2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 5

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M203 — Cosmetic Pesticide and Carcinogen Control Act, 2010

R. Fleming

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Earth Day

R. Fleming

Environmental initiatives in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky area

J. McIntyre

Alexandra Morton and walk for wild salmon

C. Trevena

Alzheimer Society of B.C.

L. Reid

Community Volunteer Services for Seniors

D. Thorne

Support for crime victims and violence prevention

D. Hayer

Oral Questions

Reporting on government and Crown corporation Olympic Games tickets

C. James

Hon. M. McNeil

J. Horgan

M. Farnworth

S. Simpson

Annual facilities grants for school districts and carbon neutrality

R. Austin

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

School district carbon offset costs and energy retrofit funding

R. Fleming

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Surrey school district portable use and carbon offset costs

H. Bains

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

School district carbon offset costs and energy retrofit funding

N. Macdonald

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

D. Horne

Petitions

D. McRae

M. Sather

Standing Order 81.1

Schedule for debate on Bill 9

Hon. M. de Jong

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act (continued)

On the amendment (continued)

J. Brar

Hon. B. Penner

G. Gentner

Hon. I. Black

S. Fraser

P. Pimm

D. Routley

R. Sultan

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests and Range

Hon. P. Bell

N. Macdonald

M. Karagianis

G. Coons

K. Corrigan

M. Sather

J. Horgan

[ Page 4721 ]

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2010

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1340]

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

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

[ Page 4722 ]

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Health.

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1345]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 4723 ]

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

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

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

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M203 — Cosmetic Pesticide and

Carcinogen Control Act, 2010

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

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

Motion approved.

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

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

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

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

[1350]

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

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

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

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

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

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

EARTH DAY

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

part in an earth day activity.

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

[ Page 4724 ]

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES IN

WEST VANCOUVER–SEA TO SKY AREA

J. McIntyre: As noted, today indeed is Earth Day, and in over 170 countries people will be taking

part in events and projects to recognize sustainability and to encourage greener living.

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

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

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

[1355]

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

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

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

ALEXANDRA MORTON

AND WALK FOR WILD SALMON

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 4725 ]

ALZHEIMER SOCIETY OF B.C.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMMUNITY VOLUNTEER SERVICES

FOR SENIORS

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

[1400]

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

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

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

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

SUPPORT FOR CRIME VICTIMS

AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION

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

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

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

This week across this great province, we recognize the right of Canadians and victims in activities that will

[ Page 4726 ]

focus on raising awareness of services available to victims of crime and enforce the shared belief that every victim matters. This government supports more than 160 police and community-based victim services programs across British Columbia to help raise awareness.

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

Oral Questions

REPORTING ON GOVERNMENT AND

CROWN CORPORATION

OLYMPIC GAMES TICKETS

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

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

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

[1405]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

[ Page 4727 ]

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

Interjections.

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

Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

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

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

[1410]

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: B.C. Hydro expends…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

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

The minister said in estimates….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

[1415]

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

[ Page 4728 ]

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

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

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

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

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

ANNUAL FACILITIES GRANTS FOR SCHOOL

DISTRICTS AND CARBON NEUTRALITY

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

[1420]

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

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

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

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

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It is very clear — something on Earth Day but every day of the year — that we owe it to our children and our grandchildren to make sure

[ Page 4729 ]

that we're working toward a cleaner environment and carbon neutrality.

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

SCHOOL DISTRICT CARBON OFFSET COSTS

AND ENERGY RETROFIT FUNDING

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

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

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

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

[1425]

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

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

Interjections.

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

SURREY SCHOOL DISTRICT PORTABLE USE

AND CARBON OFFSET COSTS

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: Answers we get from this minister today and for the weeks in the past are a despicable display of

[ Page 4730 ]

arrogance and contempt for our trustees and parents by this minister. The minimum she could do is be upfront with those parents and trustees and say: "Look, we're not giving you money, because we used that money to pay for the ministers' and Liberal MLAs' Olympic tickets."

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

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

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

[1430]

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

SCHOOL DISTRICT CARBON OFFSET COSTS

AND ENERGY RETROFIT FUNDING

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just wait, Member.

The member has a supplemental.

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

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

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

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

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

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

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

Petitions

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Sather: I seek leave to present a petition.

[ Page 4731 ]

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

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

[1435]

Standing Order 81.1

SCHEDULE FOR DEBATE ON BILL 9

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 simply to advise the House that I will be soliciting input from the Opposition House Leader with respect to developing a

schedule for debate on Bill 9 that would see the required votes on that bill take place prior to the expiration of the month of April.

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

Orders of the Day

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

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — CONSUMPTION TAX REBATE

AND TRANSITION ACT

(continued)

On the amendment (continued) .

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

[L. Reid in the chair.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1440]

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

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

[ Page 4732 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1445]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For reasons I'll go into in a moment, this bill itself will allow us to do just that. In short, this bill, Bill 9, is about jobs. On the other hand, the amendment from the members of the opposition and the member for Port Coquitlam is about the exact opposite. It's about stall-

[ Page 4733 ]

ing the passage of Bill 9, the Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act, and it's about stalling the economic recovery, which is now starting to take place in British Columbia.

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

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

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

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

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

[1450]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I try to stay in touch with some of the former work colleagues I had there, as well as the many friends that I've made in Thailand. When going on the Internet some months ago, I came across a feature

article in the Bangkok Post — a retrospective talking about when Thailand adopted the value-added tax and the controversy that was associated with that, but also the economic benefits that they've seen in terms of increased investment and job creation and a growth in incomes year after year in that country.

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

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

[ Page 4734 ]

smile than to get angry and engage themselves in violent protests.

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

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

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

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

[1455]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That will directly assist farmers in my community, not just in Chilliwack but also in Agassiz and Harrison. In all three areas we have a significant number of dairy farms, chicken farms, some pork producers and a number of other operations. So that's another reason why I support

[ Page 4735 ]

this initiative in Bill 9 and oppose the NDP's effort to derail it and postpone it and delay it and procrastinate by way of this referral motion, amendment motion, that the member for Port Coquitlam put forward.

[1500]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1505]

Just recently we saw an

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

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

[ Page 4736 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1510]

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

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

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

That is, I think, one of the reasons why the NDP in Nova Scotia, when looking to see how they were going to eliminate or at least take steps to eliminate their deficit, chose to increase the HST compared to other taxes. They

[ Page 4737 ]

knew that from an economic perspective it had a better impact on the economy than other choices that they were confronted with in terms of revenue increases.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1515]

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

[ Page 4738 ]

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

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

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

An Hon. Member: Tell them the truth.

G. Gentner: Tell them the truth.

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

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

[1520]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1525]

Here's a minister who in 2000 was running around the recall campaign in Cloverdale and all the rest of it, and he had a vision way back then to squeeze the con-

[ Page 4739 ]

sumers, way back in 2001. But he didn't come clean. No, Madam Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1530]

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

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

G. Gentner: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

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

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

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

[ Page 4740 ]

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1535]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 4741 ]

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

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

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

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

[1540]

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concert tickets. I like concert tickets, and I'm looking at what's coming up this summer. I'm just wondering if

[ Page 4742 ]

I'm going to be able and a lot of my friends are going to be able to afford it anymore. Maybe we should sit down and get an opportunity to go talk to some rock stars, some pop, hip hop guys. Go and consult with them. How is it going to affect their situation?

[1545]

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

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

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: One moment, Member.

Members.

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

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

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

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

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

Debate Continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1550]

I think of the ridiculous e-mail that's been making the rounds with respect to senior citizens and how there has been a perception that's been allowed to grow — completely against the facts, completely against the very commonly available information on the HST — that

[ Page 4743 ]

somehow this would punish seniors. The example used is of punishing seniors in the $40,000 income range to the tune of $2,100 a year of additional out-of-pocket expenditures that they otherwise would not have.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In fact, when you combine the $230 credit that's been associated with this measure, that every working British Columbian is going to get at the lower income levels….

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

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

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

[1555]

When we voted on, and the opposition voted