when we're already struggling." We've already seen American tourists decline. We've already seen international tourism struggling. So they're wondering why you would do this at this time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I talked to the Cariboo-Chilcotin Tourism Association and folks out in Cariboo-Chilcotin. They say to me: "Why would you do this? Why would you bring in the HST at a time when our industry is already struggling? Why would you bring in an HST when you're also cutting the tourism marketing budget in British Columbia, in a time when we're already struggling? Why did we open up the welcome mat, say that we're a great place to go, to come and visit us, and then right on the day when the thing was finished, bring in a budget cutting the marketing budget for tourism, and bringing in the HST, saying, 'Bring cash if you want to come to B.C., but maybe you shouldn't come'?" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It's failed public policy; that's what it is. It's not appropriate at this time, and it's a betrayal of the voters who elected us. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Chandra Herbert: The Cariboo-Chilcotin folks — they're struggling to get by, because their region has been hit hard by the economic downturn. They're feeling the pain already. I talked to a restaurant owner in Williams Lake. They say: "What do they have against me? Why does this government want…?" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Chandra Herbert: They say: "What does this government have against me? Why do they want my struggling business to go under?" For many of these folks, the HST is going to eat into their profit margins in a huge way. They talk about job losses in the restaurant sector — again, estimates of 10,000 jobs there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The other side says, "Don't worry. We hired a guy who said we've got a study which says that we will see jobs" — even though it's the same guy who said the HST would actually lead to decreased jobs when he was doing the study for somebody else. That's their defence. That's about it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In fact, I know that this government actually looked into the tourism industry along the border regions. They said, "What are the challenges between Alberta" — which doesn't have a sales tax — "and B.C.," which at the time still has the PST. They said: "Can we find a way to make this work for those businesses? We want to involve them and make sure that they are competitive along the border regions." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I remember at the time, in reading the clippings and some of the discussion, one of the big arguments was that we need to keep these people strong in this region. It's a region struggling in a number of other ways, and tourism is a way out. I think, of course, of Revelstoke, Golden, Sparwood and Cranbrook. I think of further north. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know what? At the time they realized the HST was not the thing for them, because it didn't give them any flexibility to even do such investigations of how we do special things to affect the many special and unique regions across the province. So they decided no, the HST was not the thing to do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In fact, we wanted to retain our provincial tax sovereignty, so we could make decisions and make special unique deals for unique situations in the province to help different sectors and different areas. That was their decision. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But now, of course, the government seems to forget its words of yesterday, forget its words of the day before and forget, basically, anything that they committed to before this last election. Well, actually no. They even forgot what they committed to in the election. Now we're here today trying to remind them that they should actually consult with British Columbians. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"Maybe it's not forgetting," I hear my colleagues say. Maybe it's convenient amnesia. It's a thing that's taken on when you make a decision which you knew you were going to make before anyway, but try to pretend that you didn't know you made that decision because of your earlier actions. It's an amnesia that has kind of fallen on that side of the House quite strongly. But if they want to take nutritional supplements or something like that to help deal with such amnesia, I would say that it would be subject to HST. That's problematic for them anyway. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I would continue to urge the members opposite to vote for this. It's not difficult; just stand up at the right time. You can support consultation. You can support listening to your constituents. My constituents are demanding that I do whatever I can to convince you to do what's right for British Columbia. That's what I'm doing here today. That's to say: "Hold off on the HST." Take a sober second look, and stop this bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, what are some of the other reasons why we would say and why my constituents have said that we should be opposed to the HST and that we should support this motion to refer it to committee for further investigation? Well, they tell me: "This is a tax on things that our government wants us to do. Why have we been told again and again to get out of the car and get onto a bike when they're now increasing the cost of bikes?" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Why have they said, "Take care of your health and make sure to eat the right foods, make sure to take those nutritional supplements if you need them," and then: "We're going to increase the price of that"? Why do they say: "Oh, we're concerned about obesity. We think everybody needs to work out more, and that's a solution for some of the challenges we have in health care"? Then they increase the cost of things like yoga, like a gym membership, like hockey ice time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know, I talk to some of the folks who work out at the community centre across from my office. They say that they already scrimp and save to make sure they can pay for that pass. They don't have a lot of money. They love the neighbourhood. They go because they know it's the right thing for them, for their families, and they don't want to go to the hospital. Now they're saying: "Why is the government penalizing me for doing the right thing? Why are they penalizing me for trying to save the system money?" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, another area that's near and dear to my heart, of course, is arts and culture. The arts and culture industry, as we know, has been hit brutally by this government's cuts to investment. They've been hit again and again and again. First, it was right after the election, and then it was September, and then it was this last budget — each time, disappointment after disappointment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Then they get hit with the HST. They get told, "You're going to pay the bill for our cuts. We're going to transfer the debt onto you" — and many of them are now labouring under very large debts — "and now we're going to tax the tickets that you have to sell in order to be able to pay your wages, in order to be able to, hopefully, end the year in the black," which we all want our arts and culture industry to do, an industry which is particularly hard hit right now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Instead of lending a helping hand, instead of working to ensure that we've got a strong cultural and creative sector, the government says: "All right, Pacific Opera Victoria, you've got to charge 7 percent more on your tickets. All right, Belfry Theatre, you too." If people want to engage in the cultural activities of our province, they have to pay more. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Maybe you want to be dragon boating. You want to be part of the dragon boat festival. You, too, will have to pay more. But as I understand it, if they pay before May 1, they could save $193 because they would beat the HST, which is funny because according to the government side, the HST is going to lower costs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Yet according to just about everybody here, whether it's the folk music festival, whether it's folks out in Salmo at Shambhala, whether it's Whistler Blackcomb…. They say you could save over $300 by buying your pass now instead of later — whether or not it's Silver Star, Whitewater, Big Red Cats, Mount Washington. Or we could even go down to the level of summer camps, something that we want all our kids to be able to participate in. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Maybe it's not going skiing, since many of the population in B.C. can't afford that right now because of actions of this government. So we'll go to the Green Bay Bible Camp in West Kelowna. They, too, are arguing that you need to beat the HST. Or maybe it's Camp Qwanoes in Crofton. The list goes on and on of groups that are upset about this, groups that know it will affect their customers, groups that want this to stop, groups that would really appreciate this government, the B.C. Liberals, listening to them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I return to some of the comments I heard earlier in this House around how people who are concerned about this are fearmongering, how people who are concerned about this are somehow in hysteria, how people who are concerned about the HST are being led by Vander Zalm. They just can't quite understand it — about how people are being led by the opposition to believe this is a horrible thing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Well, people do their own calculations. I don't know. I have more respect for my constituents than to assume they are led by me. No, I'm led by my constituents. You know, I think we need to get the hubris out of this place and start to remember who sent us here. What they tell me again and again is that for them, it's going to make their lives more difficult. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Whether or not it's folks in the real estate industry…. I've had folks in banking. I've had folks running restaurants. I've had folks running small businesses, folks from all walks of life saying: "Is this the right thing that we should be doing? And then I say: "Well, I don't know. What do you think?" And they say: "No, it's not, and we were betrayed. We were betrayed because we were led to believe that this would not happen." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, I think about the people who talk about their dearly departed, saying again: "Why should we be putting a new tax on funerals?" I think about the people who come to me and say: "We need a more fun city. We need a more fun province. Why should we be putting a tax on fun?" And that's what this HST does. It puts a tax on those fun events in our communities that we all want to partake in, like the community play. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think about my trip up north, when I was in Quesnel checking out their community play — Kersley, fabulous little community, great community play. And for them, you want to pay? You've got to pay the HST now. When you're already struggling to make ends meet as it is, is this the thing we should be doing right now? No, I would submit it is not. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think about going to the movies, something many people enjoy going to. They love to go to some movies, get some popcorn, have some fun, be able to get away from the hubbub of life, get away from watching folks like us on television, get away from the challenges that we have and engage in a bit of a wonderland. Now that's going to cost 7 percent more too. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think about folks and friends of mine who, with their families, would scrimp and save to be able to go to the movies. They put the pennies together. They put the dollars together. The kids would try and do some fundraising themselves, maybe a lemonade stand, that kind of thing. This is making it more difficult for those families to be able to enjoy something that many people would take for granted — again, another reason why we can't support this tax, why we can't support this and why we're urging this government to send it to the Finance Committee so that they can investigate it with the people of British Columbia, where it should have been investigated to begin with. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know, we might actually see something from it, because this government…. I asked them in the last session, and I asked them in this session: "Have you ever done any analysis on the impact of this on the tourism industry?" "Well, no, there hasn't been one." "Well, have you even done some scribbling on the back of a napkin? Have you talked to folks? Have you really dug into this?" "Oh, yes, we're working with the industry," is what they say. "We're working with the industry. We're talking with them. Oh, and don't worry. Everything's going to be fine." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Well, that's what they've been saying all year. That's what they've been saying ever since it started. And have they seen any changes? No, they have not. The tourism industry is very concerned about this. Where was I at? Oh yes, last week, the Council of Tourism Associations — that's right. And what was said there at that conference? Oh, actually, right from the stage it was discussed that tourism was going to be hit because of the HST making it harder for people to come to the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'll just return to my earlier comments to say that I urge the government on that side to maybe eat a little crow if you need to, to say a mea culpa, to have some humility and to support this motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. I. Chong: I'm pleased to be able to rise and have this opportunity to once again speak to Bill 9, in particular with the amendment that has been proposed by the NDP, and that is referring it to committee. Before I get into some of the substance, I will address why I'm opposed to their amendment that it be referred to a committee. The purpose of referring it to committee would have allowed an opportunity for members in that particular committee to travel the province, to hear concerns that have been raised on a variety of issues. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As has been said by members who served on that committee, that actually has taken place over a number of years. I did serve on the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services right from the very start when it began its travelling around the province. That started back in the year 2000. I can say with some confidence that the recommendations that we received were published in the report that was tabled in the Legislature, and the Minister of Finance of the day would in fact review those proposals and recommendations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

On many occasions…. I do say this with sincerity, because it began in the year 2000, and that's when the opposition formed government. The Ministers of Finance would take a look at a number of those recommendations and actually implement those that would, hopefully, spur economic growth, make some sense and in fact allow for this province to continue to have a very strong role in terms of job creation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There were always a number of recommendations in there that you knew wouldn't necessarily form into any kind of policy, but it was a wish list, and that's what occurs when the select standing committee travels around the province, whether it be the Finance Committee, the Health Committee or the Aboriginal Affairs Committee. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It is about everyone having an opportunity to ask for things, and it may represent the populace, but it also may not. Oftentimes — and members will know — there would be one issue that would galvanize a particular sector, and they would bring those issues forward. You'd go from one meeting to another, and that would appear to be the main issue. I remember one of those meetings I had gone to. I think it was the car dealers who came out, and every meeting you came to, there was a car dealer in every town that came out. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It wasn't necessarily a bad idea, but it didn't necessarily represent as well what might have been good public policy for the entire province. So there are some flaws in this particular amendment to send this debate to a committee, which will have specific areas of interest but may not necessarily represent the greater good, being the economic growth of this province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We're here because the bill was introduced to do a couple of things, and I want to go back to the purpose of the bill. The introduction of Bill 9 proposes to eliminate the provincial sales tax. It's been said by other members in this House that we want to see that particular tax removed. Why are the NDP opposed to removing the sales tax? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It's also proposed to streamline the regulatory burden on business. We have heard from small businesses, in particular, and I have heard members opposite speak about small business as the engine of the economy. We've all said small businesses are the engine of our economy. Well, they've also said that regulation strangles their ability to be competitive and productive, and this bill will move towards streamlining the regulatory burden on businesses. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We've also heard that currently the provincial sales tax as it stands costs B.C. businesses millions of dollars a year in administration and compliance. Well, you would think that if you want to support small business, as members opposite have indicated, they would want to find a way to support them by removing these administrative costs and compliance costs. At the end of the day, by harmonizing the sales tax, businesses will be more competitive and our province will see an increase in investment, productivity and economic growth. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

My question to the members opposite is.... Let's get down to debating the legislation section by section. By my account, it's probably 2½ weeks now that a number of us have risen in this House and given our comments, our feelings, the spirit and intent from which we wish to convey our particular thoughts on this piece of legislation. I dare say that I think everyone has at least spoken once on this legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Having said that, I believe that the time now is to take a look at this legislation section by section and allow the members opposite, the opposition, an opportunity to ask specific questions so that we will get some real facts out there as to what this legislation is going to do. As they've indicated, the objective is not to have a constructive look at this legislation but rather to stall the legislation. For that reason, I'm not in favour of sending it to a committee. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This legislation has brought in a number of mitigation measures, which again, have not been mentioned by the members opposite. They have either not understood it or have refused to bring in those real facts. I'm just going to put them on the record, because I think it's important for people who are trying to follow these debates to understand exactly what will happen. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

A B.C. HST credit will be introduced to help low- and modest-income families, and there have been economists who have done the studies. Rather than having economists that are employed by government or hired by the opposition, there actually have been independent economists who have indicated that by all accounts, this credit and a number of other mitigation measures will, in fact, see low- and middle-income families in many cases fare better and not cost them more. That fact seems to have been lost on a number of people. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

A point-of-sale rebate for the 7 percent provincial portion of the HST will be available — point of sale means occurs at the time of purchase — on motor fuels, books, children's-sized clothing and footwear, among a number of other items. I think you can find the list on the website. Again, there will not be an additional outlay on those particular products when the consumers are purchasing them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The act also eliminates the provincial portion of the hotel room tax, but it continues the 2 percent additional hotel room tax levied on behalf of local governments, regional districts and destination marketing organizations so that they can have the revenues for local tourism marketing. This legislation allows us to continue with the 2 percent additional tax. Are the members opposite suggesting that we not continue with the 2 percent additional hotel tax to aid the tourism industry? That's what it sounds like. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Sales tax harmonization, as has been stated by others and I also indicated, is expected to result in new investment of approximately $11.5 billion and a net increase of 113,000 jobs in British Columbia over the next decade. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, I know it's difficult for members opposite to comprehend that it is a long-term goal, but it is visionary. It is about looking outwards and forward. It's not about just finding a quick fix for tomorrow. That's what it sounds like the members opposite are trying to do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

When we talk about the $11.5 billion of investment, it means future businesses thriving. It means future jobs being created, which is why a net increase of 113,000 jobs in British Columbia…. You know, those jobs are going to be for your children and for your grandchildren. I would have expected — in fact, I would actually have hoped — that the members opposite would have been realizing that these additional jobs are for their children and grandchildren. They're not necessarily for myself, not necessarily for a number of individuals in this chamber. It's about the next generation of children. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

To know that another 113,000 jobs will be created with this one significant policy change alone — isn't that worthy of support? Apparently not. Apparently not from the NDP. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Our vision from the very beginning has been to make British Columbia a place where businesses can thrive, and the HST is going to do that. It's essential that B.C. businesses remain competitive. It's essential that we encourage new investment. It's essential that we improve productivity. All those steps will occur. All those measures will in fact take place with the harmonization. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You don't have to accept my word for it. Every leading economist, published economist, has indicated that. I know that it's easy for the NDP to poke holes at some of these leading economists, but they themselves have waded into this debate, because they themselves, being economists, having published reports and articles, wanted to get the facts out, wanted to do their own in-depth analyses. These are the statements that they have come out with. These are the reports that they have published. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Professor Kesselman — we didn't ask him to prepare a report. He realized that the significance of a change in tax policy of this magnitude did require an economist of his stature, of his background, to have a look at this, and that's what he's done. "The HST is about removing tax from business costs, thereby lowering costs and prices for business owners and therefore allowing business savings to be passed onto consumers." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Much has been said about this as well — that it's about saving the dollars for businesses and that they will not be passed on to consumers. The last time I looked, when businesses were concerned about having no customers, they'd be putting on sales. They'd be putting on products that would be loss leaders, because they needed to get the customer in the door, who would then buy other things. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Businesses need to have this advantage of competitiveness and productivity. Then they will pass those savings on, because they know that if they have the lowest price, they will get those customers to come in. Why do you think some of these large-scale stores are able to do that — the ones that the members have talked about? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But even the small grocers on the corner…. I have to admit that I patronize a number of the small, independent mom-and-pop stores in my neighbourhood. I know that they're going to find some savings, and they will find a way to pass it on. By lowering their prices, they are just trying to be competitive with some of the larger chain stores that exist in the neighbourhood. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

They're not going to say, "Well, I'm just going to keep all this, and I'm not going to pass it on," because at the end of the day, if they do that, they won't get those customers coming into their store, and it will make it much tougher for them to try to realize a larger profit. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I remember hearing someone saying once, a long time ago — I think it was from a retailer: "Better to make a quick nickel than a slow buck." Well, they'll make those quick nickels, and they'll add up to that dollar or $2 and $5 and then, eventually, the profits that they need to sustain their families — if in fact they have customers and a good turnover, if they keep their prices low. If this affords them the opportunity to keep their prices low and competitive, it means that they can continue to employ other people in the community, they can continue to support their family, and they can contribute to their community in whatever endeavours they wish to. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The harmonized sales tax will lower the tax on new investment by as much as 40 percent, helping to create jobs and new opportunities in every region of the province. That, too, is important and seems to have been lost in the debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

When I spoke last, I had just begun to speak of an article that I had found that was published last summer. I know others have since raised some of the comments or quoted a number of remarks in this particular report, or paper. It was about a number of economists — two UBC economists — who offered their opinions, again, about the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This was actually last summer, so it was fairly new — hadn't had an opportunity for debate where everyone offered their views. But at that time, these economists had indicated and stated for the record that the HST actually was a good policy move by the British Columbia government. They did not believe so at the beginning, but they spent the time to understand it and, in so doing, came to agree that it was a good policy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

One of those individuals, Prof. Kevin Milligan from the department of economics at the University of British Columbia, is now an enthusiastic supporter of the new tax policy. So we have someone from UBC. We have someone from SFU. I do recall watching the news one night. It was the local news here. They interviewed an economist from the University of Victoria, and she herself said the same thing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So it's not just one university. It's a number of the universities around the province, with economists and professors — who are teaching tax policy, business and business sense to their students — coming to agree that the harmonization of sales tax is good. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Value-added taxes reduce the tax burden on business. Businesses currently pay a great deal of PST. What do they do with that when they can't claim it back? They add it onto the price of their goods, which they then mark up and which, therefore, they pass on. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Most PST paid by business is embedded and then marked up, as I said, a couple of times in the price of goods and services, which they pass on to all of us as consumers. Essentially, it's a hidden tax. I would have expected that members opposite would have wanted more transparency and not a hidden tax, because that hidden tax in fact distorts the economy and reduces competitiveness. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We've also heard about the other benefits of moving to a harmonized sales tax. Adopting a harmonized sales tax means we can dramatically reduce business administration costs, by $150 million annually. We've also acknowledged that we have experienced a global economic slowdown that none of us had ever seen, none of us had ever anticipated. Things have to be done differently. Reducing compliance costs, reducing administration costs — that makes sense. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The PST, which we're eliminating with Bill 9, has been referred to as a cascading tax, as it applies to the sale of goods regardless of the purchaser. So again, I'm asking why the NDP would want to keep that in play. With the introduction of our HST, we will be the lowest rate of all HST provinces, as members have heard from a number of my colleagues as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Nova Scotia has just gone to a situation where they've raised that, raised taxes. Now, I haven't heard members opposite try to defend their NDP cousins back east as to why that was the right thing to do, but what I have heard from the NDP in this province is that if they had the opportunity to eliminate the HST, they would raise a whole host of other taxes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

My question is what those taxes would be. Would it be the personal income tax? Would it be the corporate capital tax, which would come back? Would it be raising it on businesses again, so they can no longer invest their profits on modernizing their plants? What would it be, and where would it be? No one knows, but I can assure you this: it would not be transparent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I've also heard about how the HST will help a number of sectors. It's not just one sector. By removing the sales tax from the business inputs, it will create a number of savings into some very significant sectors. These are the sectors that a number of members on the opposite side represent in their constituencies — about $880 million for the construction industry, about $140 million for manufacturing, $210 million for the transportation industry, $140 million for the forest sector and $80 million for the mining and oil and gas sectors. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, those last three or four sectors — you know, manufacturing, transportation, forests, mining, oil and gas…. I recall people used to say that those were the family-paying jobs, and they were in the more rural parts of the province. People would say: "Well, they're making the dollars and sending it down here to Victoria, Vancouver, to pay for health care and education." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Those sectors are crippled right now, because they do not have the competitiveness, the edge and the productivity that they need to be able to sell their products. This measure alone will inject those savings back into those businesses, thereby creating those jobs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, the members opposite don't have to believe me. I understand there can be that skepticism. But it's these sectors alone that have done the computations. These sectors have already made a determination, and they are anxious to get on with it. They are anxious not only to hire new people but also to retain jobs. That, too, is important. Not only is the creation of a net increase of 113,000 new jobs important, so too is the retention of jobs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We all saw what happened when small towns around the province lost the single largest industry in their town. Huge workforce adjustments had to be made. All those small businesses — whether they be restaurants, grocery stores, retailers — suffered. There was no money, no disposable income to spend. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But I can tell you: when people have a paycheque, when they're able to work, they will be able to use their dollars in whatever fashion they wish. We've reduced income taxes so low that they can spend them in those communities, and that, too, is important. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The mitigation measures that I mentioned earlier also include a B.C. HST credit, and that would be provided on a refundable basis. That would be provided quarterly to individuals who earn up to $20,000 — $230 per family member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That money will be made available to these taxpayers, these individuals, immediately, four times a year, so they don't even have to necessarily feel the impacts of whatever additional cost they might bear. That credit alone is estimated to benefit over 1.1 million British Columbians. That's a quarter of our population. Haven't heard very much from the NDP on that particular initiative. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As I said, as well…. I talked about the point-of-sale rebate on those particular items. I do encourage people who are following this debate to have a look at the website, find out some of those point-of-sale items and the rebate, because effectively, that has the essential effect of making an item zero-rated for the provincial portion of the tax. So the consumer does not pay the tax at the time of purchase, and that too is significant. I wanted to quickly mention that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I know that we are getting to a time where the debate on this legislation, second reading debate, will need to come to a close because we need to ensure that members opposite have an opportunity to debate the bill section by section, and I hope that they do. I think they need to do this, because only then will we be able to understand what it is that they have against repealing the PST. Only then are we going to be actually hearing what they're talking about in this particular piece of legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I have no doubt they will find ways to stall and ask repetitive questions on the section. I've seen it happen before. They may think that's part of parliamentary practice, but this is an important piece of legislation, one of the most significant tax policies that can be implemented. It's important. It really is important that the members, if they wish to understand this and really get to the heart of it, find the time to debate this section by section. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What we're doing today — talking about whether it goes to a committee or not — really becomes moot unless they spend the time and look at the legislation. I don't know that they've even spent any time looking at the legislation. They indicated that they have no intention of wanting to vote with it, and that's fair enough. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That's what happens often times in this House. We introduce measures, and the opposition opposes them. We introduce a number of tax measures that reduce taxes, and the NDP oppose them. We introduce a number of measures that enhance our local governments, and the NDP oppose them. It's just the normal way of business in this chamber, I suppose. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But we have an opportunity here to have some real, insightful debate by going through the bill section by section. I'm anxious to hear those questions by the members opposite, which is one of the reasons why I don't recommend referring it to a committee. That delay will not do anything to bring to light some of the important aspects of this piece of legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I wholeheartedly would encourage members to wrap up their comments. Let's get down to the business of committee stage on this debate, and then let's allow the public to really understand the focus of what's happening here today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I appreciate the time I've had to speak, and if that were to occur again, I would be most pleased to do so. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

B. Ralston: I don't think anyone is fooled by the member's plea for the kind of understanding and insight that's going to come from committee stage. As she well knows, we're going to vote within about 15 minutes by…. We're compelled to end this debate. Her plea for that kind of understanding just rings a bit hollow, and I'm kind of disappointed that she would put it that way. She knows that debate at second reading is a broad debate. It focuses on principles and enables members to state their position very clearly, and that's why I'm supporting this particular motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But the tone of the remarks of the members opposite, particularly the last one…. The general theme has been: "Well, there's just this misunderstanding. If only there was just a little bit more intellectual penetration and people really understood." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Well, let me quote someone who has made some comments recently, who I think maybe brings some knowledge of this topic to the issue. She says: "This particular tax takes the tax off of businesses. It takes $1.8 billion off of businesses and puts it on consumers. That shift is a shift that is ideological as well as factual. Many people will be paying the 7 percent increase on a lot of services and consumer goods, so there's a really strong reaction against that." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

No marks for guessing this right. This is someone very familiar to the members opposite, who actually sat over in that spot right over there and was here up until December 2008, when she left — not to go into retirement; she was appointed by the federal Minister of Finance to head up an economic advisory council to advise the federal government on the economic future of the country. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This is hardly someone — Carole Taylor, the former Finance Minister — who would fall into this category that the members choose to categorize those people who are opposed to this — as unknowing, bamboozled, ignorant, not informed. She was, as Finance Minister, of course at the apex of the parliamentary system. She was advised by the deputy minister; had access to all the officials, all the studies — wherever they were or whenever they were done; participated in the debates; spoke to business people over a number of years. That's what she is saying about the tax publicly. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So it's really hard to use that kind of language to describe her. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

B. Ralston: I know that this gets the members opposite…. The member from Mission should be wary of making his comments. He's already made his one big mistake for the week. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think we ought to just look at what she said, "That shift is a shift that is ideological as well as factual" — ideological. So she recognizes that it's not just a question of embedded PST. It's a question of the political predilections of the Premier and the cabinet as they exist now. Ideological suggests that it's a political choice; it's not a factual choice. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So that's why it's particularly significant and why the members are now, on the other side, beginning to squirm in their seats and heckle, because they feel very uncomfortable when this is brought up. So that shift is a shift that is ideological as well as factual. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

B. Ralston: Carole Taylor — "ideological as well as factual." This puts a very different cast on the theme that we hear opposite — that people don't understand. "If they only just understood. If they only just understood what was going on." There's only a little bit more intellect applied to this argument. "If they only really understood embedded PST, they would all support it." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This is a person appointed by the federal Finance Minister to give advice to the federal government about national economic recovery. By most measures, that's a pretty big job. I understand the members opposite now want to attack this person, as they do, but she doesn't sound like she's in that group of 3 percent who strongly support the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I know that the minister was concerned that this group, in one survey, had shrunk to 2 percent of the public. That's probably why he launched the advertising campaign that he's talking about. When you lose 50 percent of your support, from 3 percent down to 2 percent, that's a real concern. So I understand why the members opposite are concerned. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Let's go on to see what she said: "But I think the bigger issue is that just before the election he promised that they would not do the harmonization of the sales tax and then right after the election decided to do it." So you're getting two flows here. One, no one likes taxes. But for the other, there is a feeling of having been deceived by the government that the people elected. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

B. Ralston: I think that was Carole Taylor, for sure, who sat opposite us here in the Legislature, a member of the cabinet with access to all the wisdom that the members opposite have to offer and yet seems to have a very, very contrary view as to what's been taking place over the last several months. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I can understand that the members opposite think that this particular person is wrong, that she is not knowledgable. But it's pretty hard to accept, when you come from that position. I certainly didn't always agree with her, but it's nice to see that she has come to the realization of what actually happened before the last election and what the policy really means and its implications for British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think that members opposite really ought to support this recommendation to refer to the Finance Committee, because there's an opportunity, given shifting public opinion…. This is just the latest high-profile person to comment on the HST and why it's not a good thing for British Columbia and why there's a feeling of having been deceived by the government that people elected. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

B. Ralston: The member from Mission, I think, has made his one mistake for the week, so I don't really want to encourage him to make another one. If he persists, we can get another mistake on the record if he wants to, but I think after that rather humiliating climb down, he might want to just bite his tongue for the next few minutes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Here is what Carole Taylor said, and it's quite brutal. "The numbers are very negative." That's her assessment, a former, obviously, cabinet minister, a political insider. That's her assessment of the strength of the support for the HST: "The numbers are very negative." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I don't think you really need to be too surprised by that assessment. Anyone who has talked to anyone out on the street, who has been out knocking on doors or meeting their constituents in their constituency office or even out on the street, recognizes that people across the province feel that they were deceived by the government in the last election, and they hate this tax. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

They're opposed to what the government is doing, and they're not fooled by the suggestion that the government members make about: "Really, what this bill is about is to simply take away the provincial sales tax, and the members opposite really don't understand that." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The federal government and the provincial government signed an agreement. As a condition of that agreement…. There were a number of conditions, but one of the important conditions was that upon introduction of this bill the government would receive a tidy sum of money. It was initially $750 million. It shifted, as a result of negotiation, to less than that. But over the next two years we'll receive the sum of $1.6 billion from the federal government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The Minister of Finance at one point thought that he might be able to even take all of that $1.6 billion in one year. That was the initial feeling, and that soon changed in the course of negotiations. But that was a response to the predicament that the government found itself in after the election, when the Premier had said very emphatically on April 23 that the deficit was going to be $495 million, maximum. Lo and behold, after the election, looking at multiples of that, up to $3 billion. So this $1.6 billion offered an avenue, a way out for the government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

B. Ralston: Well, that's interesting. I'm being questioned by or prompted by one of my colleagues. That's a very good question. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Actually, you know, there was a previous member of this House, Rick Thorpe, Minister of Revenue, who spoke — not on his watch — strongly against the HST. He was concerned about giving up provincial policy flexibility. Not only do we have…. You know, it would be great if he could join us here in the House, maybe on this side of the House. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

He said he wouldn't do it. He spent a lot of time as a minister working to reform the PST. He certainly never described the PST as outmoded or archaic or anything like that. He devoted countless hours to going around the province, receiving representations on the provincial sales tax, making it better, streamlining it, doing all kinds of things. That's how he talked about it. He talked about it as being a very effective tax that was responsive to business, and he did all that kind of work. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think that there's a long list of people that I could recite, but I don't really have the time. I only have a few more minutes here, unfortunately, to begin to sum up. But there is a reason why this bill should be referred to this committee. There is new information. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Groups such as the restaurant owners have conducted studies. They have given fresh information and fresh analysis to the government, and they should be listened to, but it's very clear that the government, from the moment it embarked on this procedure, decided that they weren't about to listen to those kinds of representations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The restaurant industry points out that Ontario will have a partial restaurant meal PST exemption after HST and that the restaurant industry will be obliged to compete with jurisdictions where there is no HST for investment: Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and, of course, the United States and the states to the south of us. Washington, Oregon don't have an HST as well. So the jurisdictions that are immediately surrounding our province geographically don't have an HST, and that will put competitive pressures…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We've often heard, up until this debate started, that the proper measure for tax fairness is Alberta and that it was important to be competitive with Alberta. We heard a lot about that. We don't hear so much about that now. Alberta didn't have a provincial sales tax, and it's certainly not implementing an HST. So the tax disadvantage, in that respect, with Alberta is zero in Alberta and 12 percent, prospectively, in British Columbia. Somehow we don't hear that. We only hear the comparison now with Ontario. Alberta's kind of completely dropped out of the picture. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So that's a comment by the restaurant industry, that they — and I'm just quoting from one of their briefs: "must compete for investment with neighbours, Alberta and Saskatchewan, that have no HST or provincial sales tax on restaurant food." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

B. Ralston: Well, thanks very much. I'm glad to get the support from colleagues on both sides of the House for me to continue, although they've grown very quiet now. Maybe they're listening. I don't know. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The Minister of Finance likes to talk about the other jurisdictions that have a value-added tax, but it's interesting to note that in the European Union there is a lower value-added-tax rate for certain labour-intensive services, particularly in the hospitality industry. France, for example, dramatically reduced the value-added tax on restaurant meals from 19.9 percent down to 5 percent. The reason they did that was because they knew that the effect of the value-added tax at that elevated level was a job-killer. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That's the point that they're making here in British Columbia relative to the present situation here in the tax regime — that an increase of that tax.... The impact on the restaurant industry will be, they estimate, a loss of $750 million in revenue, with no measures by the government to mitigate that impact. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

How that loss of revenue will play out in terms of job loss doesn't seem to be something that Mr. Mintz has factored in at all. Indeed, Mr. Mintz, in another paper that he did for the C.D. Howe Institute that projected a model of the impact of the HST on Ontario, said that there would be job loss, certainly, and that the job loss would not be remedied for at least ten years. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

He also spoke of the CPI shock. That's what he called the impact of the HST, and his model was a 7.5 percent HST — a CPI shock. "The CPI shock caused by shifting the indirect tax burden to consumption under harmonization leads to an attempt by workers who are trying to maintain the real purchasing power of their wages to raise nominal wages." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

He calls it a CPI shock. Now, that's not the description…. There are four economists that wrote this paper. Jack Mintz is one of them, and that's how he describes the impact of the HST — as a CPI shock. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We don't hear that language from the other side at all, but he has some good news, I suppose, from his perspective. I'm mindful of the words of the former Finance Minister, that this shift is ideological as well as factual. He says: "After several years of somewhat higher unemployment caused by this tax, however, workers come to accept the real wage losses inherent in raising indirect taxes on consumption, and base-case employment levels can be restored with no additional inflationary pressures." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It's only when workers decide that they're going to give up. There's higher unemployment caused by the tax. The real wages have fallen. Again, you know, a C.D. Howe study, 2008, authored by four economists. That's what they say in this simulation. Once that takes place, they give up. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It is indeed an ideological as well as a factual policy — ideological in the sense that it shifts taxes onto people and onto small business, and it lowers real wages. It causes more unemployment in this model for the first ten years of the policy, yet it has some benefits that are seen by this person in an ideological light. I think that's why Carole Taylor has chosen to use the word "ideological" to describe it, because the return to capital at the end of that ten years might begin to increase, at least in a theoretical model. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Like many economic models, it's pure theory. One can well imagine that as a result of economic events globally in 2009, a lot of the economic literature and economic theory about the success of the self-regulating market is under some scrutiny. Those models and that intellectual apparatus didn't really perform all that well in predicting what happened in 2008 and 2009, and those kinds of theoretical models are under review. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We have a very, very slim justification offered by the members opposite. The overwhelming theme, though, is that people unfortunately just don't understand. They seem to be awash in a fear of superstition and exaggeration, and people like Carole Taylor are having the wool pulled over their eyes. They just don't understand how really good this policy is. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That seems to be the position of the members in the government. Really, their unifying theme, in order to persuade people to adopt this particular policy, is that if they would just simply listen harder or listen up, they would realize that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. Members, in accordance with the motion passed on April 26, I am now obliged to put all necessary questions for the completion of second reading stage of Bill 9. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Accordingly, the question currently before the House is the motion to refer the subject matter of Bill 9 to a committee. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have heard the call of division, and I note that motions under which we are currently operating suggest that while division is certainly callable on second reading of a bill, all other motions, which would include current amendment motions, will be taken in accordance with practice recommendation No. 1, which permits the vote to be noted as on division. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In the absence of any objection, I am prepared to allow the request for a standing division to proceed on the clear understanding that this does not constitute a binding precedent in any other circumstances. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, on the basis you've just described, I am prepared to consent to the division. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the question before the House is the motion to refer the subject matter of Bill 9 to committee. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

YEAS — 35
S. Simpson	D. Black	Fleming
Farnworth	James	Ralston
Popham	B. Simpson	Austin
Karagianis	Brar	Hammell
Lali	Thorne	D. Routley
Horgan	Bains	Dix
Mungall	Chouhan	Macdonald
Corrigan	Chandra Herbert	Krog
Simons	Gentner	Elmore
Donaldson	Fraser	B. Routley
Conroy	Huntington	Coons
Sather		Trevena
NAYS — 48
Horne	Letnick	McRae
Stewart	I. Black	Coell
McNeil	Chong	Polak
Yamamoto	Bell	Krueger
Bennett	Stilwell	Hawes
Hogg	Thornthwaite	Hayer
Lee	Barnett	Bloy
Reid	Thomson	Falcon
Penner	de Jong	Campbell
Hansen	Bond	MacDiarmid
Abbott	Lekstrom	Coleman
Yap	Heed	Cantelon
Les	Sultan	McIntyre
Rustad	Cadieux	van Dongen
Howard	Lake	Foster
Slater	Dalton	Pimm

Mr. Speaker: The motion now before the House is the question of second reading of Bill 9. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

YEAS — 48
Horne	Letnick	McRae
Stewart	I. Black	Coell
McNeil	Chong	Polak
Yamamoto	Bell	Krueger
Bennett	Stilwell	Hawes
Hogg	Thornthwaite	Hayer
Lee	Barnett	Bloy
Reid	Thomson	Falcon
Penner	de Jong	Campbell
Hansen	Bond	MacDiarmid
Abbott	Lekstrom	Coleman
Yap	Heed	Cantelon
Les	Sultan	McIntyre
Rustad	Cadieux	van Dongen
Howard	Lake	Foster
Slater	Dalton	Pimm
NAYS — 35
S. Simpson	D. Black	Fleming
Farnworth	James	Ralston
Popham	B. Simpson	Austin
Karagianis	Brar	Hammell
Lali	Thorne	D. Routley
Horgan	Bains	Dix
Mungall	Chouhan	Macdonald
Corrigan	Chandra Herbert	Krog
Simons	Gentner	Elmore
Donaldson	Fraser	B. Routley
Conroy	Huntington	Coons
Sather		Trevena

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

MOTION TO REFER A BILL TO
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
NOT SUBJECT TO DEBATE OR DIVISION

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the moving of a bill from one stage to the other is an administrative matter. There is no debate, no division, so the motion is carried. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Bill 9, Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 11, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2). [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. de Jong: The practice in this chamber on second reading for the miscellaneous statutes amendment bill would be to provide perfunctory remarks, and I certainly intend to keep my remarks brief. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Members, if you've got other business, could you attend to it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. de Jong: The first thing I want to reiterate to members of the House and, in particular, the official opposition critic for the Attorney General's ministry is that though the bill has been on the order paper for some time, there may be specific provisions that he or his colleagues are interested in obtaining a particular briefing around. To the extent that he or his colleagues could provide an indication of which sections those are, I will endeavour to assist in arranging for those discussions and briefings to take place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

A sizable portion of the bill is dedicated to amendments that relate to the new Supreme Court rules deriving from the announcement and the work that was undertaken by the rules revision committee. I think it's fair to say that the bulk of those are largely administrative in nature in tracking some of the new terminology that arises out of the new rules that are scheduled to take effect in just a few months. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Beyond that, of course, there are amendments to a variety of statutes — the First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act; the Land Act; the Land Title Act; the Community Charter; the Hospital Act; the Health Professions Amendment Act. Some of these, it's fair to say, are substantive amendments that will be worthy of closer examination and discussion when the bill makes it to committee stage. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Similarly, transportation and infrastructure statutes are amended — the Motor Vehicle Act — and I'm certain that members will have some questions relating to some of these provisions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As I said at the outset, to the extent that I can be of assistance in acquiring necessary information to make that a more meaningful exchange in this chamber, I am happy to do so. Those would be my initial comments. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Nanaimo. [Applause.] [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I'm always grateful for the warm reception of my colleagues as I commence debate on this very important bill. There's nothing like a good miscellaneous statutes amendment act, a little potpourri for all the members of the Legislature, an opportunity for critics and ministers to all stand up and pass a few words on things that may, on the face of it, appear to be important and are not or that, on the face of it, may appear to be unimportant and, in fact, are important. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Noting some of the first sections, changes to the First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act talk now about "protect, revitalize and enhance First Nations heritage, language, culture and arts" from "preserving and restoring," which was the old language. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm going to presume that the Attorney General will be able to satisfy this House that these changes represent a period of, I would hope, significant consultation with First Nations in order to satisfy the opposition that these, in fact, are not only desirable, which they appear to be on their face, but are in accordance with the wishes of the First Nations people of British Columbia, who are impacted most directly by this legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I am somewhat concerned, however, that section 2, for instance, talks about adding a new definition for First Nations language group: "…means a First Nations language group prescribed by the minister under subsection (2)." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I have raised in this House on many occasions in the past what has become, I think, a very dangerous practice of this House and, indeed, other legislatures, which provides for the continuous use of prescription by either cabinet or, in this particular case, by a minister, which means that none of this will ever come back to this House. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

None of it will ever face scrutiny by members of the Legislative Assembly who, in my basic understanding of our role here, are in fact elected to do exactly that — to ensure that the laws that govern the people of British Columbia are subject to a fulsome debate, an opportunity for scrutiny, criticism and, if governments are wise, an opportunity for consultation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In this particular case, what we are being asked to do in approving this particular section of Bill 11, again, is to allow for not even cabinet to approve what will fall under the definition of being a First Nations language group, but limiting it even more — in fact, to the minister, him or herself. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, it does add the comforting section: "After consulting with the board, the minister may make regulations setting out the First Nations language groups from which the members of the committee may be appointed." That's another section…. Again, it talks about consultation, but the minister may make regulations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, that's a new one on me. Regulations, in my understanding of it, require cabinet approval. Again, it appears here that not just are we, as in the previous section, talking about the minister being able to prescribe; we're now saying the minister gets to make the regulations and, again, without public consultation or public scrutiny. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Moreover, there are some fairly significant changes around "3 voting members" — substituting "2 voting members," Then it talks about the addition of non-voting members "appointed by the minister for the purpose of providing the government's perspective to the board." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Again, one has to question it. What is the sense of reducing the number of voting members? How is that going to advance the implementation of the stated purpose of the First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act? It seems to me that surely for voting members it would be far preferable to have a larger number rather than a reduced number. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There are some specific provisions around the agricultural and lands amendment act. It talks about, again, how "fossil" will be "defined by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I appreciate the ease that government likes to bring to operational matters, the ease being that you can just sit around the cabinet table and define what a fossil is and move on. Now, that may be desirable in terms of being able to implement something quickly because you wish to protect some particular aspect of British Columbia's heritage or culture that might otherwise not meet that definition. But again, these are defined by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. These will not be subject to legislative scrutiny. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I suspect that some of my fellow members on this side of the House would have been delighted if the government could have moved quickly, for instance, to preserve the very historic and important cave at Bear Mountain prior to its development. It would have been nice to have had the immediate opportunity, if you will, for government to move quickly to prevent the desecration of a sacred site, sacred to the First Nations people of southern Vancouver Island. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I don't see anything in this bill that's going to solve that problem, but we are going to allow government, by regulation, to define "fossil," which strikes me as something that is of some significant consequence. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There are also provisions in the bill relating to the Land Title Act, which I'm going to presume will in fact allow the registration of applications, plans, plan applications or other documents electronically which aren't acceptable under the present system. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We have had electronic registration for a number of years in British Columbia, a matter of some concern, of course. It's hard to convince people sometimes that their document has been registered in Victoria when it doesn't come back with a nice stamp on it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

They get simply a confirming letter from a lawyer or a notary saying that everything's as it should be. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Moving to an electronic registration of all plans and plan applications, I think, is of some consequence. It will be important, I think, to determine what the government's plans are with respect to this particular section. Will there be, in fact, a significant period of public opportunity for education and advice about this? It will represent a significant change in practice. Those are matters which the Attorney General, I hope, will be able to answer during committee stage of this bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, there are a number of sections in this bill, running sections 20 to 98, which, if you look at the explanatory note, talk about this harmonizing "the language of the referenced acts with the language of the new Supreme Court civil rules and Supreme Court family rules that come into force on July 1, 2010." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm going to accept the legislative drafter's notes. I'm going to accept that the Attorney General indicated, as he did in a conversation with me and as he has indicated in this House, that those are, in fact, matters of no significant consequence, that they are in fact exactly what they appear to be — a harmonization of language with no consequence. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That may or may not be true of the sections that follow. In particular, in reference to part 4 of the bill, there are numerous sections that talk about the community and rural development amendments. This relates to the Community Charter, Environmental Management Act, Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act, Hospital District Act, Islands Trust, Local Government Act — numerous sections with respect to the Local Government Act in particular. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

At this stage the opposition has no idea whether there has been the kind of public consultation with municipal government that one would expect in these circumstances or the kind of consultation that would be appropriate, particularly with the Islands Trust. I suspect the opposition, given the public experience with the lack of consultation around the implementation of the HST, might approach this with a heightened level of suspicion which would not normally be the case. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That's certainly, as I understand it, having spoken to my colleague the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim, who has been doing some consultation with municipal government…. In fact they don't appear — some of them at least, those with whom he's had an opportunity to consult since the introduction of the bill…. They don't seem to be aware of the proposed amendments nor what exactly these proposed amendments will have by way of impact on municipal government in the province. That, for me, is a very concerning aspect of the bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There is no question that municipal governments in this province have felt somewhat put upon by this government's decisions to implement legislation that gives overriding authority to the province to override local planning, to allow major projects to proceed notwithstanding the opposition or, indeed, even the support or any position to be taken by local government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In this particular case I would be concerned that I didn't hear the Attorney General say in his opening remarks and comments in second reading of this bill today that, in fact, there had been that kind of consultation going on. But I am sure that the Attorney General — either him or the minister responsible for communities — will be able to satisfy the House that these changes aren't dramatic. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I note in particular with reference to the Islands Trust — which, of course, is near and dear to British Columbians, but most particularly those of us who have grown up on the coast…. Any changes to the Islands Trust Act are of concern. In reference to section 107, the explanatory note, for instance, indicates that it "allows the trust council to designate all or part of an island municipality as an area for which a natural area protection tax exemption may be granted." Section 108 "clarifies that regulations may be made under this section despite the act." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The way I would read and interpret that section means that regulations can be made that are contrary to the statute. Now, I would hope that that's not the intention. But based on my very quick reading of this, I'm not sure that that, in fact, is not the intention. In other words, we are moving, as I have said before, into a stage where we allow regulation to almost dominate how statutes are dealt with, and it now appears that regulations can be made under this section despite the act. I would have to take that to mean that despite what the legislation says, you can make a regulation that may be contrary to the statute. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I say this in second reading debate not necessarily as a matter of criticism of the government, but as an opportunity to warn the government of the kinds of questions that the opposition will be raising with respect to this bill. Clearly, if that's the case, I would love to hear from the minister responsible for the Islands Trust whether or not, in fact, the Islands Trust has been consulted on this and whether or not that is, indeed, the meaning of the sections as proposed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There are other sections relating to the Local Government Act requiring, for instance, in section 113, "the establishment of an intergovernmental advisory committee if there is a proposed amendment to the regional growth strategy that is not a minor amendment." Those are more negatives than I care to add up in my tiny, little head. I'm not entirely sure that that represents the kind of clarity that is appropriate. It may explain why my friend the member from Alberni-Qualicum has, in his consultations with local government, not been able to satisfy himself that they have, in fact, been consulted appropriately. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There are numerous other provisions relating to the phasing in of developments, talking about specified subdivision servicing, bylaw provisions, consideration under section 114 allowing for section 905.1 to be amended with respect to the time limit for approval and consideration of public interest in the Land Title Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Again, the concern of the opposition is: has there, in fact, been that kind of consultation? For instance, has the UBCM been consulted on this? Have those communities that, in particular, face far greater development pressures? I think it's safe to say that, for instance, Prince Rupert at the present time or Terrace are not facing significant development pressures, but Qualicum Beach, Parksville, Kelowna, communities of that nature, face huge development pressures. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What is the intent of these changes? Are they, indeed, going to promote growth unreasonably? Are they going to give an advantage to developers? Are they going to give some significant authority to local government that they need in order to control and manage development appropriately? These are all questions that need to be asked. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There is a very specific provision in section 122 that, according to the explanatory note, "provides that if a phased development agreement exists, no charges for latecomer connections are payable beyond 15 years after services are completed or the end of the phased development agreement, whichever is later." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This, on the face of it, would seem to indicate that if you get in early, you have to pay. If you get in late, you don't. I'm not entirely sure that that's an appropriate provision. I'd be interested to hear whether this, again, is a matter of the government coming to a decision. Or is this, indeed, a request of local government? Does this, in fact, represent progress? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There are changes to the Vancouver Charter as well, adding a definition of "newspaper." That struck me as particularly amusing. I would have thought we all would have known what a newspaper was, but it's now going to be defined by adding the term "newspaper," which "means, in relation to a requirement or authorization for publication in a newspaper, a publication, a local periodical that contains items of news and advertising." Now, that's very interesting. I suspect that that may extend the definition of newspaper in a way that perhaps none of us had ever contemplated. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It talks about, in reference to "a requirement or authorization for publication in a newspaper, a publication, a local periodical that contains items of news and advertising…." I guess my concern might be: what does that exactly describe? Now, it goes on in "Requirements for public notice": [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"3 (1) If this section applies… must be published in accordance with this section.

"(2) Subject to subsection (4), publication (a) must be in a newspaper that is distributed at least weekly (i) in the area affected by the subject matter of the notice, and (ii) if the area affected is not in the city, also in the city, and (b) unless otherwise provided, must be once each week for 2 consecutive weeks…" etc.

Again, one of the concerns I would have with respect to that is: is that a free newspaper? Is that a newspaper that is obtainable only by subscription? These are important questions to be asked. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It also empowers in section 128 "the Council to make by-laws regarding solid waste that vary in relation to different classes or areas specified by the Council." Again, I presume that the city of Vancouver has been asking for this authority, but I'm not satisfied that that, in fact, is indeed the case. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

If you are going to engage in the regulation of solid waste services, it talks about in section 128 that section 303 is going to be repealed, and what will be substituted is, in "Regulation of solid waste services": [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"(1) by by-law, regulating persons engaged in the business of removing, collecting transferring, recycling and disposing of solid waste, which by-law may vary in relation to one or more of the following established by the Council: (i) different classes of waste; (ii) different classes of persons; (iii) different classes of property; (iv) different areas of the city; (v) different classes of solid waste services."

I'm not sure, but it sounds like this section is giving the city of Vancouver, through amendments to the charter, the ability to discriminate significantly with respect to various areas of the city and classes of person and classes of property. I'm not entirely sure this sounds terribly democratic to me on the face of it, but not having that municipal experience that some members of the chamber have, perhaps my remarks are totally out of sync with what is the reality of modern municipal government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As much as we want to ensure that our cities are livable places, that we have an opportunity to govern appropriately in regards to changing circumstances, this may not be appropriate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I haven't received the nod, hon. Speaker, so I'm going to carry on for a minute or two. Pardon me. Hon. Speaker, being somewhat obtuse and late in the day and noting the hour, I would move adjournment of the debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

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.