2011 Legislative Session: Fourth 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, May 17, 2012

Morning Sitting

Volume 39, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Reports from Committees

Special Committee on Cosmetic Pesticides, report for the fourth session of the 39th parliament

B. Bennett

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 54 — Provincial Sales Tax Act (continued)

B. Routley

J. Kwan

G. Coons

S. Chandra Herbert

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 37 — Animal Health Act (continued)

L. Popham

Hon. D. McRae

M. Sather

V. Huntington

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Justice (continued)

K. Corrigan

Hon. S. Bond

L. Krog

C. Trevena

Page 12141

THURSDAY, MAY 17, 2012

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Reports from Committees

B. Bennett: It gives me the greatest pleasure — I can hardly contain my sense of pleasure — to present the report of the Special Committee on Cosmetic Pesticides for the fourth session of the 39th parliament. Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Polak: In this House I call continued second reading debate on Bill 54, intituled the Provincial Sales Tax Act. If we were to complete that, we would move on to Bill 51, intituled the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2012, for continued second reading.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, continued committee debate on Bill 37, intituled the Animal Health Act, followed — ever hopefully — by committee stage debate on Bill 39, intituled the Emergency Intervention Disclosure Act.

In

Section C, the Birch Committee Room, the estimates of the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General.

[1005]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 54 — PROVINCIAL SALES TAX ACT

(continued)

B. Routley: You know, you take a walk down memory lane, and you think about how we got to Bill 54. It's been quite a journey. I would suggest it's had more twists and turns than any ride at the carnival in the PNE.

This government has come to this juncture and had to basically eat a little crow. As I heard once said, when you have to eat a little crow, it's just the last few feathers going down there are the hardest. This is the crow. This is the crow they have to eat. They had to be led by the people of B.C.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Unfortunately, that's not the way it's supposed to work. It's supposed to be the government leading the people of B.C. But in this case, this bill is here as absolute proof positive that the people of B.C. can lead when it comes to taxation and what's fair and what's right and what's honourable.

You know, you look back again at this, and you say to yourself: "If I was going to design a plan to fail, what would it look like?" Well, you could have this HST plan, or you could actually have what I would call kind of a cow-theory approach.

What this government has done with Bill 54 is effectively the same as coming in and saying: "We'll go down to Canadian Tire and buy the really good windshield wipers, and we're going to tie them to a cow's tail. At the end of the day, it's all going to work out good." But all we've got is flip-flop, flip-flop, and it's an absolute disaster for the people of British Columbia.

If they thought for a moment they were going to get any kind of clear vision through this HST plan, it is really the equivalent of the windshield wipers on the cow's tail. Even if they did buy the premium slick, Teflon-coated ones, it's just a bad plan. They were looking at it from the wrong perspective, and they certainly didn't consult British Columbians all over B.C.

We were horrified to learn right after an election, the people of B.C. discovered that this government had gone and signed a secret deal. Just months after the election they had gone in and signed a secret deal and introduced a tax that has led us to this day where Bill 54 is back presenting a provincial sales tax.

That's what it was all about at that time too. They were actually trying to get rid of the provincial sales tax and introduce a secret tax plan that…. Get this, hon. Speaker. Their plan was to take $2 billion from the good people of British Columbia and transfer it to the biggest corporations, multinational corporations, and all of their pals.

I remember well sitting on the Select Standing Committee on Finance, and we got to ask the questions about…. Well, we heard there was $880 million being transferred to the construction industry, and there was $80 million transferred to oil and gas. But they were telling the good people of B.C. that it'll all trickle down. It's all going to trickle back down. It's going to be good.

It's kind of like the cow in the field. Maybe if you feed it enough hay, something is going to trickle down. It'll all be good. It's kind of a corporate-cow approach. You feed all the grass in, all the money you can, and you hope. You stand at the back end and hope something will trickle down. We'll all be in the fertilizer business, because it's all going to trickle down, and it's all going to be so good, and it's going to be so wonderful.

The people of B.C. saw through it. They knew that this day had to come where we would get back to Bill 54, and you know, it was a struggle. It was a real struggle, because this government threw everything they had at this plan — them and their corporate pals. They emptied the coffers of British Columbia to throw every trick in the book, every kind of deception.

Page 12142

One of the first deceptions was that, oh, it was going to be revenue-neutral. And then, hon. Speaker, we got the bad news that we were going to lose…. And here it is. We were going to lose $113 million. Did you know that, hon. Speaker? At one point we were actually fed the story that: "Oh well, you know, there is going to be a bit of a loss, but it's going to be such a good tax. It's going to be so good for the economy. Everything is going to be coming up roses with all this trickle-down."

[1010]

Back to my select standing committee. I got to hear from this guy who is in the mining industry. I said: "Okay, we've heard over and over how this is going to trickle down and how it's going to be good for us. Could you explain to me, dear sir, at the end of the day, when you buy and sell in world commodity markets for your ore, for mining, how exactly you're going to trickle back to the good people of British Columbia the $80 million plus or minus that you are going to get from the good people of B.C.? We are going to pay for it.

When we buy a coffee or a hamburger or anything else, there it is on our bill — our HST. We're contributing to some of the richest, biggest corporations. How is it going to trickle back to the good people of B.C.?"

You know, he sat there for a while with a little smile. He was trying not to smile, but I think he saw the irony of what I was suggesting. We were in Vancouver, and there were all these tourism groups that had lost their funding — cut by 90 percent or whatever because we had to do this austerity plan. We've been giving so many millions of dollars away to multinational corporations over the years, with their tax cut after tax cut.

It's all part of this Bill 54. When you think about it, the PST is a tax strategy. It's Robin Hood in reverse. Let's take from the poor, and we'll give to the rich. What a plan. What a concept. They were shocked and surprised that the people of B.C. said: "Wait a minute. Let's put on the brakes here, and stop and think about what we're doing. How do we bring back some dignity and respect for the people of B.C.?"

When you go back to the very beginning, we had a government that not only didn't talk about the HST; they didn't talk about real numbers. They said that the debt was going to be $495 million and no more. That was the commitment. Why would you say that? Why wouldn't you say: "You know, we've got difficult times ahead right now, and the numbers are telling us that it's approximately $495 million"?

Why would you tell the good people of B.C. it's going to be $495 million and no more, and then come in with a forecasted deficit of $2.8 billion? Whoa. This is the best we've got in British Columbia? The Finance Minister and all these mathematicians squirreled away, who are working….

Deputy Speaker: Member, can I please direct you back to Bill 54.

B. Routley: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

That's what they were doing —working on the PST. This government had instructed them. We found out after the fact, after the election, that the PST was on its way out. We had no idea, the good people of British Columbia, just as we had no idea that we couldn't rely on the numbers that this government put out.

They said that it was not on their radar, hon. Speaker. They said it's not on their radar. They are not going to introduce this, and they specifically went out and told the homebuilders association and the restaurants. The restaurants were very concerned about any potential tax and the impact that might have on their businesses.

You look at what's happened since then. The other day I wandered over to the McDonald's event. They were part of the restaurant association. I ran into the owner there, who is very thankful for this piece of legislation, Bill 54, and wanted to say: "You know, this change is exactly what we need."

He pointed out that 12,000 restaurateurs with 2.6 million guests, as part of the association, say that they had a stark contrast with the rest of Canada. They had a 3.3 percent drop in real estate sales last year, which is the worst performance out of the provinces. This isn't just McDonald's; this is all of the sales. So the sales in British Columbia dropped $475 million, and this government gave $880 million to construction companies. Did anybody here hear they were having a tough time?

[1015]

You know, during the Olympics when they were building the bobsled thing…. Millions of dollars for a bobsled, and we got the new stadium, and we got the new roof so that the sun shines through. When the good folks want to have a beer, they can have this roof that parts. Isn't that wonderful? Yet they gave people who didn't even know they needed some money $880 million. They transferred it. They pulled it right out of the pockets of average British Columbians and put it into the pockets of these major construction companies and all these big corporations.

Where did this go at the end of the day? Well, it led to this bill, Bill 54. I have to say it is outrageous, hon. Speaker — absolutely outrageous at the end of the day — that this government and this Finance Minister couldn't take the fact that the good people of British Columbia had voted overwhelmingly — against great odds, with millions of dollars spent to try to deny the voice of those who were saying this wasn't fair.

The democratic vote of British Columbia determined that they wanted to go back to the PST, this very bill that we're talking about here today. What we hear from the Finance Minister is: "It's a better kind of stupid." I see that as an outright insult to the good people of British Columbia who took the time to go out and vote.

Page 12143

You know, we're going to support this legislation. We're going to support Bill 54. Why? Because it's the right step in the right direction to bring back the PST. But even in doing this, even in bringing back the PST, there are things that are left out and that are going to be put into regulation later.

"Trust us." This is a government that had all these issues that created the lack of trust amongst British Columbians. I just want to list off a few again. B.C. Rail. They said they weren't going to sell it. They sold B.C. Rail. They said that they weren't going to rip up contracts, and they did. They said that we weren't going to have the HST, and we ended up, for a time, doing away with the PST and bringing in the HST.

Then they said: "Oh, by the way, it is just so complicated. This tax has been there since 1948. It has been there since 1948, and it's just so complicated we just happen to need to keep it on until almost right before the election." Do you know what? We, the good people of British Columbia, have discovered that after the first year — guess what — the HST brought in $800 million more than the PST had.

So this was a cash grab. But did they tell the people of B.C.? Did they say to the good people of B.C.: "You know what we have in mind? We have in mind a plan to grab millions more and stuff the coffers of the province of British Columbia, but we're not going to tell you. What we're going to tell you is that it's revenue-neutral. In fact, we're going to tell you that we might even lose money."

This is about taxation. This is about this very bill about the PST. You even heard the Premier at one point saying that a one-point reduction will cost $800 million. To try to salvage the thing in the last few hours before the people of B.C. were going to vote on this, they talked about a reduction in a certain amount of percentage.

You look at all of the twists and turns. Well, there was three-quarters of a million dollars spent on a leaflet, which ended up getting shredded. Do you know that the Vancouver Sun went and looked into that? They wanted to find out exactly what was in this deal, so they had a look around.

The Vancouver Sun did a freedom-of-information act to actually get what was in this $780,000 leaflet. On the second page of the pamphlet they said: "Ten reasons why B.C. is the best place on earth." They had answers like: "We give hope to the world," "We're cool," and "We like big stuff." They had planned, as part of the HST, to deny the PST…. They were going to have an iPad giveaway as part of this scheme. I mean, you think about all of these twists and turns.

[1020]

Do any of you remember that former Premier Gordon Campbell got on TV and promised, I think, a 15 percent tax cut? Everybody went: "What? What are you talking about?" Then we had….

Deputy Speaker: Member, would you take your seat for just a moment, please.

I want to remind all members of the House that the bill on the floor is Bill 54. Would you please direct your comments to Bill 54.

Continue, Member.

B. Routley: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Bill 54, at the end of the day, is about returning to the provincial sales tax. I think it is legitimate — and I'm not going to argue with the Speaker, of course — as part of the history of why we're here today to talk about Bill 54 and the provincial sales tax.

This is a tsunami of change that we have gone through. We have gone through the change from the PST to the HST, and now we're going back to the PST.

This is a government that claims to care about business. At the end of the day, it has cost millions of dollars to businesses all over British Columbia to go through this huge transition. Think of the amount of paperwork involved in transferring from the PST to the HST, trying to learn this whole new system.

A lot of those consumers, especially restaurateurs, were part of the group that came out in droves to vote out the HST and return to the PST. That is exactly what I wanted to focus on: the return to the PST and the fact of how we got here, the legacy of the issues at hand that led us to this place.

Forgive me for taking that walk down memory lane, hon. Speaker. But I think the good people of British Columbia deserve the opportunity here — once again, why it was that they came out in droves to exercise their democratic rights to voice their opposition on an issue and what was done to try to stifle that voice to come back and introduce a bill like this one, Bill 54, which is going to…. Eventually we're going to actually get to vote on eliminating the HST. This is a step to bring in the PST.

I look forward to the day where we actually have something in front of us to eliminate the HST. The suggestion that we've heard from government is that this somehow modernizes the provincial sales tax. Again, they had the audacity to call it a better kind of stupid, which is really just totally unacceptable to the people of B.C. I don't know how you could say that about a democratic choice, the will of the people of British Columbia exercised.

People came out of their homes — seniors, people who are infirm or are in some way disabled came out — and voted to have their will to go back to this PST, to have the Provincial Sales Tax Act put back because they felt the unfairness. They felt brutalized by this change in tax and wanted to see us back to a PST.

Some of the features of this…. The luxury car surtax is back. If anybody was planning on buying a luxury car, they should race right out and get one now before this comes back.

That leads me to the problem of the HST. One of the

Page 12144

problems with the HST — as compared to what's happening in returning to this PST, this act — was the disparity and impact that it had on middle-income earners and people at the bottom of the pay scale.

We all know that reports not only in Canada but certainly in British Columbia show the widening gap and disparity between the richest 1 percent or 10 percent or even 20 percent and the people at the bottom of the scale, the folks who have even less income.

[1025]

It took a bigger bite out of their wage, out of what they had left to live on. Then of course the impact of the HST on those who had millions of dollars and were very rich didn't seem all that bad, as compared to the impact it had…. That's why people came out and wanted to see this return to the provincial sales tax.

I do want to mention that one of the features of getting us to this place is the Stickman. Remember the famous Stickman we heard? They had Stickman commercials, which the government went out and purchased. They spent a lot of money on Stickman commercials. It was unbelievable how much money actually was spent on that. Over $3 million was spent on Stickman commercials, if you can imagine that. It's just stunning, really, to think that we have that kind of money spent in the province of British Columbia to bring us back to this place.

Now we get to talk about Bill 54, the Provincial Sales Tax Act. Far too much is left, under Bill 54, to regulation. Computer software is going to be taxed unless the software becomes part of other software or "tangible personal property for…retail sale or lease." All services aren't going to be taxed, except as specified.

This is the way it was originally done. I mean, the tax had been around since 1948. There's no question that it had a certain level of complexity, when you look at all of the changes that had been done. They were done for good reason. Various governments over the years had looked at opportunities — things like sales taxes and other kinds of taxes — to affect a certain group and not others.

But the transition that we went through was dramatic and has, for whatever reason, taken so long to get back to the PST. It's my belief that it's unacceptable that it's taken so long.

As I have said, it has taken $800 million more out of British Columbians' pockets. As a minimum, that is $1.9 billion, but $800 million of that is extra money that is there. This is a huge transfer of cash to ordinary British Columbians, and it's my hope that through this act, people will have more money.

When I talked to that McDonald's manager, he hoped that too. He believed that as people receive more of their disposable income — going back to the PST, under this legislation — there will be the opportunity for more people to have disposable income that they will then invest in going out for a nice meal or another cup of coffee. It's my hope that business doesn't take advantage of this change to gouge the people in any way. I would hope that doesn't go on.

I've heard people concerned about that, saying: "Will a restaurant meal really go down in price at the end of the day, or will people take advantage of that?" I think the restaurant businesses are most interested in bringing back more people to their businesses. This is indeed a good day and will be a great opportunity for businesses that were most severely impacted by the previous legislation.

I see the hour is late. We are almost at the end of my opportunity to say my two bits about this change. Again, I want to say that this is a good day for the good people of British Columbia.

The good people of British Columbia got out and voted. Both sides went at it. One side had a lot more cash than the other to throw at the problem, but the good people of British Columbia saw through what was going on. They understood full well that they were voting on a PST return, which they felt was more fair, and that, on the balance of issues, it was going to be a good thing to return to the PST.

[1030]

I'm delighted that the good people of British Columbia were able to have that opportunity to voice their position and to actually change the way government functions and to do something that's good.

I would want to reframe it. This is not a "better stupid" tax. This is a better tax for honest, hard-working people, for people throughout British Columbia that are living in poverty. This is a better day, all the way around, for ordinary British Columbians. They spoke. They were ultimately listened to. This return to the PST will indeed be a happy day for a lot of people — certainly, even for kids. Even the kids, when they go down to buy a bike, are going to see the advantage of saving this money.

You know, you wonder about the millions of dollars. Do we really think that oil and gas are sometimes going to have a difficult time? I don't think so. Do you think that these other major groups…?

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

J. Kwan: Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 54. I think this is perhaps one of the most significant bills that has come before us. Why I say that is because it is about our taxation system and its implications for all British Columbians — whether you're an individual or a family or whether you're a business in our communities.

This bill, I would say, has been a long-awaited bill. It's a bill that British Columbians have wanted to see ever since the HST was introduced in the province. It is a bill that I think people had been driving towards through the initiative process, the petition process that people engaged in and then, ultimately, the referendum that was held by British Columbians, where some 700,000 British

Page 12145

Columbians voted to get rid of the HST.

The HST, as we all know, was brought in after the government said that they weren't going to bring it in, prior to the last election. Shortly after that, the government promptly then brought in the HST, to the dismay of many British Columbians who felt betrayed by the government on that issue — a major taxation policy change. During the election there was no mention about it. Then after the fact — literally, weeks after the fact — the Liberal government then announced that they would bring in the HST.

So you can imagine the community's response to that, the betrayal that they felt. People took to the streets, literally, having petitions initiated which ultimately led to the referendum vote where thousands of British Columbians went to work and had their voice expressed and heard.

Now, it is astounding to me that this bill took this long to come to this stage in this House. As of today, by the end of today, we will only have four more days in this precinct — four more days to debate a major piece of legislation that British Columbians, arguably, have been waiting for, for close to two years.

The government says it's complicated, and I get it. It is complicated. The taxation switch back to the PST is not an easy move — no easier than it was when you moved from the PST system into the HST system, and that only took the government, frankly, 11 months to get there. How is it that it has taken this long, 19 months, then, to revert back to the PST system? It is a mystery to me. The Minister of Finance has said: "It's complicated. We're doing all sorts of stuff to get us here, and that's why it has taken this long."

Yet when you look at the bill…. I was dismayed not to see in the bill the actual list of things that ought to be exempted for PST. This is essentially the list that was already there that says the PST was exempted, which we have used year after year after year. That list already exists.

[1035]

Yet it's not part of the legislation. It's not part of Bill 54. On Monday when the Minister of Finance introduced the bill…. I have Hansard here, although it is Hansard Blues, so there might be some minor alteration from what the minister actually said. Hansard does such a wonderful job all the time, and I'm pretty sure it is exactly reflecting what the minister said. I'm actually going to quote this passage on what the minister said.

The minister said that the new Provincial Sales Tax Act "implements a sales tax that applies to the same goods and services and provides for the same permanent exemptions as the old PST and hotel tax but in a new, modern, clear and more comprehensive act." Okay? That's one passage in what the minister said on Monday when he introduced Bill 54.

But when you look at the bill itself and compare some of the big items that were exempted prior to the HST, you will note, Madam Speaker, that in fact the tax on old vehicles — used vehicles — still applies. That is to say the PST and GST apply to used vehicles. Prior to that, prior to the introduction of the HST, under the PST system old used vehicles did not have that extra tax. We did not have that extra tax.

The point I'm trying to make is that it is erroneous to say that this is exactly the same list of exemptions that were in place prior to the introduction of the HST. Case in point would be the application of that tax to old used vehicles.

The theory around why you should not be taxed twice on old used vehicles is because you already paid that tax — the original owner when they bought it brand-new. The original owner — it could be me; it could be anybody…. When I want to sell that car to someone else, it's a resale of a car, a product that you had already paid taxes on.

Why are we then double-dipping on the taxation on that article? That's why there was an exemption. Yet here we are, right on the heels of the government telling British Columbians that they weren't going to bring in the HST until the uproar of the community drove the government to have the referendum where 700,000 people voted in support of getting rid of the HST….

Then the government says they're going to bring in legislation. Then they say, right here in this House, that everything is going to be exactly the same as the PST on the issues around exemptions. They said there are some other improvements as well.

But on the exemptions alone, it is already proven that the government is not telling British Columbians what was in fact the case around PST exemptions. So there is already an inconsistency right here in the House on the introduction of the bill and the actual legislation itself. With the rest of the exemptions — whether it be restaurant services, haircuts, school books and all of those things that were formerly exempted with the PST system…. None of it is stated in the legislation itself.

The government says: "Trust us." The minister says: "Trust us. We're going to provide that to you later on by way of a regulation." You will pardon me, Madam Speaker. If I was watching and observing all of this in the public, I would be just a little bit skeptical, given the track record of this government to date on a whole range of issues. But for the purposes of this debate, I will limit it only to the issue of the HST.

Given their track record, how is it that the government thinks that British Columbians will simply say, "Oh yes, okay. We believe you. You are going to do exactly what you say you're going to do," when all along, every step of the way, the government has not done that?

[1040]

Why wouldn't the government do that? I don't get it. They took a long time to get this bill here. They said it was complicated. Yet the list of exemptions that should have been, I would argue, a part of this piece of legislation, Bill 54, is not included. Why is that? It's not like we

Page 12146

don't know what those items are. We know what they are. Other jurisdictions have done that.

Manitoba, as an example, has a retail sales tax and the main exemptions, and they are laid out in legislation. People know exactly what those are, and it is written there in black and white, worth the paper it is printed on. The people of Manitoba will know what the law is, as it stands. We now don't know until we see the regulations.

Even on that point we already know there is a contradiction around the list of exemptions — that being used cars. I don't think it bodes well. I think it's a mistake to have done that. I think it's unfortunate that the Minister of Finance, the Liberal government, saw fit not to include the list of exemptions.

Now, like so many British Columbians, I worked hard with my constituents and consulted with them at length around what their thoughts are on the HST — whether or not they thought it was a good tax, whether or not they thought the old PST system was better and what their views were. Overwhelmingly, people in my constituency told me that they preferred the old PST system.

There is a saying that the electorate is never wrong. That's the nature of democracy. They speak, and they put their voice out to the public, both at election time and during the period in which you are between elections.

Part of our job as representatives of those communities is to go and seek their voices, to hear their voices, to see what they have to say around these proposed changes. Overwhelmingly, the people of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, over 63 percent, voted to say that they wanted the old PST system back. That is to say, they wanted to get rid of the HST, as did the majority of British Columbians, as we saw, who participated in the referendum. Hence, we're here today.

For the Minister of Finance to somehow suggest, even at this stage of the game…. For him to say on the public record that this bill, Bill 54, bringing back the old PST system, brings back a "better stupid" tax…. I am dismayed to hear that kind of language spoken by the minister. It is not funny at all. It is not a joke. It is demeaning to the people of British Columbia. It's not hilarious, as some members might think. It is thumbing their nose at the people who exercised their democratic right to have their voice heard and respected.

Interjection.

J. Kwan: Well, good for you. The member from…. Let me just check. What community is he from? The member from Kelowna says his constituents said that they voted to get rid of the PST, that they wanted to support the HST. Well, that member is allowed to express that point of view. But the fact is — and that member better know it — that the majority and the overall vote on the HST is that over 700,000 British Columbians said no to the HST.

The government members can sit there and laugh all they want and derail the British Columbians who voted to get rid of the HST all they want and think that it's funny or that somehow democracy is wrong, that somehow the people who have spoken are absolutely wrong — and how dare they, because they know better. They can act that way, and they are acting that way. Maybe in the next election the people of British Columbia will send them just that message on what they think of that kind of arrogance and behaviour.

[1045]

There are times when things happen, as it were, in our democratic system. The people speak, and you might think differently. You might even have a different point of view. But that said, it is still our job to respect those voices.

The member for Kelowna–Lake Country better come to realize that some 700,000 people in the province of British Columbia participated in the first-time-ever initiative referendum process in the history of this province. History was made that day when British Columbians signed enough petitions to have the initiative vote — the first time ever in the history of B.C. for that to have happened.

You'd better believe it that members, every single member of this House, better respect the electorate on their voice around that. They drove that issue, and they brought this bill here today. They are the real people who brought this debate here. That's why we're here. That's why we're here to do that job.

Government members are allowed to express their point of view. But at the end of the day, they'd better respect British Columbians' voices in this majority who acted and took it upon themselves to exercise their democratic right and drove the government to bring in this referendum vote and ultimately succeeded in this referendum vote. That's why Bill 54 is before this House.

I want to go back to the issues around Bill 54 because I do think it's paramount. What are the implications here? It is about taxation — change and shift of taxation. Effectively, what happened with the HST was that it shifted close to $2 billion of taxes onto the backs of British Columbians — onto the backs of your average British Columbians.

They took it by way of imposed taxes on things that people did not have to pay those taxes on before, whether it be a restaurant meal, a coffee, buying a newspaper, buying a magazine or having alternative therapy, as an example, which was a key piece for health prevention. All of those things have implications for people.

The Liberal government says — and I heard the Premier say it at a number of different events — that they stand for a decrease or reduction in taxes. Well, they might say that, but in reality, the practice of the B.C. Liberals has been to actually gouge British Columbians in every single way — in ways that can fly under the radar, perhaps, to suggest somehow they didn't actually increase the tax when, in fact, that's exactly what they have done. That was the

Page 12147

point of the HST. That's exactly what the government did.

Now, some will say that the small business community and the business community are against the old PST system. As it happens, in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant we have many, many small businesses. I actually went to many of them in the major districts, whether it be in Chinatown or different areas on Main Street, different areas in my riding where the local small businesses are located. I went and talked to them, from door to door to door.

I knocked on their doors, and I talked to them about the HST, and the majority of them were against it. They did not want to have the HST, and they told me that it impacted their businesses significantly.

In fact, there was a business in my riding, on Main Street, that actually was established in the '60s, I believe, and they had to close. They had to close shop, and part of the reason was the HST. They simply could not recover from it. That was part of the reason why they had to close their shop. It was a foundational location, really, in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with a lot of history. As a result of that, a number of people lost their employment. That had an effect — make no mistake about it — on our local economy.

[1050]

There was a ripple effect. I talked to many other small business folks, and they told me that people weren't coming in to eat lunch, as an example. It was simply too expensive. That extra tax was too much, and they did not come in for lunch. It reduced their business, and as a result, they had to reduce hours for their staff. Those were real implications. They weren't made up.

Now, one thing I have to say that I am happy to see with this bill is that the government is reinstating the commission for the small businesses, where they do actually get a rebate, if you will, for acting as the tax collector. They get that reinstated, as it formerly was — that people would be able to collect that commission. I think it was $195 per month, and that was supposed to assist the small businesses in paying for the work that they're doing, acting as a tax collector on behalf of government. So they get that reimbursement.

I'm glad see that reinstated, because I think that the small businesses do a service. They do that service as the tax collector on behalf of the province. So every time they remit the PST, they are compensated for that as well. I do think that that is an important piece. I think that it is high time that we're here….

Sorry. It's $198 a month — I think I said $195 a month — the PST commission.

I do want to say that there has been a lot of disruption, a lot of uncertainty, as a result of the introduction of HST that actually caused an effect in our community. We all felt it.

Even after we've finished debating this bill and it receives passage, which the opposition supports…. Even though the list of exemptions is not included in the bill itself, we support this bill. But even after it receives passage, the elimination of the HST won't actually kick in until next year, so there's still yet another delay that ultimately impacts British Columbians in their back pockets. They are still having to pay more taxes until next year when the actual tax is really, truly gone, and that would have been more than two years, I think, since the introduction of the HST.

It flies in the face of what the Premier had said around the HST before she became the Premier. It flies in the face of that at every turn. On the public record of what she said about the HST and the government's action in expediting and moving forward to get rid of the HST, I would argue that the pace has been as slow as molasses, really, and even at that, Bill 54 is an incomplete bill. It is an incomplete bill. I would argue that as well.

The last thing that I want to say about this bill is the commitment from the government that they will honour the PST rebate that British Columbians received prior to the introduction of the HST, and I think that's a good thing. A lot of people were worried about it. A lot of people were wondering if they would actually get that rebate, and I'm glad to see that that will in fact be in place and that people will be made whole, so to speak, in terms of the return to the PST.

I want to recognize, as well, that there are implications for many, many people in the small business community around all of these changes and the uncertainty that took place. I do think that it is most unfortunate how the whole HST issue actually unfolded and the way in which the government addressed this issue. I think it's very, very unfortunate.

At the end of the day, though, I do want to just recognize the democracy that we do have that we all enjoy and that we cherish in British Columbia, in Canada. That is a hallmark of a civilized society in the sense that people actually can have a say and that they can force the government to respect their voices.

[1055]

I would ask the member from Kelowna, the government members, the Minister of Finance and the Premier to take that to heart. They may not like the result of this, but they must respect the result of this. They must respect the voices of the people.

And please, please, I sure hope that the Minister of Finance is regretting the language which he used in describing the PST taxation policy. This is not a "better stupid" tax. It is the tax that the people of British Columbia have chosen. It is a tax that we've had for many, many years, and it is a tax that saves consumers to the tune of some $2 billion.

That is a celebratory moment, in my view, for people who are on tight incomes, for families who are struggling to make ends meet to ensure that they have more money back in their own pockets so they can buy the things they

Page 12148

need and expend that money in the way in which they see fit. I think that is a celebratory moment, and history has been made in British Columbia with this issue.

I don't think ever, in the history of B.C., have we actually gone through the stages we did to arrive at this day, where we actually have the voices of the people heard in such a way, directly through a referendum vote and to change a major issue at that — a taxation policy issue that impacts every single individual, family or business in British Columbia.

With that, I will be supporting this bill and expressing these views on behalf of my constituents and will be voting when the vote, I assume, will be called on Bill 54.

I look forward to receiving the regulations that will come with it at a later time. I certainly hope that there are no more deviations on the exemptions, as we have already seen and the government has demonstrated — that there is already contradiction to their promise they would restore all the exemptions whole, prior to the HST system.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

G. Coons: I rise to give some input into the bill before us today. Bill 54, the Provincial Sales Tax Act. It's a historic document. I believe it's some legislation that highlights what happens in a province where democracy trumps actions to try to rule over the province. The bill before us — you know, there has been a lot of shaded history with it. I'll get into that in a bit.

I think this bill is basically the one step needed to reinstate the provincial sales tax on March 31, 2013 That's a significant date because the very next day is April 1, which is April Fool's. So I think that's a very significant date also — that when we start to feel the impacts of the HST being eliminated and bringing back what the people of British Columbia wanted, it's going to happen on April Fool's Day. I do have some more comments on that later.

I listened to the minister in his opening remarks, and he talked about the timeline in history, of how we got here and why Bill 54 is in front of us — all 255 sections. This Bill 54 is a fairly significant document — 160 pages, 255 sections placed before us just a couple of days ago.

I think it is, as I said, a historic document. I'm looking forward to standing tall with every single one of the Liberal side who brought this in and tried to force it down the throats of British Columbians. And we're going to vote arm in arm to extinguish the HST and bring back the PST. I'm looking forward to that.

As well, I think the hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who sat back, watched what was going on in the last four or five years, since 2005, and acknowledged that what was happening was not right….

[1100]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

They took their democratic action, went through an initiative vote and a referendum and put a stop to the forced implementation of the HST.

This bill before us on the provincial sales tax, I see as the finale that will bring an end to the last three years of chaos with the HST debacle in this province. It addresses the reinstituting of the PST, the provincial sales tax, although it doesn't bring back, in this particular legislation, items that were exempted prior to the introduction, and I'll be talking about that a bit later. But we're going to be waiting for provincial regulations on those ones that should be before us, that should be in this legislation.

Again, when I looked at Bill 54…. When I look at most bills, I sort of depend on the Cole's Notes in these. Those are the explanatory notes. So when I got this bill in front of me — all 160 pages, 255 sections — I took a deep breath and said, "Okay,

section by section" on the explanatory notes put in there by the minister, the staff, the team of lawyers and advisers. I thought: "Okay, I'll try to sort this out

section by section."

What I found out when I opened up Bill 54 is that there's half a page and there isn't "Explanatory Notes" with an "s"; it's "Explanatory Note." Just an explanatory note — five bullets explaining the 160 pages, 255 sections — that was placed in this Legislature a few days ago. I was basically shocked that there'd be five bullets and half a page, probably less than a hundred words, explaining what's happening in the 255 sections.

You get a bit suspicious about this from a government that took a path of not really presenting the facts to the people of British Columbia, so when I look at the explanatory notes in here I compare it to a bill that I'm looking at right now, Bill 47. It has 14 sections, and every

section has its own explanatory note. So it's a bit difficult to go through this bill without the explanatory notes. I guess during the committee stage is where we're going to have to get on to that with Bill 54.

On this bill before us, I do believe there is some history. The minister, when he got up, said: "Bill 54 implements the provincial sales tax. I would like to take a few moments to speak about the events that led us here today." I think it is important that….

Deputy Speaker: Member, the contents of Bill 54.

G. Coons: Thank you, hon. Chair.

I do believe, as the minister said in his opening remarks about Bill 54, that the events, how we got here, are quite significant to what is in this bill. In his opening remarks on Bill 54 the minister responsible said: "Well, let's start with the fact that the old PST act was originally introduced over 60 years ago in 1948."

Now, I don't intend to go back 60 years ago and start to look at a history starting with the PST from 1948, but I do think it's significant, as the minister has acknowledged and recognized in his opening remarks, that there

Page 12149

is some significance to the history that got us here. I do hope that as the minister was allowed some leeway, this side of the House will also be allowed some leeway in looking at how we got here.

We go back to 2005. Rick Thorpe, the Small Business Minister said this was not on their radar. The Finance Minister in 2006 said, "Not on my watch," for the HST. The election period: "Not contemplated in our platform."

[1105]

It moves on and on to where, all of a sudden, comments like that, going back to 2005, lead to this Provincial Sales Tax Act that is trying to undo everything and going back in history.

Again, many members have talked about the initiative petition that went out and got the process started, where Bill 54 was not really supported by the majority of British Columbians. After the fact, we need to acknowledge that British Columbians led the day as far as their democratic voice and where we got to with Bill 54.

There are a couple of differences with this bill. I've gone through it without the help, as I mentioned, of the explanatory notes, because they are nonexistent. The main differences with this new, supposedly improved, PST…. I think the comment was: "a better stupid." That's an interesting way to describe somebody's legislation, as the minister has commented on. He didn't mention that in his opening remarks.

The main difference in this new, "better stupid" PST compared to the old one is that the 12 percent tax on designated property will remain. Under the old PST, there was only 7 percent PST on the private sale of used vehicles and no GST. It didn't apply to the sale, so the government created a new tax at 12 percent and is keeping it now that it's being removed.

Another component, another main difference, that is noticeable in this is that the time-limited exemptions, mostly for energy-efficient products, are eliminated. Again, we aren't too sure what they are, because as we've noted previously, many of the exemptions that came with the old PST are not in this bill. Under many jurisdictions they are.

If you look at, for example, the federal excise tax that establishes the GST-HST, it contains detailed schedules that list almost all of the exemptions — one for exempt goods and services, one for zero-rated goods and services.

What we look at in this act…. I believe it's in

part 6, sections 137 to 145 that look at exemptions. There are some exemptions listed in the bill before us, Bill 54.

We look at

section 137, "Taxable component sold with non-taxable component for single price"; 138, "Exemption for minimal sale of tangible personal property"; 139, "Exemptions in relation to food"; "Exemptions in relation to fuel"; "Exemptions in relation to industry and commerce." There are some specific exemptions listed here — a certain fundamental, I believe that the minister might refer to them as — but it leaves most of it up to regulations.

The key exemptions that British Columbians were looking for to ensure that this government kept their word of going back to every exemption that was there previous to the HST, that was voted down by over 54 percent of British Columbians when they voted to extinguish the HST…. That's why this is here.

The member for Kelowna–Lake Country talked about his riding, which voted 53 percent to keep it. I guess it's a tough one there. My wife is in Oyama right now, waiting for dental surgery. I'm sure they're talking about the bill before us today. But again, I digress here a bit with my colleague.

Ontario has the HST, which follows the tax base set out in the federal excise tax, so they know what the exemptions are. But here we are.

[1110]

Going back to 2005, the Small Business Minister Rick Thorpe did a provincial sales tax review and said no. "We feel we do not want to give our sovereign tax rights away to the federal government." That's what was said in 2005.

Here we are, seven years later, despite that comment, despite the comments of "Not on my watch" or "It's not contemplated in the next election."

We are sitting here trying to undo, with Bill 54, what has happened in the last seven years — sort of a windy path down a road with lots of curves. There should have been some fences up, but it looks like the railcar went off the road on that one.

As far as their exemptions, Manitoba has retail sales tax, and the main exemptions are laid out in their legislation. Now, after the months and months of bringing forward this bill…. It only took eight months or so to bring in the HST, and it's going to take, I hear, 19, with great fanfare, to stop the HST on April 1 — a big April Fool's joke on that one.

The exemptions haven't even been laid out in the legislation before us. They're laid out…. Well, there are some, as I mentioned, in

part 6, under "Exemptions," and then it goes back to

part 14, under "Regulations." In

part 14, which is sections 236 and…. It looks like it goes to 246. They talk about a "regulation-making authority" that will happen in the future sometime. Well, the minister says: "In the fall." Who knows where we're going to be in the fall? Hopefully, we're going to be in this Legislature debating the 20 or so bills that were put on the order paper and put in this Legislature.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please return to the contents of Bill 54.

G. Coons: Thank you so much, hon. Chair.

Getting back to

part 14, where I was looking at the regulations in Bill 54, some look at regulations in relation to tax payment agreements, regulations in relation to tangible personal property, regulations relating to soft-

Page 12150

ware, regulations in relation to accommodation. These are all in the future.

We have to question, as British Columbians, why the exemptions aren't listed clearly in here so that when both sides stand up to extinguish the HST when we vote for this bill, it's there in front of us and we aren't waiting for another three or four months till the fall.

Then they have regulations in relation to exemptions and in relation to refunds and regulations in relation to claims of solicitor-client privilege. An interesting one — 246. This should be catching the ears of people that have coin-operated purchases. We're going to be looking forward to regulations specifying tax for coin-operated purchases. Again, I started to say: "Well, I wonder what that means." So I went to the explanatory note, which is nonexistent — so the nonexistent explanatory note.

It's pretty difficult not only for those of us in this Legislature to go through this Bill 54 but for British Columbians, who are looking for some leadership and something better than a "better stupid" piece of legislation.

The very last

section I want to talk about before….

I see the minister….

Interjection.

G. Coons: An introduction?

I'll just talk about 246, where the "Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations doing one or more of the following" — other regulations, and we don't even know what they are.

On that note, I'll let the minister make an introduction.

Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Finance is seeking leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Falcon: I thank the member for allowing me the opportunity.

Today in the gallery we are joined by an entire grade 5 class along with their teacher Sister Mary Bethany from Cloverdale Catholic School in my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale.

[1115]

I had the opportunity to spend time with all the kids and all the parents. They all crowded into my office, and we had a wonderful time just talking and answering questions about parliamentary democracy and how riveting the speeches in this chamber can often be.

On behalf of all members of the House, I want to welcome all the parents and all the students from Cloverdale Catholic. Give a big round of applause for their attendance here today.

Debate Continued

G. Coons: Getting back to the regulations, the hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who voted to extinguish the HST so that this bill could come forward, Bill 54, are going to have to wait for the provincial regulations on these. It's done not through legislation but through the regulation process versus laying it out in the bill before us.

In other words, it's a wait-and-see, cat-and-mouse game once again being played by this government, looking at whether or not the actual exemptions that were there previous to the PST being eliminated are all really coming back. It adds a lot of uncertainty not only to the businesses, to consumers, to British Columbians, especially small businesses…. We heard that through the whole process and even this week as we are returning back to the PST.

I'm hearing from the businesses in my constituency, whether it's Haida Gwaii or Prince Rupert, who are saying that it's been a dismal time under the HST. They were leading the fight in those communities on the north coast to ensure that Bill 54, something like Bill 54, came forward.

In my constituency of North Coast it was a 67 percent vote to extinguish the HST and ensure that we have Bill 54 in front of us. There are a lot of people that I represent on the north coast and a lot of people in British Columbia who are thrilled that this is coming. But it's not coming for basically another year, and that's a real problem.

What we see in this bill before us are just minor adjustments. I guess the minister would say improvements. He might throw that in. You'll be able to file electronically, and that's an improvement. But again, you have to wonder why it took 11 months to get to this point. I guess the government was looking at the extra revenue, even though they said it was going to be revenue-neutral. Who knows the reasons for the length?

The PST exemptions by regulation just allow for a change to the tax, this bill, or to the PST tax with the sweep of a pen and, again, no debate. We go back to how we got here. Again, on the debate on the HST bill, closure was enacted. That's the importance of democracy not only in the province but here in this House.

I believe that we're putting through this bill in the next 4½ days. I do have to keep going back to 160 pages and 255 sections and an explanatory note that's five bullets and probably less than a hundred words. I think they're putting a lot of pressure on those in this House to ensure that we have the best possible bill.

The minister would say "a better stupid." It sort of reminds me of…. My first thought was the movie Dumb and Dumber , the cross-country adventures of two good-hearted but incredibly stupid friends. People will probably take that story elsewhere, but we're probably on this stupid and stupider road along with the dumb and dumb-

Page 12151

er, as I guess the minister might call it.

[1120]

I do think that when we look at a bill being forced in this Legislature with closure, this is the end result. The end result is British Columbians taking a stand and ensuring that their voices were heard and that we have a bill that undoes and extinguishes the HST.

Again, they start looking at some of the other issues that come with this bill. The tax on the private sale of used vehicles will continue. The sales of vehicles, boats and aircraft will be continued at a rate of 12 percent after the HST is eliminated through this bill. These sales are not subject to GST, and previous to the HST, the PST taxed these private sales at 7 percent, but a special 12 percent tax was created alongside the HST, I guess, to continue it under this way.

We look at used goods. Again, HST and GST have not applied to the sale of used goods because of the principle of value-added tax. The previous owner has already paid the tax on the initial purchase and all the maintenance and upkeep expenses. Again, they haven't applied, and they will continue.

The tax on liquor is increased to 10 percent. The government says it's going to adjust the Liquor Distribution Branch markups downward by an equal amount. Again, the government says…. Is this through regulation? Is this through a stroke of the pen, with no debate?

The $5 levy on car batteries was eliminated with the HST and is not being renewed.

There are quite a few issues. As we move forward with this bill and we get to committee stage, we have an opportunity — without, may I add, the advantage of explanatory notes…. I do think that our Finance critic is pulling out his hair, wanting to look like a few other members in the House. It must be pretty difficult trying to go through the bill when there are no explanatory notes.

Interjection.

G. Coons: No insinuations at all, Members. No insinuations at all, with my Powell River look.

Now, what this legislation does is also make three amendments to the Income Tax Act. It removes the low-income HST credit, it reinstates the low-income PST credit, and it reduces the basic personal income tax exemption. Again, we have to remember that not all income earners receive the full $230 credit. The move from this bill to extinguish the HST and get back to the PST…. I believe low-income families will come out ahead, once the PST comes back. Families won't be paying HST on a number of items that they are now paying it on.

Again, we look at the exemptions that are not in…. I have to keep going back to that, because this is important. Everywhere I travelled through my constituency, where there was a 67 percent vote to extinguish the HST, you heard about that extra cost on so many items, whether it's residential electricity and home heating, prescription drugs, telephone and cable service, bicycles. Again, we hear that. There's a list. I'm not going to read out the list, but there's a list of probably 20 or 25 exemptions that should be in this legislation. As commented on before, they are in other governments' legislation. Here it's basically through regulation.

Now, I think that this bill before us is a very important bill. The government has finally gotten around to making good on its promise to get rid of the HST with Bill 54. It was forced upon this government, because they forced it upon British Columbians in a manner that a lot of British Columbians, 54 percent in the vote, thought was not done in the proper way.

[1125]

The change takes effect, basically, on April 1. In this bill, even though I do believe it says to reinstate the PST on March 31, the real impact will be on April 1. It just reminds us, on that day, how we got here through the timeline.

I had a fairly substantive timeline that I decided to cut back quite a bit. I didn't want to go back 60 years ago to 1948, as the minister had alluded to in his opening comments. Basically, hours after the polls closed in 2009 and after committing not to bring in an HST, this was the most important thing for British Columbia. It sounded like a joke back then. Again, when a practical joke doesn't work, the joker sort of becomes the fool. I think the whole HST fiasco is finally coming to a conclusion with Bill 54.

Well, I don't want to say that it's coming to a conclusion, because we still have regulations to deal with. Some of the key components that British Columbians have been and are still concerned with aren't in this bill. It's sort of a situation where the government again is saying: "Trust us. We're looking after the best interests not only of you but of you and your families." It's hard to believe that we've come this circle right around.

Again, I think that Bill 54 highlights a huge victory, not only for British Columbians. I think it's a huge victory for the members in this House today, acknowledging that we have to — we've got to — ensure that the voices of British Columbians are heard. When schemes are put in front of us with no real vision, no real input, the end result is that it's going to come back to bite you.

The bill before us — we're all going to support it. We voted against it…. We're all going to….

Interjections.

G. Coons: Oh, perhaps some members aren't going to vote.

We're all supporting it, because the vision that we have in this province is a vision of democracy and listening to the people of British Columbia. The record of this government over the last five years…. There's a historical

Page 12152

reference of them not listening to British Columbians, forcing legislation with closure.

I believe that I'm going to be standing tall in this Legislature, with every single B.C. Liberal member in here, to say that we all are looking forward — along with the hundreds of thousands of British Columbians in this province who voted — to extinguishing the HST, and that is a good thing.

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you hon. House Leader — very kind. Doesn't even know what I'm going to say quite yet. Oh, I'm sure he actually does. He has some idea as to what I'm going to say today. He did not write it for me.

As you may know, quite often I give speeches more extemporaneously. Reading them from just a little piece of paper like this can sometimes get boring for listeners and be less interesting. But I'm not overpromising on this one that it's going to be exciting. I'm sorry, hon. Members on the other side.

I approach Bill 54 with a certain amount of sadness, really. I'm happy that the HST has been defeated, but I'm sad about the period that we've gone through. I'm sad about the fact that it's come to this. Since being elected in 2009 the focus of this place, the focus of politics in British Columbia has been focused on the HST, on broken promises and on trying to right the wrongs of broken promises.

[1130]

Unfortunately, what we've seen is a government careening from one side to the next, not knowing where it's going, not knowing where it's come from, because of a broken promise which has led us to Bill 54, which brings back the PST and extinguishes the HST.

Why am I sad about this? Obviously, I spoke against the HST in this House more than once, because of a couple of reasons, which we'll detail here. Generally, the principle that it was going to, one, show that government could say one thing before an election and then break the promise right after the election did not sit well with me, particularly on something as big as this. Two, I fought against it because it would increase costs for my constituents in a way that was unfair. Now, people will pay taxes if they think they're getting good value for their money, but they also want it to be equitable. The HST was not equitable in the sense of progressive taxation.

I approach this with a bit of sadness because the public was told one thing, and the government thought they could get away with doing something completely the opposite. Now, how much of a promise was this? How much of a promise was this that the PST, which is the bill being introduced today, was a good thing?

Well, I think we should go to comments that the government minister, the Small Business Minister, made in 2005. He concluded, through a provincial sales tax review…. Asked if the government would bring in an HST, he said: "The answer is a simple no, and the reason is we feel we do not want to give our sovereign tax rights away to the federal government." That was in 2005.

In 2006, again, the government Finance Minister this time said: "Not on my watch."

During May 2009 — and this is where the change happened; this is why we're here today debating Bill 54 — the government was asked in writing, in a questionnaire: would they bring in an HST? The Liberals said no, they wouldn't. They said that the HST "would extend the PST tax base to a broader range of goods and services that are presently exempt from the provincial sales tax."

" Such items that are currently PST-exempt include energy-efficient appliances, membership fees for clubs and gyms, newspapers and magazines, taxi fares, restaurant food and the professional services of architects and accountants. This is a major concern…. The harmonized GST would make it harder for future provincial governments to lower or raise sales tax rates, which reduces flexibility. In short, a harmonized GST is not something that is contemplated in the B.C. Liberal platform."

That was May.

Two months later the Liberals announced that they were bringing in the HST, saying: "This is the single biggest thing we can do to improve B.C.'s economy."

So before the election and during the election the HST, the $1.9 billion tax shift, was a bad thing, and the PST was a good thing because it protected our sovereignty. The PST was a good thing because we could adjust it. We could lower it on items, as indeed governments in the past had done on restaurant meals, on bikes, on a number of areas like gym memberships, etc. — things that we wanted people to be able to do, things that we didn't want to increase costs on. The government was able to do that.

Under the HST they weren't. Under the HST the prices would shoot up — an approximately $1.9 billion tax shift. Thus, the government had been opposed. Then they were for it right after the election. People were outraged, and this is where the sadness for me comes in. People would come to me and say: "I voted for the government because they made a promise, and the government broke that promise. Why should I trust any politician?"

That was an anger that continues to be felt about such a major reversal, so quickly without notice, without consultation. The government thought that early in its term it could ram through the HST and hope that people would be mollified by the end of their term and that then they could get re-elected or at least have a fighting chance in an election.

Well, that is a very cynical way to do government. It's a very cynical way to approach the public — the public that elect us, the public that we are the representatives of. And they were outraged, as was I.

We then move forward. I think it's important to go through this, because it explains why we're with Bill 54 today. I think it's an important history lesson for us all, so that we know how to do policy in government in a way that's respectful of people, in a way that includes people.

Page 12153

We go forward. Of course, there was huge turmoil. The initiative campaign and all that stuff happened, people organizing to defeat this tax, the HST, and bring back the PST, which is here today with Bill 54. People didn't like being not told the truth, and people didn't like the fact that they were not involved. They wanted to get rid of this tax.

[1135]

What did we have happen? Well, we get to July 2010. The government claimed it would create 113,000 jobs. That's what the government said in July. Of course, that changed to May 2011, so about a little less than a year later the government then said, "Oh, actually it's 25,000 new jobs," in their continuing attempts to convince the public. The public weren't buying it. They'd been told something that wasn't the truth to begin with. They were going to continue to be very suspicious of this government's actions.

Then we get to the election of the new Premier, the new Premier who promised to bring the HST to the House, bring it to this floor, have members vote, and they would vote to get rid of it. The HST would be gone. Boom. New Premier elected; HST gone.

Well, that's not what, in the end, they decided to do, which brings us to why we're here today with Bill 54 and the PST renewal. No. The government could have chosen to do it then. They chose not to do that.

They chose instead to spend tens of millions of dollars advertising in favour of the HST — millions of dollars that we don't have now to spend to improve health care, millions of dollars we don't have now to spend on education, to spend on the arts, to spend on any other array of things that government can or might want to do. Those millions of dollars were spent to promote the HST, which the public was soundly rejecting again and again — which is why, of course, we're here today with Bill 54.

The Premier said in March 2011:

"We aren't going to be talking about trying to reduce it by a point or two before the referendum. I mean, I think people will see that as buying them with their own money.

"Also, though, cutting the HST by one point is more than $800 million out of the budget this year and every year after or $1.6 billion for a two-point cut, and we need to ask ourselves where we're going to get that money, because either we are going to have a $1.6 billion bigger deficit or we're going to have $1.6 billion in fewer heart operations, special needs teachers, school facilities, hospital emergency rooms. I mean, that's where the money comes from, ultimately."

That was the new Premier in March 2011 saying: "We aren't going to be talking about trying to reduce it by a point or two before the referendum."

Of course, you fast forward from May 2011, so from March to May, and the Premier decided again, "No, not going to go through with what I just said" — instead promising to cut the HST by 2 percent if British Columbians voted to keep the HST, less than two months after saying she would do no such thing.

Deputy Speaker: Member, if I can bring you to the contents of Bill 54.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Bill 54 is here today because of that outrage, I believe, that outrage at being told one thing and then having another thing happen. We're bringing back the PST because people felt that they weren't told the truth, because people felt that millions of their money shouldn't be used to advertise to them to promote something that the government itself had promised to not bring in.

Now, the PST has its problems. It has its challenges. We know that. By improving the PST, as we see the minister saying he's doing with Bill 54, by modernizing some of the administrative functions…. I think that's a good thing, and I'm happy that's in this bill, but that could have been done before. We didn't have to go through this whole process before. We could have fixed those things earlier.

There were panels this government sent out around the province to try to do that — to try to find ways to improve the PST, to make it more administratively easy for small business folks. You know, I have no problem…. In fact, I encourage ways that we can make regulations and ways that we can make taxation easier for British Columbians, easier for business people, easier for us all. Why wouldn't we encourage that kind of thing?

That's what we could have done, rather than spending from 2009 to 2012 fighting about the HST, when the government had explicitly promised not to bring it in and then chose to do that. We could have spent that time improving the PST. If the government had followed through on its word, we could have done that by now.

We could have worked on improving a whole bunch of different things. We could have saved millions and millions of dollars and businesses hundreds of millions of dollars — from not having to not go to a new system and then go back to an old system — if the government had simply kept its word, but they didn't.

[1140]

Hundreds of millions of dollars. That is a lot of money for something that businesses could have put into improving their own stake, put into improving their own operations, rather than going back and forth because of this incredible uncertainty put forward by a government that hadn't kept its word.

Now, I think it's important to remember the referendum. The government said they would run it like an election campaign, which means that there are spending limits, which means that it has to be reported so that you understand where things go. They also claimed that they would be spending money on an information campaign — just information, not biased, a neutral information campaign.

Deputy Speaker: Member, can I draw you back to the

Page 12154

contents of Bill 54.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

In Bill 54 we see the PST. At the time it was argued that the PST, the HST, we would see them both. We could look at which was a better system for British Columbia — completely neutral.

I think we look to the PST in this bill today, and we can see what the PST looks like — all the clause-by-clause and a bunch of the information. We're not getting the regulations yet, unfortunately, in this bill, which would restore the exemptions for restaurants, for gym memberships, for barbershops — those kinds of things. That's not in this bill. I had hoped it would be. I think that the public had hoped it would be too, because of trust issues. They want to see that this is actually in the law, because they've lost trust in their government.

Well, instead of a neutral approach, instead of an information campaign, we saw tens of millions of dollars promoting the HST. We saw the government fearmongering, saying everything was going to collapse if we got rid of the HST. Well, we're here with the PST bill today. The minister says that it's a better stupid — that it's not stupid, as it was before, but a better stupid — forgetting the fact that of course the majority of British Columbians wanted this back instead of the HST. They did not want the HST. They did not want their government to be able to get away with telling them one thing and then doing another.

So the minister brought this back a couple days ago. The government members, who had said this would bring chaos on us…. I don't see them now saying: "The Finance Minister is bringing chaos on us." Now, maybe they will. Maybe they'll get up in this House and start speaking about this, but we'll have to wait and see about that.

We're here today with Bill 54, to bring it back, because of trust, because the public was angered at a tax shift. They wanted to be able to say that their government should tell them one thing and actually follow through on that one thing.

We're here debating Bill 54 because of the millions and millions of dollars that were wasted by this government promoting the HST, a campaign that failed. If they'd listened to the public from the beginning, if they'd listened to us in this House speak before…. Some of my first speeches to this House were about the HST — about the lack of trust, about how government should be working with the people, not trying to pull a fast one on the people.

If they'd listened to that in those early days, if they hadn't brought the bill in, if they hadn't signed off on the dotted line with the federal government, we wouldn't be here debating Bill 54. We would have had three years of government, stable government where businesses could make their plans. They could plan for the future.

Why has it taken us over three years to get here? That, I think, is a very good question. We have the bill introduced today. Well, we knew a long time ago that anybody, any betting person, would have seen the HST was headed for defeat. How long has it taken us? By the end of this whole process it'll take us 19 months to get the HST out, and it took months, just months, for the government to bring it in. Well, we won't even have the HST gone until the end of next March. We have the bill here, debating it. Nearly a year from now the HST will actually be gone.

That's a lot of money out of people's pockets. That's a lot of time in a system that the people didn't want. That's a lot of time and adjustments for businesses to go back and forth because of cynicism and a belief the government could get away with it.

I know there were millions of dollars spent on expensive Stickman ads on the television. You couldn't turn on the TV or flip through a newspaper without seeing how the government was using our money, all of British Columbia's money, to try to convince them that the HST was a good thing, when this government didn't have enough belief in it themselves to try to run on it in an election.

[1145]

Deputy Speaker: Member, you need to bring your remarks to the content of Bill 54.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

The PST, which the public had been used to, is coming back with this bill. The PST is being brought back with its exemptions for restaurants, with its exemptions for membership fees, with its exemptions on a whole range of things. Do you know what, hon. Speaker? That's going to be a good thing for the restaurant industry. That's going to be a good thing for the tourism industry.

According to the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, Mark von Schellwitz says: "British Columbia's 12,000 restaurateurs and the 2.6 million guests they serve every day look forward to paying 7 percent less for restaurant meals." The CRFA says that restaurants will grow a healthy 2.7 percent in 2012, when adjusted for inflation. That's their best estimation.

That's a stark contrast from the 3.3 percent drop in real restaurant sales last year, which was the worst performance out of all of the provinces. Lost sales added up to about $475 million in the first year and three months since the HST was introduced. That's the argument that the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association makes. They have many, many employees — thousands of employees across the province who found that they lost tips, who found that they lost work. Indeed we saw a number of restaurants go belly up.

It's a tough industry to begin with. It's a very tough industry with a thin margin. Yet the government decided: "Oh well." I remembered the government suggesting, "Well, a few big restaurants didn't mind it," completely ignoring the associations that represented our restaurants in this province. I was proud to stand with the restau-

Page 12155

rants then in fighting the HST, and I'm proud to stand with our restaurants today when we bring back the PST, because again, it's jobs.

Jobs are important in our communities. We need to listen to these people who were saying that they were losing jobs. They were losing their jobs. They were losing their businesses. Had the government listened to the opposition on this side of this House, the opposition outside of the House, Bill 54 wouldn't be here today, because we never would have got rid of the PST. We would never have brought in the HST.

I think a lot about how we bring more people into politics. Well, I guess one thing is that the HST did bring a lot more people into politics in a sense of standing up, getting involved, organizing and fighting back. But shouldn't we be bringing people into politics because they're inspired, because they see that there's a better way that they can organize, that they can build a better province and not just fight against something?

Couldn't we, as a province…? Couldn't the government have said: "The PST — we understand there are problems. We understand there is a desire by some to harmonize. Let's work through this. Let's find a way to make things simpler. Let's find a way, talk to the public"? The public says, "No, we don't want the HST" — fair game. That was what the government had heard very clearly for many years.

A better way to approach things is engaging people, not trying to sneak a fast one past them, not spending three years and tens of millions, costing companies hundreds of millions and paralyzing this Legislature.

I want to talk about more things than the HST. I want us, in this House, to be able to debate about more things than the HST and the PST. I want us to be able to look forward, not have a fight for years and years, back and forth, costing us, creating huge economic uncertainties in the tourism sector, in the restaurant sector, and on and on you go.

A good government brings people with them, doesn't divide and conquer, doesn't try to slip fast ones past. Bill 54 is here today because they tried that — not because they tried to bring us together but because the government tried to slip something past us. The people spoke up. They spoke out, and we have to hear that voice. That's why I'm supporting Bill 54, because we never should have done the HST in the first place, because we can modernize the PST. We can make it so that it's a system that works for businesses, works for small business people in a much better way. I'm glad we see some of that.

Now, the regulations have not been written, as far as we can tell, despite the fact that the HST result was known last summer. The regulations are not here yet. They're not in legislation.

[1150]

They may come in the fall, I am told, through a cabinet order. They're not coming into the legislation. I know the minister says that provides greater flexibility, so if they want to change something, they don't need to bring it through the House. Well, that may be convenient for government, but for opposition that makes things more challenging. Regulations can be brought in, but they cannot be debated. So if the government decided…. I can't see why they would now, given the public's clear rebuttal to their actions — why they would try and monkey with regulations at this point. But if they decided they could do that, then we wouldn't have that opportunity in this House here.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I see that the hon. Speaker is here, and I understand that, noting the hour…. They're not quite ready for me to note the hour. Well, that's good. I'm quite happy to talk more about the ways that we can grow our province and that we can build a better economy.

Certainty; working with the public, not against them; and spending government money on services to the public, not trying to confuse the public, is certainly a way we can do that.

Now, hon. Speaker, noting the hour, I would like to reserve my place in this debate, but I believe that I have to move adjournment of debate.

S. Chandra Herbert moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

J. van Dongen: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

J. van Dongen: It's my privilege today to introduce 28 grade 5 students from St. James Elementary in Abbotsford. Accompanying them is their teacher, Stephen Greaux, and 22 parents. They've had a very educational morning, and I ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

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

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

Hon. M. MacDiarmid moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

Page 12156

this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 37 — ANIMAL HEALTH ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 37; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 10:08 a.m.

The Chair: I will begin by introducing the delegation that has joined us today. They are members of the Public Accounts Committee of the Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature of South Africa.

Welcome.

We are in committee on Bill 37, 2012, Animal Health Act.

section 1 (continued) .

L. Popham: I think yesterday, when we had our ten minutes of starting into the Animal Health Act, Bill 37, I asked the minister what was driving the changes in this bill. I asked what consultation had been done. The minister was so kind as to list every agency that had been consulted with.

I just have a couple questions about that. Was B.C. Civil Liberties consulted with?

Hon. D. McRae: No, it was not consulted with, but the Privacy Commissioner was.

L. Popham: In the consultation with the Information and Privacy Commissioner, given the letter that was submitted by the commission, can the minister tell me why the minister didn't take any advice from the Privacy Commissioner?

[1010]

Hon. D. McRae: We discussed with various government officials and within agencies prior to visiting the Privacy Commissioner and having them see the bill. The Privacy Commissioner's concern, as I'm sure the member opposite is aware, is primarily in regard to sections 16 and 60. However, our belief in the policy intent for disease control, for the bill to be effective, overrode the privacy concerns.

L. Popham: Am I correct in assuming that the minister decided to ignore the advice of the Information and Privacy Commissioner?

Hon. D. McRae: I must say to members opposite that we consider the advice from the Privacy Commissioner very seriously. However, out of concern for the bill's effectiveness and consistency with federal government and other provincial legislation — for example, Ontario and Alberta — we wanted to make sure that there was that level of consistency, that there was that level of effectiveness. That was our primary concern: basically, to protect human health and animal health.

L. Popham: Was COABC consulted?

Hon. D. McRae: Yesterday I did list the specific groups that we did consult directly with. COABC members or their organization would have been invited to make input through the public consultation period.

L. Popham: Were they specifically consulted with?

Hon. D. McRae: They were not specifically consulted with. We're not sure at this stage, just amongst ourselves, as to what their submission was — if they did put forward one — through the on-line consultation forum. However, our primary concern was to make sure we were dealing with industries and sectors where disease was most prevalent.

[1015]

L. Popham: Was the BCSPCA consulted with?

Hon. D. McRae: The intent of this bill is to protect animal health and human health. It's not addressing animal welfare, which would be under a different act.

L. Popham: The reason I'm asking that question around the BCSPCA is because there is a part of this act — which we'll be getting to and I will be addressing — which addresses seizures of animals. At that point I'm thinking that that may fall under the BCSPCA, but we'll get to that.

I'm wondering why they weren't consulted with, given the extent of the issues that this bill covers.

Hon. D. McRae: We did consult with a large number of groups, again, where disease is potentially most prevalent, and areas and sectors that we recognize there is a distinct concern for. However, the SPCA — by all means, a great organization that does a lot of good work — were welcome, as well, to do consultation through the on-line process.

L. Popham: Are seizures not defined in this bill?

Page 12157

Hon. D. McRae: Seizure in this bill is under the authority of the chief veterinarian, and seizure is done for the purposes of disease management. The SPCA could, by all means, be invited to attend.

L. Popham: So the word "seizure" is not defined in the

definitions of this bill, although it is brought up in

section 30. Under the act that we dealt with, the animal cruelty act, to me it seems that the BCSPCA would be brought in for all animal seizures in the province. Is that not right?

Hon. D. McRae: Under the PCA Act, the BCSPCA seizures are limited to abandonment and animals in distress.

L. Popham: I'm thinking that Bill 37 overrides Bill 24?

[1020]

Hon. D. McRae: The two different bills or acts are very distinct. The PCA Act is more in regards to animal welfare, while the Animal Health Act will be in regards to animal health and disease control.

L. Popham: Is the member saying that animal welfare is not relevant when carrying out mass slaughters?

Hon. D. McRae: I'll have to quickly say no.

L. Popham: Then, if animal welfare is taken into consideration, for the record, I think the BCSPCA should have been consulted on this bill. Does the minister not agree?

Hon. D. McRae: The PCA Act says that animals cannot be caused undue distress. Culling, while never something one wishes to do, must be done in a humane manner. A prime example we could use if we went back in history to 2004 would be the avian bird flu and the consequences of the bird cull in the Fraser Valley at that time. The reality is, you know, that the way animals are culled is going to be done in an effective but humane way, as it was done in the past.

L. Popham: Given the admittance that animals must be culled in a humane way, I guess my point, and what I'd like the minister to admit, is that the BCSPCA should have been brought in for consultation, as that is their role in this province.

The Chair: Hon. Members, we've been joined by additional members of the delegation.

Welcome.

[1025]

Hon. D. McRae: Again, while culling animals is always, hopefully, the last resort one must take, the way they would be culled is not going to change from the way it was done in the past to the way that it is, essentially, done into the future. For that reason, with the lack of change, the role of BCSPCA really has not changed at all through this act.

L. Popham: I'm going to move on, but I'd like to state that I think this act has changed things because this act now gives extraordinary powers to the chief vet. There are a lot of things that this overrides, including the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act.

So I guess my question is: did the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association get consulted in this bill?

Hon. D. McRae: The answer is no, not to the best of my knowledge. However, they may have made some form of submission on the on-line consultation, but I'm not aware of that.

M. Sather: On the

definitions in

section 1 last night, I'd been talking to the minister about the definition of "animal" that's in the bill and specifically "any organism prescribed as an animal." I asked what that was. I recall that bacteria was mentioned under that rubric. What about viruses? Would it include viruses?

Hon. D. McRae: In theory, it is possible. Like I mentioned yesterday, this act was last reopened in 1948 in a serious way. So we again are giving ourselves the opportunities to be reactive as we go forward. Hopefully we don't go another 60 years — to, I guess it would be, 2072 — to revisit this act.

The reality is we probably did not envision avian bird flu or mad cow disease or SARS to the degree they did in 1948 looking forward. We want to make sure we have the flexibility to address the unknowns as we go forward. I don't know why we would prescribe a virus, but I guess, in theory, it is possible.

M. Sather: I think we're trying to get, over the course of the discussion here, what this bill does and what it doesn't do, what it covers and what it doesn't cover. The minister will know that viruses are a significant issue with regard to fish health. Given that, why wouldn't they include viruses?

Hon. D. McRae: The definition "animal" is meant to capture the creature, big or small, that would be getting ill through a virus or some form of illness like that. It is not designed to actually address the virus itself, but to protect the animal, the animal health and the human health that could be affected thereof.

[1030]

M. Sather: One of the things that I talked to the minis-

Page 12158

ter about last time, last night, and is germane to this discussion is the change from the previous act, the Animal Disease Control Act, insofar as this act does not include "aquatic animal."

Now, I understand, as the minister said previously, that a fish is a member of the animal kingdom, but with all the attention and all the concern about fish health, would it not be more prudent to have maintained the definition of aquatic animal? It says: "'aquatic animal' means, at all the stages in its development or life cycle, a species of (

a) fish, (

b) aquatic vertebrate, or (

c) aquatic invertebrate."

Wouldn't it have been more prudent to have retained that definition so that it gives us a broader scope of understanding here with regard to what this bill covers or doesn't cover?

Hon. D. McRae: While I know the member opposite would like to see some more specific wording, the act does include all aquatic animals under the definition of "a species of the animal kingdom" in the definition sections. It does include things like, potentially, jellyfish, sockeye salmon and, if we want to, a whale. Things that live in the ocean, whether they are fry or they are newborn jellyfish, are members and species of the animal kingdom.

M. Sather: I submit, though, that…. My recollection, when I took my degree in zoology, is that a virus is very difficult to classify as being in the animal kingdom or not. So I would have thought that, you know, there should be a definition of a virus in there as well.

In that regard there are, under "Definitions,"

definitions of a "notifiable disease" and a "reportable disease," but there's no definition of disease itself. The minister will know that he and I have had a number of conversations around this, because with regard to the assertion of viral outbreaks in B.C. salmon, the minister has taken the position oftentimes that: "Well, there's no disease." Disease clearly is significant, and why is there no definition in this bill of "disease"?

Hon. D. McRae: I'm just going to read a little piece here, and then I'll add a little bit of commentary. To answer the member's question: "The categorization of diseases is used by the provinces, the federal government and internationally by the World Organisation for Animal Health." This is not something that we have invented in the province of British Columbia.

Since disease management can overlap jurisdictions, it's useful to have in place a consistent approach to identifying diseases, but regardless of what disease we may be talking about, hypothetically, the disease in question would have to fall into either reportable or notifiable. It would have to fall into one of those two categories.

M. Sather: Well, I think it would be good to know just what the government means by disease. The other important term with regard to animal health — any kind of animal health — is "pathogen." A pathogen is not identified in the bill either, in

section 1 or in any other section.

Can the minister tell me why "pathogen" is not part of the

definitions section?

[1035]

Hon. D. McRae: The trigger for action is the disease itself. The cause of the disease, while very important, is not the trigger for action. The disease itself, which will affect an animal or, potentially, an "organism prescribed as an anima," would fall into either the notifiable category or the reportable category, and action would be taken, therefore, after.

M. Sather: Well, that's the problem. By the time the disease is identified, the pathogen may very well be well established and in fact may have begun the process of mutation.

The minister will recall that in the Cohen Commission there was discussion of new viruses that are being discovered, like a novel virus that Dr. Kristi Miller, from the DFO, talked about as possibly having been a cause for the collapse of the sockeye run, which had led to the Cohen Commission — really significant issues that we should be on top of. So there should be some consideration of the monitoring and reporting of notifiable and reportable pathogens as well as diseases. That's the point.

I don't think the minister can kind of have it both ways, on the one hand saying: "Look, these supposed viruses are not a problem. We don't have any disease. Unless we have a disease, there's no problem." In fact, you get all kinds of infection and spread of infection — in the case of salmon, either from farmed salmon to wild salmon or vice versa. That's a problem.

I would submit to the minister that there needs to be clarification in this bill about the role of pathogens. Does he have a further comment on that?

[1040]

Hon. D. McRae: It's a good question from the member opposite. It is important that this bill does allow for the modern disease — to detect infection. We agree that early detection is paramount. The bill gives the province the authority to look for evidence of infection and to act accordingly if such an infection were to arise.

M. Sather: Looking further at notifiable disease and reportable disease, for those watching, a notifiable disease "requires the implementation of monitoring measures"

whereas reportable disease "requires the implementation of preventive, control or eradication measures."

The minister will know about the outbreak recently of IHN, the infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus, on the west coast and the cull that took place there very recently. I wanted to ask the minister: previous to this one, when

Page 12159

was the last cull on one of our fish farms?

Hon. D. McRae: For clarity, are we referring to a cull because of IHN or a cull for any reason?

M. Sather: IHN.

Hon. D. McRae: IHN? So the last one would have been 2003.

M. Sather: I appreciate that information from the minister. So when was the last cull for any species of fish, then — on aquaculture?

[1045]

Hon. D. McRae: Until 2010 the CFIA — that was when they actually made fish diseases reportable. Prior to that it was under the guidance of the actual — I guess — farm or company to do the cull themselves.

There was a cull…. There actually hasn't been a cull that we are aware of, just sitting here talking, in British Columbia since 2010. However, as the member opposite may be aware, in New Brunswick there was an issue of ISA there. The CFIA was brought in, protocols were followed, and a cull took place under CFIA order in New Brunswick just recently — I think within the last several months, as a matter of fact.

However, one of the things — I guess this may be to the member's pleasure…. This is the point of having this act. This act gives the province actual skin in the game, actually having the ability to be more responsive to disease control measures as we go forward.

M. Sather: I appreciate the minister's comment about the province having more skin in the game, as he put it. I think that is important for us to have that, notwithstanding legislation that has given more of the jurisdiction to the federal government.

So in 2010, then, there was a cull. What species of fish was that, and where was it?

Hon. D. McRae: Sorry. My apologies if I misled the member. Prior to 2010 the province or the CFIA had no authority to force a cull. It would have been up to the individual farm to do so.

Since 2010, since the CFIA did have control, did make it reportable, had the ability to demand a cull, we are not aware of any cull. But that's just in the quick conversation we've had at this little round table, so I can't say it is inclusive of all action.

M. Sather: I think I only have, perhaps, one more question on this section, and then I believe another member would like to ask the minister some questions.

So just to recap, in a way, then, with regard to the Animal Disease Control Act definition having been left out, etc. Does this change…? Having left that definition out, does this affect fish health in aquaculture in any way, in the minister's mind, then?

Hon. D. McRae: We thought this question might come up. For clarity, we thought we'd just read into the record, if we may, a little four-paragraph statement for the members opposite and the general public.

The inclusion of fish diseases under the Animal Health Act provides the province with the ability to inspect and test for diseases and take disease control measures for fish. However, the exercise of this authority has to be considered in the context of the overall management of fisheries in Canada.

The authority for managing fisheries rests with Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The management of certain reportable diseases related to fisheries rests with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA.

Currently the provincial government's engagement in fishery disease management is limited to providing laboratory testing through the Animal Health Centre. The centre provides testing and analysis, much as a private laboratory would do.

In the future the provincial government would have the ability to provide greater assistance to the federal government in terms of conducting inspections, for example. However, agreements would be required between the federal and provincial governments permitting such arrangements and providing for funding. Otherwise, the status quo would prevail, with the federal government assuming the reportable disease management responsibilities and the provincial government providing laboratory testing services.

[1050]

V. Huntington: I'm very interested in that statement. Is that the reason, then — i.e., the admission that the province is only engaged in fish management as a laboratory testing service — why you're removing references to aquatic species from the

definitions?

Hon. D. McRae: No, the definition of "animal" was just designed for simplification. It is an all-capture — again, all creatures. Whether it is a horse, a jellyfish or a seagull, it would all fall into the definition, as we were talking about earlier — again, for the member opposite — a species of the animal kingdom. Instead of having multiple

definitions, for ease we have captured all animals under the definition of "animal."

V. Huntington: I wonder if the minister could then, for my personal clarification if for nothing else, describe to me the role the province has in aquatic disease control beyond laboratory testing?

Hon. D. McRae: Well, it's probably very much com-

Page 12160

mon sense. There is a very distinct difference between land animals, cows, and fish. Cows definitely, you know, are the jurisdiction of the province, but with fish there is a somewhat shared jurisdiction.

Because of that shared jurisdiction, we want to make sure we would act, if possible, in concert with the federal government, knowing that they definitely have a very large role to play.

However, this new act will give the province the authority to act quickly, and perhaps in a different manner, if it was deemed necessary to protect the human health or the animal health of this province. It would be something that was done, I would hope, in a perfect world, with consultation with the federal government, because of the shared jurisdiction. But it does give us brand-new flexibility which did not exist in the past.

V. Huntington: Well, I thank the minister for that. My concern here, and you'll note the concern that is being expressed here, is that aquatic species management is of the utmost importance to the public in British Columbia, and to members of both sides of this House, I'm sure.

Yet these

definitions are no longer clear, and they will not be clear in the public mind. Unfortunately, Minister, I don't have a sheet of paper to hand in, so I'll have to ask. Because of the lack of clarity here and because of the confusion it is creating, even among members who have now read this act and who understand, hopefully, what the government is trying to do….

[1055]

I would like to ask the minister whether he would consider amending the legislation under the definition of "animal" to add subparagraph (c), "any aquatic species prescribed as an animal," so that the public, members of this House and individuals within the business of aquatic fish management would understand that there is a role that continues. They would understand clearly, and the definition of animal would then be something that we could all accept and understand.

Would he consider an amendment that would propose a subparagraph (

c) under the definition as "any aquatic species prescribed as an animal"?

Hon. D. McRae: I guess the short answer is: no, we're not going to consider it. I'll explain why.

It's not a bad question. Without tongue in cheek, we didn't want to play animal favourites. We believe, through consultation — and if you were to talk to a university PhD, they would also agree — that we have captured in this broad definition all animals in the animal kingdom, including bees, including fish species and including mammals on the land. All species are captured within this one.

For anything that we did not capture, potentially, we could capture it because of the things we do not know. So we have captured everything that exists on the planet under this definition, under

section (a).

Things that we have not found or are not yet present on the planet would be captured under (b), organisms prescribed, and that gives the government the ability to react to things that we have not found yet.

V. Huntington: Would the minister consider, then, adding under that proposed amendment, subpara (c): "for clarity, any aquatic species prescribed as an animal"?

The minister and his staff may feel that they have captured everything, and indeed probably have, although I guess I have never thought of a fish as an animal. I think that's part of my confusion around the whole thing.

The clarity of this legislation is incredibly important. I see no reason why there can't be a subparagraph (

c) that discusses the aquatic species as an animal and prescribes that for clarity.

[C. Hansen in the chair.]

Hon. D. McRae: Hello, Mr. Chair. Good to see you.

I believe we need to do a better job in communication as we go forward for people who are concerned that that could potentially come up. Academically, an "animal" captures all species on the planet. Fish are included. Bees are included. Jellyfish are included. An animal is "a species of the animal kingdom," and that is fairly widely believed. I'm not sure what university or academic would argue otherwise. All species are captured under "species of the animal kingdom" as an animal.

[1100]

M. Sather: I wanted to go back to a comment the minister made about the sharing of information between the federal government and the province. It's been a bit of a grey area, I think, for the public, and probably for the opposition too, in terms of just what the relationship is.

The minister, I believe, referred to…. Well, we know we have a sharing arrangement at this point, but he said that there would have to be specific agreements with the federal government to become involved in other sharing arrangements. Was that what the minister said?

Hon. D. McRae: I'll use an example: the avian influenza outbreak in 2004. In this particular case the federal government asked the province to use some of our facilities in Abbotsford to assist. They could not force us to do so, and if for some reason — I can't see why we'd ever do this…. They asked us to assist in the testing, and we did so, obviously. However, we did so knowing what our obligations were and the costs that they were going to incur and pay for along the way.

In theory, I suppose, if we had refused — and I don't have any reason why that would be the case that we would do so, as we want to make sure we protect animal health, protect human health — they could, then,

Page 12161

fall back on their lab in, I guess, Winnipeg, in this case.

The reality is we want to make sure that we have that positive relationship to make sure results are found as quickly as possible and we can act as quickly as possible, like I say, to protect human health, to protect animal health and welfare and move forward.

M. Sather: With regard to fish health, what data now is shared between the province and federal government?

[D. Black in the chair.]

Hon. D. McRae: Madam Chair, good to see you. Farewell to the other Chair, whose time here was brief but always enjoyable.

[1105]

We're talking in regards to disease and reportability. I'll give a real-life example, if I may. For example, under the disease management program, IHN was detected from a fish farm on the west coast of Vancouver Island. Our lab in Abbotsford was part of that who did the identification. What we did immediately thereafter is, following correct protocols, we informed CFIA. CFIA then, as a reportable disease, steps up and starts working on the management program.

That's basically where we are today with CFIA. I believe it was yesterday, or maybe this morning, that they actually attended the fish farm in question here. The reality is that both the actual fish farm company and the lab in British Columbia worked well. We reported and followed the protocols correctly, and we'll move forward on this reportable disease.

M. Sather: Thanks to the minister for that information about that outbreak. What I'm more interested in is…. We know that the federal government has responsibility for fish health, yet also it was revealed at Cohen that the provincial veterinarian provides fish health information to the federal government. So it's that relationship that I'm trying to understand. What are the responsibilities of the two bodies, and how does that work?

Hon. D. McRae: In regards to terrestrial animals — animals on land, like cows — we do have an MOU at present with CFIA to share information, particularly in regards to reportable diseases, something like tuberculosis. However, because CFIA has recently taken on the authority for reportable diseases on the aquatic side — in 2010, as a matter of fact — we are in the process right now of developing an MOU with the CFIA in regards to fish health records.

While I don't want to prejudice the outcome, we are relatively close to, hopefully, signing this, and it would be a good thing for all B.C.

M. Sather: Well, that sounds promising. I don't know what it really means, but it sounds promising. Does the minister anticipate, then, that the provincial role in this regard will not be diminished? Does he anticipate that it will be enhanced?

Hon. D. McRae: Yes, it does have the potential to enhance our authority. We are looking forward…. The Animal Health Act does give us, actually, more authority to deal with aquatic issues, more so than we had before.

[1110]

M. Sather: I wanted to ask the minister a question on the definition of an "environmental toxin" — which, the bill says: "means (

a) a chemical, a toxic substance or another deleterious substance, or (

b) a thing that contains a chemical, a toxic substance or another deleterious substance."

Can the minister clarify for me — some examples, perhaps, might help — as to what qualifies as a toxic substance or a deleterious substance? Would a parasiticide — as I think it's called — or a pesticide that's perhaps used in an aquaculture application be a deleterious substance?

Hon. D. McRae: An example of an environmental toxin — I'll give you two levels here — could be a product like a discarded car battery. That could be an environmental toxin. However, the lead within the car battery — specifically, just the lead itself — could be an environmental toxin as well, so both would be captured.

[1115]

A deleterious substance, for example, could be a dioxin from a fire. Perhaps the ash would land on a field and be spread to animals. But the key issue in regard to both is that both have to be causing or associated with a disease to be triggered.

M. Sather: Will there be, or is there already, a list of what these toxins are with regard to fish health?

Hon. D. McRae: In regard to what diseases fall under "notifiable or reportable disease," that would be captured in regulation. One of the things that's very good about this act is that — instead of having to bury it within legislation, which is why there are so few actual diseases in the existing animal health act — this allows the government of the province of British Columbia in the future to react very quickly to either add or — I guess, potentially — subtract diseases from the list.

It does give government a lot more flexibility to deal with potential toxins or deleterious substances as we go forward, but this will be done at the regulation stage.

Page 12162

M. Sather: I'm trying to understand. For example, if you have a bee colony, a pesticide could be deleterious to that animal. So in this case, would the pesticide be considered a deleterious substance?

Hon. D. McRae: Under the Animal Health Act, we are not looking at regulating pesticides. The reason we're not doing that is because, with the levels of government in Canada, under the constitution, pesticides are regulated by the federal government. And it is their responsibility to register and oversee the use of pesticides in British Columbia — and in the rest of Canada, by all means.

We have confirmed this recently by having discussions with the provincial Ministry of Environment to make sure that this position is correct and that we are not stepping on toes.

M. Sather: The minister talked about the flexibility of being able to add to the list of deleterious substances and toxins through regulation. Who, then…? Is it the government? Is it the cabinet alone that makes the decisions as to which of these substances to add or delete? Who makes the decision?

[1120]

Hon. D. McRae: In regards to notifiable diseases, reportable diseases, deleterious substances, environmental toxins and the like, the decision is usually basically science-based. The chief veterinary officer of the province would make recommendations, after which time cabinet through, I guess, an LGIC would approve.

M. Sather: What sections of this bill does the "environmental toxin" definition apply to?

Hon. D. McRae: Environmental toxin falls under the definition of both notifiable and reportable disease.

M. Sather: I'm not sure, though, that the minister answered my question. Perhaps he did in a roundabout way. I was asking: what sections of the bill does the definition of "environmental toxin" apply to?

Hon. D. McRae: Throughout the bill, whenever you see the words "reportable or notifiable disease," an environmental toxin could apply. To be honest, I didn't go through the list and give you number by number, but that's fairly self-evident, I would think.

M. Sather: Thanks to the minister for that. On the definition of "infestation," it means an "infestation by an organism." Would this apply, for example, to an infestation of mites in a honeybee colony?

Hon. D. McRae: Infestation could include, for example, bees infested with varroa mites, or it could include a hive infested with another type of insect that kills bees or makes them ill.

M. Sather: Well, this truly may be the end for me, Madam Speaker, for

section 1. This may be a housekeeping kind of question. We were looking, again, at the definition of "animal," which means "subject to the regulations (

a) a species of the animal kingdom, and (

b) any organism prescribed as an animal." Should it say "and," or should it say "or"?

Hon. D. McRae: The answer is that it could be either. It doesn't have to be both. So and, or…. I think it would be the same in the end.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

L. Popham: This

section 2, "Interpretation," is a bit curious. I'm going to read my copy of "Interpretation." A "condition, situation or thing is caused by a person or another thing if the person or other thing (

a) contributes beyond a minimal extent to the happening or existence of the condition…or (

b) directly or indirectly causes the condition, situation or thing."

I'm not quite sure what that means. Could the minister explain it?

[1125]

Hon. D. McRae: I think the members opposite may know how much I enjoy seeing the word "thing" as well in legalese. I am continually reminded by staff that "condition, situation or thing" is conventional drafting language, though I find it still a little bit…. It's my own inside joke there.

A condition, situation, thing is caused by a person or other thing if the person or other thing causes it directly, indirectly or contributes beyond a minimal extent. Again, this is the legalese and conventional drafting language being used.

L. Popham: So what does it mean?

Hon. D. McRae: Obviously, events can be caused by a myriad of different issues and events and things. When a disease happens, we don't want to say that it's just purely random. That's not going to be helpful to anybody. Having language like this allows us to do an investigation and find a reasonable cause and, hopefully, react accordingly, even though perhaps some of the evidence necessary is not available. We just don't want to say: "It was pure chance, and we'll leave it at that."

[1130]

We would like to have the ability to basically give our

Page 12163

— I guess, arguably, my staff might cringe at me saying this — best guess in making sure we can do our best to prevent it.

L. Popham: I guess it seems — my

interpretation of it is — that someone is responsible for something if he or she more than minimally contributes to that thing happening. But I think that we…. I understand that this is legalese, but it seems unnecessary. Because I don't think…. I'm not sure what it adds to this bill. I don't know where that definition of "thing" is in this bill. So I think I need more of an explanation on why it adds any value.

Hon. D. McRae: I also struggle with some standard legalese. But for example, if a disease is present, I guess one of the questions I would ask is: to what extent does the person responsible for said animal play a role in that disease? Or is the disease a cause of nature? I think the member opposite will notice we'll be going on, perhaps very quickly, to

section 3 and will see

section 3 is under the "must not cause disease" kind of aspect.

[1135]

Sometimes events could happen even with best practice but out of the individual's hands. For example, avian bird flu: was it spread by mismanagement of individuals, or was it done because wild birds landed near a flock and spread it that way?

L. Popham: Is this part of the bill necessary?

Hon. D. McRae: I'm very pleased to say that high school teachers do not draft legislation, and our legal advisers in this particular circumstance say yes. It relates in regards to

section 3, so it does play an important role.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

M. Sather: Yes, as the minister mentioned,

section 3 is under the heading "Must not cause disease." There again, as we get into the meat of the bill, this makes reference back to some of the comments that we had earlier.

Under this bill, then, only the disease is reportable, not the pathogen. One of the problems with this is that fish farms, aquaculture companies, seem to be having a very tough time in