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)

Monday, May 28, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 39, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Tributes

Ryder Hesjedal

Hon. I. Chong

J. Horgan

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Aziz Khaki

A. Dix

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Ryder Hesjedal and trainer Juerg Feldmann

B. Simpson

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 56 — New Housing Transition Tax and Rebate Act

Hon. K. Falcon

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Passport program for parks

D. Horne

Ryder Hesjedal

D. Routley

Pemberton Heights neighbourhood

R. Sultan

Esquimalt history and centennial celebrations

M. Karagianis

Sterling Awards for Nanaimo businesses

R. Cantelon

Manufactured home owners

H. Bains

Oral Questions

B.C. Utilities Commission public hearings and government energy policy

A. Dix

Hon. R. Coleman

J. Horgan

Privatization of liquor distribution

S. Simpson

Hon. R. Coleman

M. Karagianis

Catalyst mill operations and workers

C. Trevena

Hon. K. Falcon

D. Routley

Transfer of RCMP officer to B.C. and RCMP contract with government

K. Corrigan

Hon. S. Bond

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, report No. 2, 2012-2013, Crown Agency Board Governance

Petitions

H. Bains

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 54 — Provincial Sales Tax Act (continued)

R. Austin

M. Farnworth

Statements

Decorum in the chamber

J. Horgan

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 54 — Provincial Sales Tax Act (continued)

S. Simpson

Hon. K. Falcon

Bill 51 — South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2012 (continued)

G. Gentner

M. Farnworth

J. Kwan

B. Ralston

Hon. B. Lekstrom

Bill 47 — Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2012

Hon. B. Lekstrom

G. Coons

C. Trevena

S. Fraser

N. Simons

Reporting of Bills

Bill 39 — Emergency Intervention Disclosure Act

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 39 — Emergency Intervention Disclosure Act

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 45 — Income Tax Amendment Act, 2012

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 39 — Emergency Intervention Disclosure Act

R. Chouhan

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

S. Chandra Herbert

D. Routley

Bill 45 — Income Tax Amendment Act, 2012

B. Ralston

Hon. K. Falcon

Bill 38 — Pension Benefits Standards Act

B. Ralston

Hon. K. Falcon

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Justice (continued)

L. Krog

Hon. S. Bond

K. Corrigan

N. Simons

H. Bains

M. Farnworth

Estimates: Other Appropriations

Estimates: Ministry of Energy and Mines

D. Donaldson

Hon. R. Coleman

Page 12267

MONDAY, MAY 28, 2012

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

RYDER HESJEDAL

Hon. I. Chong: It is with great pleasure that I rise again today to acknowledge a young man from greater Victoria whose accomplishments this past weekend have made history.

Last week I rose in these chambers to congratulate Ryder Hesjedal when he took the pink jersey as the race leader in his leg of the Giro d'Italia cycling race. Well, as we all heard and as we saw on television on Sunday, he was able to come from behind in the final stage in Milan to win by a narrow 16 seconds over his nearest competitor.

Again today it is with distinct honour, and I'm delighted to say, that all of us here in greater Victoria, indeed around the province and across the country, want to pay tribute to Ryder. He has the support of his family and his community — the sporting community in particular. He has done a great honour to all of us by winning with such distinction in his calibre of racing.

Ryder is a greater Victoria native. He is a superb athlete. He is a B.C. Games alum, which is also really important to note, because he continually encourages young people to be involved in athletics. He is the first Canadian to ever win the Giro d'Italia.

[1335]

Greater Victoria, I would like to say, has produced a number of leading athletes. We know a few of them, like Simon Whitfield and Ryan Cochrane, as well. As a local MLA, I know I join with my other colleagues from greater Victoria. We are very pleased with this particular result, and as the Minister of Sport, I'm incredibly proud whenever one of our hometown heroes achieves success on the world stage.

I know that he has received many congratulations. I know they have been pouring in over the course of the last 24 hours. Certainly, I would like to add my voice here today, as I'm sure all members of the House would. On behalf of the province of British Columbia and on the Premier's behalf, I would like to offer, once again, congratulations to Ryder.

J. Horgan: I rise to join with my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head to cheer on Ryder Hesjedal. His family are constituents of mine living in Metchosin. Ryder is a Belmont high school graduate. I know that the Minister of Education will be pleased to hear that. Born and raised in Victoria, he of course in the season is stationed somewhere else. He's in Europe; he's in Hawaii, working on mountain climbs, which you don't get here, other than the Malahat Drive, which the Transportation Minister is quite familiar with.

It's a very exciting time for the cycling community here in greater Victoria and, of course, right across Canada. We have, as a result of the 1994 Commonwealth Games, a legacy in our constituency, myself and the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads. We have a velodrome that is disused, by and large, by the cycling community in greater Victoria but not disused by one Ryder Hesjedal. Were it not for that legacy piece of sporting infrastructure that came from the 1994 Commonwealth Games, we may not have the champion in our midst that we do today.

It's a very exciting time for cyclists in Victoria. Ryder has taken his newfound stardom, with his great performance in the Tour de France last year, and has inspired the Tour de Victoria, which has some 1,500 cyclists expecting to participate. Wheelmen.ca is the website.

Again, with my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head, all the members of the south Island and all the members of this House, our warm and fond congratulations to Ryder Hesjedal.

Introductions by Members

L. Reid: Today I have three introductions to make.

Two special guests. One is on the floor of the House — second vice-president of the National Assembly of Quebec, François Ouimet. François has been a sitting member for the constituency of Marquette since the general election in 1994. In the gallery I would like to welcome Richard Daignault, a veteran with the department of interparliamentary and international relations of the Quebec National Assembly and currently administrative secretary for the assembly's delegation for relations with the United States.

Two special guests. One is on the floor of the House — second vice-president of the National Assembly of Quebec, François Ouimet. François has been a sitting member for the constituency of Marquette since the general election in 1994. In the gallery I would like to welcome Richard Daignault, a veteran with the department of interparliamentary and international relations of the Quebec National Assembly and currently administrative secretary for the assembly's delegation for relations with the United States.

I'm also happy to advise the House that we have a visitor from Halifax, Nova Scotia. Dr. Laurie Mireau, who happens to be our sessional Clerk's better half, is joining us. Please give her a warm welcome.

Tributes

AZIZ KHAKI

A. Dix: I just want to recognize that last Tuesday a friend of many people in this House, Aziz Khaki, passed away. There was a service on Friday that brought people from around British Columbia. Aziz was a remarkable

Page 12268

leader, I think, of the Muslim community. He headed up since 1982 the Committee for Racial Justice.

He came to Canada from Africa, as many people did, fleeing oppression in the early 1970s. He was a dear friend of many of ours, and he'll be sorely missed. I know the House would want to pass on their best wishes to his family.

Introductions by Members

M. Coell: I have a constituent in the chamber this afternoon, John Davies. I wish the House to make him most welcome.

Tributes

RYDER HESJEDAL AND

TRAINER JUERG FELDMANN

B. Simpson: I want to weigh in on Ryder's victory on the weekend, because it takes a province to raise an athlete. As we sat in Quesnel in the wee hours of the morning and watched Ryder cross the finish line, many of us harkened back to the days when he came into our community because his trainer is from Quesnel.

Juerg Feldmann, an ex-Swiss national speed skater, trains athletes all over the world based out of Quesnel. We have known Ryder since he was a very young man who would come up and go on our mountain bike trails, because that's how he started out. It was a great thrill to watch him do what he does, but I think it's also proof that it does take a province to raise an athlete. So well done to Juerg Feldmann, Ryder's coach and trainer.

[1340]

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Bond: From time to time all of us in this House rise to introduce people that are very important in our lives, and when you live in the far-flung corners of the province, we may not get to have them here as often as we would like.

I'm delighted to have my husband, Bill, in the gallery today. He has been a patient supporter, after almost 20 years in elected office, in our home, and I always appreciate the fact that he's always there. I'm very glad to have him here in the gallery. I hope you'd make him feel welcome today.

S. Fraser: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two visitors in the gallery today. My sister is visiting all the way from Ottawa. Gail Fraser Tessier is here today in the gallery. Joining her is my daughter Emma Fraser, who is off work today. Will the House please join me to make them feel very welcome.

Hon. D. McRae: I'd like to rise today and make two introductions. In the gallery from the Comox Valley I have two visitors. We have Donald Taylor, who is attending. He is a very well-known community-involved individual who is pretty much at every event I ever attend. He is incredibly well known. So we have Donald Taylor, and he's accompanied by Mary Catherine Ruel. Would the House please make them welcome.

Also, I understand that here in the gallery today is Steven Costa. His mom, Sarina, works in my office in the Ministry of Agriculture. He is visiting the Legislature with his class and with his grade 10 social studies teacher, Mr. Macri, from Claremont. Would the House please make Steven Costa welcome.

B. Routley: I have with me a wonderful guest and friend, Rosemary Danaher, who is not only an outstanding artist and well known in the Cowichan Valley area but also a wonderful volunteer and vice-president of the Kaatza Art Group in the Cowichan Valley. Please join me in welcoming Rosemary.

G. Hogg: I had the honour today of having lunch with a number of White Rock youth ambassadors. We had wonderful esoteric discussions around such things as how one is happy in their life as opposed to happy with their life.

Would you please welcome Ambassadors Freda Zhang and Sarah Simon, Miss White Rock Alex Barberis, Princess Jane Peng, Friendship Ambassador Christina Howard, Youth Ambassador Krystal Schrauwen and the White Rock youth ambassador coordinators, who have been doing this for a number of years, Donna Beaudry and Debbie Ward. Please make them most welcome.

L. Popham: I would like to join with the Minister of Agriculture and welcome the teacher from Saanich South, from Claremont Secondary School, Erin MacCree, and his 32 grade 10 students. I happen to be, coincidentally, signing the graduation certificates for Claremont Secondary School's 2012 graduation class right now.

Welcome to the House.

M. Mungall: Among our distinguished guests in the gallery today, we have two representatives from the Native Education College. We have Dan Guinan, who is the president, and Keith Henry, who is the board chair. May the House please make them welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 56 — NEW HOUSING TRANSITION

TAX AND REBATE ACT

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled New Housing Transition Tax and Rebate Act.

Page 12269

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm pleased to introduce the New Housing Transition Tax and Rebate Act.

Bill 56 implements the transitional rules for new housing that were announced back in February, just prior to the budget. These rules provide certainty for purchasers and the residential construction industry about the application of tax during the transition from the HST to the PST.

The temporary housing transition measures help to ensure that the amount of tax payable in respect of a new home during the transition, regardless of when construction begins, is comparable to the amount of tax payable in respect of a home fully constructed under the PST.

[1345]

To provide equitable treatment among purchasers of new homes, a temporary housing transition tax of 2 percent will apply to purchases of new housing that are not subject to HST and where construction was at least 10 percent complete prior to April 1, 2013.

To help ensure there is no double taxation, eligible builders will be able to claim a transition rebate if they pay PST on construction materials used in housing that is subject to the temporary housing transition tax.

Bill 56 also requires that builders disclose certain information to purchasers that will help to ensure that they have a shared understanding of the taxes and rebates that apply to new housing in B.C. under the transitional rules.

The temporary housing transition tax and rebate will be in place for two years — from April 1, 2013, to March 31, 2015 — and will be administered by the Canada Revenue Agency on behalf of the government of British Columbia.

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

Bill 56, New Housing Transition Tax and Rebate Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

PASSPORT PROGRAM FOR PARKS

D. Horne: British Columbians know just how lucky we are to have such a diverse and rich environment. Our province is home to more than 200 provincial parks, and we are dedicated to their preservation and maintaining nature's gift to British Columbia.

This past Victoria Day weekend was the unofficial kickoff of the camping season for the summer. In celebration, the province relaunched the B.C. Parks passport program, the program started last year as part of our Parks 100 celebration. It proved so popular that we've brought it back for another two years.

Families will be able to take their time in the woods, with even more fun that this interactive and educational program delivers. It's simple. Pick up a free passport at any of our 114 provincial visitor centres or at one of the designated B.C. parks, and then start collecting stamps at one or more of the parks during the 2012 season. The goal is to collect six stamps and earn a collectible Jerry the Moose pin. For every six unique visitor stamps, the passport holder will also get an environmentally friendly water bottle.

Passports are not only a fun way to encourage kids to explore our parks. They offer valuable information, from advice on trip planning to how to build a campsite. The B.C. Parks passport program is made possible by contributions to the park enhancement fund. It provides a wonderful, family-friendly activity. I hope that everyone will take part on their next visit to our beautiful parks in British Columbia.

RYDER HESJEDAL

D. Routley: Today I'm wearing pink, with a pink tie. That's in honour of a person who's already been spoken about today, Ryder Hesjedal. Ryder Hesjedal has given Canadians a great reason for pride. We heard the anthem of Canada played at the end of a grand stage in the world of professional cycling.

Ryder, 33 years old, obviously wasn't born yesterday in cycling either. He spent a long time as a mountain bike racer, having won silver in the world championships under 23 in 2001. On the road he has won the Giro d'Italia. He was sixth in the Tour de France in 2010. He has won a stage in the other grand tour, the Vuelta a España, in 2009. And he has been the mountains leader in the Tour de Georgia.

Cycling is a team sport. Different disciplines — climbing, sprinting and time trialling — all contribute to what makes a champion. Those who support the champion as team members are known as domestiques. They save 30 percent of the team leader's energy as they pace him through the race. But eventually the team leaders are exposed and have to race against each other at the tops of these mountain passes.

If you ride the Malahat, you'll have 1,100 feet of vertical gain. On Saturday alone the riders of the Giro d'Italia gained 20,000 feet of vertical climbing in 60 miles of climbing. This is extraordinary. The last climb started at 5,000 feet and finished at 9,800 feet, the highest finish of any professional bike race in the world.

Mr. Hesjedal adds his name to a roll of many great

Page 12270

Canadian cyclists. Victorians Bernie and Martin Willock — Olympians. Torchy Pedon of the '30s, who won 38 of the 126 pro races he entered. Clara Hughes, our great two-sport Olympian. Steve Bauer, silver medalist in 1984; 11 Tours de France, fourth in 1988. Alex Steida from the Lower Mainland. Curt Harnett. These are great Canadians. Now Ryder Hesjedal adds his name to that great roll.

[1350]

PEMBERTON HEIGHTS NEIGHBOURHOOD

R. Sultan: It's not common to find a village within a city, but Pemberton Heights lies within North Vancouver. This community of 600 homes has but two entrances, north and south. Through-traffic, otherwise known as rat-running, is or will be discouraged by district-approved but Pemberton Heights–paid for calming measures.

It's an enclave cherished for its community spirit. Block Watch and neighbourhood patrols are active. Capilano Elementary School's International Baccalaureate program has stabilized the student population. Its well-tended homes are not on the grand scale, but when one comes on the market, families will pay a premium. There are now third-generation families living here.

Every Canada Day about 150 children, average age about five, gather at the Capilano United Church corner store for a bicycle, tricycle, scooter, wagon and baby buggy parade, bedecked in Canadian flags, red and white crepe and balloons. It has been my dangerous assignment to select winners. Fortunately, there are lots of prizes.

Community leaders such as Sheena Capozzi, Tracy Cochrane, Doug Bentley, Colin Metcalfe, Alan Nixon, Lori Chapman and Herman Mah are the guardians of this tightly knit neighbourhood. The Ministry of Transport has helped local residents' quality of life through sound barriers on Highway 1, on-ramp signalling and reconstruction of the approaches to Lions Gate Bridge.

Well done, Pemberton Heights.

ESQUIMALT HISTORY AND

CENTENNIAL CELEBRATIONS

Europeans started coming in 1790 and dropped anchor in its sheltered harbour. In the 1800s the Hudson's Bay Co. arrived, farms were established and the Royal Navy set up operations in the harbour. Then came the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway in 1887 and the first shipyard in 1883.

A hundred years ago this September the township of Esquimalt was incorporated. Back then it was a bustling commercial centre, with hotels, general stores, laundries and homes where naval workers and some of Victoria's most wealthy citizens lived. During the Second World War the Yarrows shipyard employed more than 4,300 workers and built dozens of new ships for the war effort. The naval base that began operations in 1865 has grown to become the Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, the largest employer in the region.

It's been an amazing journey for Esquimalt, and this year the community is proud to celebrate its centennial in grand style. The members of the Esquimalt centennial celebrations committee have been working hard to put together a year of fun-filled events and activities. A highlight is sure to be the centennial community celebration, which will be held on September 8, the week that the town was incorporated a hundred years ago. The complete calendar of events can be found on line at esquimaltcentennial2012.ca.

I hope members will join with me in congratulating Esquimalt on its 100th birthday, and I encourage all visitors and residents of the south Island to take in the town's terrific events and activities as it honours the past, celebrates the present and imagines the future.

STERLING AWARDS FOR

NANAIMO BUSINESSES

R. Cantelon: I rise today to congratulate the recipients of the Sterling Awards, hosted by the Nanaimo Chamber of Commerce. The not-for-profit organization is the Nanaimo Community Hospice; corporate marketing — Studio Kitchens and Design Ltd. and PI Granite manufacturing; individual customer service — Joe Lewis, Lewis Modern Home Renovations; environmental sustainability — Happy Island Diaper Service Ltd; new business — Tuff City Powersports Ltd.; young entrepreneur — Sheri DeBoer and Robert Muir for ESSCO Solutions.

Service excellence went to Sink or Swim Scuba; economic development — Nanaimo Port Authority; community spirit — the Cottonwood Golf Course; and the junior citizen award — Amy Hsueh of Dover Bay Secondary School. The business leader of the year was Scott Cooper of the Modern Cafe.

These businesses. I was struck at the meeting that many of them are new entrepreneurs, and the nominees were sort of advised that 2008-2009 was maybe a tough time. They were undeterred, and they succeeded. And it's no coincidence that the unemployment rate in Nanaimo dropped from 16.3 percent a year ago. It's now down to 4.8 percent. That's real job creation.

Let's congratulate these young entrepreneurs for their persistence and their success in driving the economy of British Columbia.

[1355]

Page 12271

MANUFACTURED HOME OWNERS

H. Bains: I've had the opportunity over these past several years to work with a group of people that have become very dear to my heart. These people are mostly retired citizens and have invested their lifelong savings into manufactured homes. Manufactured home parks are cozy communities with playgrounds, beautiful gardens, clubhouses for residents to gather in large or small groups.

People are friendly and outgoing. They look out for each other. Many of the residents are seniors. These types of communities really are a viable form of affordable housing. These homes are permanent. They are set on foundations and are very difficult to move.

Living in this setting does not come without concerns, though. People have invested their life savings into their manufactured home, but they do not own the land, and they must rent the pad from the park owner.

Legislation stipulates that the park owner can raise the rent 2 percent per year, plus the cost of living, plus any increase in taxes and utilities. People are at risk of losing their lifetime investment because the pad rental increases are making it difficult to sell their homes and unaffordable for people on fixed incomes to pay the rent.

Manufactured home owners are also susceptible to the real estate market. When the land prices go up, they're vulnerable that the park owners could sell the land for redevelopment.

Under current legislation, homeowners have very little protection or compensation if their park is sold for other users. Manufactured home owners have been asking that we look at finding ways to protect these affordable housing units and provide them with certainty so that they can live to enjoy the remaining years of their lives. These are the people who built this country, and we owe it to them.

Oral Questions

B.C. UTILITIES COMMISSION

PUBLIC HEARINGS AND

GOVERNMENT ENERGY POLICY

A. Dix: Two weeks ago I asked the Minister of Energy a question. He didn't answer it then. I'm going to ask it to him again. It's a very simple question. Has B.C. Hydro been spilling water over its dams without producing electricity in recent months? If so, how much inexpensive, clean energy has been lost to B.C. consumers?

Hon. R. Coleman: We manage our electrical system in a manner to protect long-term energy needs and energy security for all British Columbians. That means that sometimes we have to manage the system in high-water years, where we have to spill water, which is a situation we faced because of the high snowcap this year.

You can't rely on the spot market for long-term planning, and that's why our dams have always been good for us to be able to shape electricity in B.C. and will continue to be so over the next numbers of years.

At the same time, there are times — seldom, frankly, but it does happen — when levels of water reach a level where we have to spill.

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

A. Dix: Well, I think that the problem is — and the minister well knows this — that we're spilling water out of our dams in British Columbia, where we are paying $68 per kilowatt hour for deals signed by this government. Those are expensive deals. The off-peak price right now is 55 cents. The peak price is $9.98. The government is spending between $68 and $100. Clearly, that's an expensive price per megawatt hour.

I wanted to ask a question to the minister. If the minister is confident about his management of the system, how can he possibly justify the decision to cancel the BCUC hearings reviewing the government's very policies?

Hon. R. Coleman: There were two questions in one there. I'll try and do them both. First of all, to the member opposite: if you think that managing energy in any jurisdiction should be done on the spot market, that would be very bad business, very bad planning, and it would be very bad for the future of people in British Columbia.

With regard to the spot market being the answer, which is what you're talking about, the spot market could reverse by the end of the summer and be a lot higher simply because of drought conditions. To take the fact you want to build your energy policy around that….

On the second question, I know that the NDP, in their comments in the last few days with regard to our decision to give special direction to the B.C. Utilities Commission, want to raise rates for consumers in B.C. by 50 percent over the next five years. We don't believe that's necessary.

[1400]

We believe that the 24,000 pages of work that was done to get to where we are is the right place to go since, with all the work we've done, and we think we can keep rates affordable for British Columbians.

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

A. Dix: For people in British Columbia who believe in B.C. Hydro, this is a very serious issue, and we should have a serious debate. That's why we believe these issues should be before the Utilities Commission.

It's why we think, when the government is overpaying dramatically for power and damaging the long-term

Page 12272

future of B.C. Hydro, that that's an important question. It's why we think 27 deferral accounts worth $2.5 billion, according to the Auditor General, more than doubling over the next few years, is a serious question.

Why is the government afraid of oversight of these questions? Why is the government essentially saying…? I'd say that the Premier's comment was: "We are finding a way to pay down the deferral account to $250 million." That's what the Premier said. Now, if the Premier believes that, why doesn't she take that plan and show it to the Utilities Commission?

Hon. R. Coleman: Two things, Mr. Speaker. What the Premier meant to say is that we'd be paying it down by $250 million this year. But, Leader of the Opposition and members opposite, don't think for a second that you can stand up and say that you believe in the B.C. Utilities Commission. I mean, for heaven's sake, you passed legislation in the 1990s to freeze rates, to eliminate the B.C. Utilities Commission altogether.

To be able to stand up and say that all of a sudden you've found religion here is shocking to me, considering the fact that you didn't believe in it when you were government. You don't believe in it now, and all you're interested in is putting a 50 percent increase on rates, on families in British Columbia.

J. Horgan: The Energy Minister raised a couple of interesting issues. First of all, now apparently the official opposition can set rates in British Columbia, and he said that we wanted somehow to see people paying higher rates. It was the B.C. Liberals that forced B.C. Hydro to buy power as if every year was a drought year. The self-sufficiency requirement has put B.C. Hydro in the poorhouse.

It wasn't the opposition. It wasn't the B.C. Utilities Commission. It was B.C. Hydro that asked for a 50 percent increase because of B.C. Liberal policies.

My question to the Minister of Energy is quite simple, and it's this. Last week the Premier said: "The B.C. Utilities Commission decided a 50 percent increase is appropriate. Folks at the Utilities Commission said they wanted a massive rate increase." Will the Minister of Energy take the opportunity to correct the record on behalf of the Premier that that's just plain wrong, and will you, at the same time, direct the commission to open up hearings so that the public can see the light of day on your mismanagement of B.C. Hydro?

Hon. R. Coleman: We corrected the record last week. Maybe you could just go and do some research before you get up and ask the question.

On the other side of it, I actually don't agree with the member's comment that B.C. Hydro is in the poorhouse. That's insulting to the corporation. It's insulting to its operations. In actual fact, they have found savings to the point that they are actually able to reduce the request for rates out of the work they've done in the last 18 months.

On the other side of it, I actually don't agree with the member's comment that B.C. Hydro is in the poorhouse. That's insulting to the corporation. It's insulting to its operations. In actual fact, they have found savings to the point that they are actually able to reduce the request for rates out of the work they've done in the last 18 months.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Last week the Minister of Energy also said that everyone agreed with him and his colleagues that we should disregard the Utilities Commission. Well, that's not the view of environmental organizations. That's not the view of the working people that represent Hydro. That's not the view of the large industrial users. That's not the view, in fact, of anyone that I've been able to determine except the Minister of Energy and the Premier.

[1405]

The challenge for us on this side of the House, when we look at spot market prices today that are negative…. In fact, Bonneville Power Administration is paying people to take electricity, but not here in British Columbia. Instead, we're paying $68 a megawatt hour because of B.C. Liberal policy.

Would the minister not concede that the most appropriate course of action, after five years of obfuscation, is to allow the Utilities Commission to do a comprehensive review and an integrated resource plan that allows the people of B.C. to understand just what exactly the heck is going on at B.C. Hydro?

Hon. R. Coleman: I know that the member opposite wants to try and find one piece of the total power package in B.C., pick it out and say that's not a good thing because we don't want to average anything across the board. We don't want to have any long-term investments. We don't want to make anything that might be a smart investment for the long term on behalf of British Columbians. We'd rather sit in the spot market and hopefully say: "Gee whiz, maybe that spot market will stay that low for the next ten years or 15 years or 20 years or 25 years."

It's just not the case. We haven't had a high-water year this year. That's what's happening. The fact of the matter is that five years from now you could see the situation that happened in California just five years ago and how the demand for power can change. You'd better have a company that's making long-term investments for long-term security for power supply for British Columbians, or what you'll end up doing is not being able to attract

Page 12273

the investment and the jobs that are needed for the future of B.C.

PRIVATIZATION OF

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION

S. Simpson: The minister continues to make vague references about improved efficiency through liquor privatization without a shred of evidence to support his rhetoric. The Liquor Distribution Branch in its most recent service plan compared their efficiency against ten comparable public and private sector operators across Canada. The analysis showed the LDB as No. 1 when it came to overall operating efficiency, and in the top half of cost per case for distribution.

The reality is that we have an ill-conceived plan with no business case, no industry support and internal evidence that shows a very high level of efficiency with the current system, a system that is endorsed by the private sector. Can the minister provide any empirical evidence that will support his privatization scheme, since none seems to exist?

Hon. R. Coleman: Read the RFP. It says right in there that if it's not cheaper, we're not doing it.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: We know there's no business case for the sale of the liquor distribution system. We know that across the industry there is opposition to this privatization, whether it's private liquor stores and bars through ABLE-BC, whether it’s the Craft Brewers Guild or the vintners. They all have a great concern about not being consulted and not being provided with any evidence to support this privatization.

In fact, the executive director of ABLE-BC said: "We can't support this. We're absolutely perplexed why they're doing it. If they could give us some documents or a business case to show how exactly this will work or justify it, that might give us some assurance. All we're told is: 'Sorry, we can't consult with you because we're on a tight timeline.'"

There is no business plan, but we do know that there is a Treasury Board submission, one that we've received a highly redacted version of. Will the minister release an uncensored version of the Treasury Board submission so that we can get some idea of what he and the B.C. Liberals were thinking when they came up with this irresponsible idea?

Hon. R. Coleman: I know that in the world of the members opposite, no change should ever take place. I know that they would rather that somebody had to go to build a brand-new warehouse somewhere to get to more efficiency in it, to be able to handle how we would do things, at a significant capital cost to taxpayers. Or you could go out to the marketplace and find out whether they can do it better and cheaper and if they can, pass that on to the consumers of British Columbia. I think they'd be pretty happy if we could do that in B.C.

I know the member opposite would prefer we didn't go look at anything to see if we could find any savings. He'd just like to keep paying blindly without ever having gone out and asking the market what they might have to offer.

[1410]

M. Karagianis: Well, you'd think that if you're about to privatize something as significant as liquor distribution, you'd actually go out and consult with the industry, if you're going to make those big changes in the province.

On liquor privatization, Matt Phillips, the owner of Phillips Brewing said: "We pay twice as much in Alberta for that service as we do in B.C." Tod Melnyk of Penticton from the B.C. Craft Brewers Guild said: "We are definitely opposed to it." Raechelle Williams, the executive director of the Alliance of Beverage Licensees, said: "We believe that this initiative is replicating the Alberta distribution system and, without doubt, that privatization monopoly has experienced many challenges and has led to increased costs to the consumer level."

So if the minister and the B.C. Liberal government are not consulting with industry, then who stands to benefit? What is this all about? Where is the business plan and, if not the business plan, the Treasury Board submission that supports this?

Hon. R. Coleman: To the members opposite, first of all, they should understand that this is not replicating the Alberta model, not in any way whatsoever, because in Alberta, first of all, they sold all their liquor stores. Our liquor stores aren't up for sale. They're part of negotiations and collective agreements, so how could we be replicating something that happened over in Alberta?

They have a completely different distribution system in Alberta because, first of all, they're not big suppliers of wine with 100 percent B.C. grapes that have a certain distribution opportunity in B.C. that has built a world-class tourism and job base in both the wine industry and in tourism in the Okanagan and other regions across the province, which is how we do it. That isn't going to change. That's not changing, hon. Member.

The only thing is that today we happen to warehouse and distribute some of the alcohol in British Columbia through the LDB. The pricing will stay the same. It'll stay in the same hands of the people who are pricing it today, and they'll be doing the work exactly the same as they did in the past.

All we're saying is: is there a more efficient way to warehouse and distribute alcohol in B.C. to save the consumer some money and perhaps get some dollars in that might help the fiscal plan and maintain our triple-A credit rat-

Page 12274

ing so we can do things for health care and education? We should be looking at this, and that's exactly what we're doing.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, not according to the industry. They're not in any way buying into what the minister is telling us right here. Raechelle Williams — who represents more than a thousand pubs, bars and private liquor stores — also said: "We were advised that given the tight time frame to have this project completed, there's just not time for consultation with the industry."

Hmm, no time for consultation with the industry. You'd think if we're going through this kind of big change that the minister would consult with the industry. She says: "Licensees are concerned that government is going down this path without presenting a business case, without presenting how this will impact provincial revenues, industry or consumers."

So no consultation, no business case. This government has been in power for 11 years, and we've seen nothing until this impetuous drive here to have this privatization done. I would like the minister to show us either the business case or the Treasury Board submission, because if the industry doesn't believe what the minister is saying, why would anybody else in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Coleman: You know, the industry wants to know if they get the liquor that they need at the appropriate time at a wholesale price that they can retail it out to the consumer at a fair price so that they can actually make a markup. That's what they're interested in. This doesn't change any of that.

The fact of the matter is that relative to this particular issue, all you have to do is read the RFP. If you read the RFP, you'll see a clause in there that says that if this isn't beneficial to the savings for consumers in British Columbia, we're not doing it.

I know you're afraid of privatization, but you weren't, by the way — and I'll remind you one more time — at the end of the 1990s. You wanted to sell B.C. Hydro. You had a private memo in government to say, "We want to sell some big-ticket items," and on the table were B.C. Hydro and another Crown corp. Without any research, without any opportunity, you were going to do that.

[1415]

Today we're taking something as simple as warehousing and distribution that doesn't necessarily need to be a core business for the ability to sell liquor in the province of British Columbia and seeing if there's a better way to do it. I'm not ashamed of that. I think we should be looking at things like this.

CATALYST MILL

OPERATIONS AND WORKERS

C. Trevena: For months the opposition, along with workers, community leaders and industry, have all been asking for the Liberals to do something to help keep Catalyst from failing. Some 1,700 jobs are at stake on Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast, and thousands of pensioners are worried about their future.

Only now, after the latest effort to save the company has fallen short, has the Premier decided to meet with the company. Can the Minister of Forests explain why his leader waited so long to get involved in the crisis at Catalyst?

Hon. K. Falcon: I thank the member for the question. You know, Mr. Speaker, it's always a difficult and challenging time for any company that's undergoing the kind of financial challenges that Catalyst Paper is undergoing. It's been a very, very difficult pulp and paper market, as the members would well know, with the decline in newspaper readership and other challenges in the magazine sector. This has clearly affected the viability of not just this company but many others around the world.

We have long held the position that anything government can do to try and be helpful in this process we will certainly look at — short of, of course, getting into the business of subsidizing business directly.

The fact that we've eliminated the corporate capital tax, which was a huge barrier to investment — introduced, in fact, by the member opposite's party while in government in the 1990s — the fact that we've reduced business tax rates by 40 percent over the last decade, and the fact that we have created a climate that encourages investment in business, I think, is exactly the kind of thing government needs to do to ensure that all business will have an equal opportunity to succeed in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: The Finance Minister has also ignored the fact that this government has created a climate which has killed the forest industry. The loss of thousands of jobs in mills…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Trevena: …across B.C., including, already, the closure of the Catalyst mill in Campbell River, where the government refused to get involved…. We lost a couple of thousand well-paying family jobs in the city which I represent.

Last week his colleague the Jobs Minister said: "It isn't the end of the world if the decision over Catalyst goes the

Page 12275

wrong way." But for the workers, the pensioners and their families, and the communities that Catalyst works in, it is pretty close to the end of the world if this company fails.

I'd like to know exactly what specific actions are going to be taken to ensure that those communities can survive and the pensioners are not just thrown on the wayside?

Hon. K. Falcon: Certainly, as I've said before, everyone, I am sure, sympathizes with the challenge and the uncertainty that the Catalyst Paper situation creates for employees, for pensioners, for communities. We're equally concerned, which is one of the reasons why the Premier will be meeting with folks from Catalyst this week. The member is correct to point that out.

These are always challenging issues for government to deal with. I acknowledge that. But the member opposite should know that when the member wants government to take action, you have to be careful about what kind of action you're expecting the government to take.

The members know from their own experience in government in the 1990s, when they poured over $400 million into Skeena Cellulose and wrote off the entire amount on behalf of taxpayers — when even that major investment did not solve the problem and save the jobs, ultimately.

We think a prudent, thoughtful approach to dealing with challenges like this is appropriate. Meeting with them and discussions are underway to ensure that we can take whatever responsible steps government can prudently take to try and deal with these challenges without getting into the situation the NDP got involved with in the '90s where we become part of the business operations and lose hundreds of millions of dollars for taxpayers.

D. Routley: On May 24 the Minister of Jobs and Innovation told the local radio station in the Cowichan Valley that the government would not get directly involved. It wouldn't be appropriate.

[1420]

Under pressure, on May 26 the Premier finally said she would be meeting with Catalyst, the union and community leaders — finally. The CEO of Catalyst has wondered why the Liberals have been twiddling their thumbs. CEO Kevin Clarke said in a letter to the Premier: "Provincial, national and international investors are understandably concerned that there has been no formal action from the B.C. government." Thousands of workers, pensioners and their families are concerned.

Why has the government been missing in action while this crisis has played out in our communities?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is incorrect when he says the government has been missing in action. In fact, the superintendent of pensions, on behalf of government, has been working with Catalyst to try and smooth out some of the challenges that they're facing with respect to their unfunded pension obligations. We've been meeting regularly with the groups representing pensioners within Catalyst Paper, and of course, as we mentioned, the Premier will be meeting with Catalyst this week.

The fact of the matter is there are a lot of discussions that take place. Not all of them take place in public, for good reason. It's a very sensitive time. There are obviously a lot of moving parts to the situation. But I can assure the member that this government is as concerned about Catalyst Paper as we are about any company that is struggling in British Columbia.

Companies — unfortunately, not all are successful. They are facing a very challenging international environment. There's no question about it.

I applaud the Premier for taking the leadership of sitting down and seeing what, if anything else, government can do short of not getting involved in making direct investments that put taxpayer dollars at risk.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: Well, after the vote has been taken to sell the assets, the Premier wants to ride in on a horse and save things? The investors in that company voted without seeing the government of British Columbia as a partner doing everything it could to help this situation.

The people of Crofton, of Powell River, of Port Alberni have all watched while their government has been absent. These communities' futures hang in the balance, and the Liberals have been completely absent from this file. Even the CEO of Catalyst said that investors must be wondering why the government has been absent.

These jobs are the lifeblood of our communities. These are my friends and neighbours. These are the coaches of the sports teams. These are the people of these communities in this region.

Why does it take communities to be on the absolute brink of disaster before this government shows even the slightest interest in saving these good, well-paying, family-supporting jobs?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, as I've mentioned a number of times, government, of course, is watching the situation very carefully and engaged in discussions to see where we might be helpful in a responsible way — respecting the fact, of course, that we are not going to engage in actions that are going to put taxpayer dollars at risk.

From the nature of the member's question and his demand that government do something, it sounds suspiciously like the member opposite has not learned anything from their disastrous reign in government when they invested and lost over $400 million of taxpayer dollars trying to save a sawmill, Skeena Cellulose. That was spectacularly unsuccessful in saving those jobs.

What it did do is…. Not only did it not save the jobs, but it actually wasted $400-million-plus of taxpayer dol-

Page 12276

lars. It sounds like the NDP have yet to learn a single lesson from the misadventures that they were involved with in the 1990s.

TRANSFER OF RCMP OFFICER TO B.C.

AND RCMP CONTRACT WITH GOVERNMENT

K. Corrigan: Last week we learned that Sgt. Don Ray, a disgraced senior officer in Alberta with a history of sexual misconduct, won't be kicked out of the RCMP. Instead, Sergeant Ray is being transferred to B.C. While the Premier and the Justice Minister have expressed concern, they've said there is nothing they can do. A new 20-year contract with the RCMP, and the province is helpless.

[1425]

To the Justice Minister, everyone agrees this is unacceptable, but the question is: what does she intend to do to ensure that this disgraced RCMP officer does not end up in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Bond: It is unacceptable that an officer with the background of this nature is being transferred to British Columbia, but the member opposite is wrong. I never once stated that there was nothing that we could do. In fact, there is plenty we can do, and it started with a call to the commissioner of the RCMP, making it very clear to him that this officer would not be on the payroll of the provincial government or the municipal police force in this province.

In fact, what we are going to do is hold the commissioner and deputy commissioner to their word. They have said they are going to change the culture of the RCMP. Action is long overdue — we made that clear — and we will continue to work to ensure that changes are made so that we stop recycling police officers, and remove them when appropriate.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Well, with the ongoing Missing Women Inquiry and the widespread harassment allegations within the force, the last thing that should happen is that Sergeant Ray should be transferred here at all. It's offensive to female RCMP officers and, I think, to women across this province.

The Justice Minister promised that when we had a new contract, there would be accountability. So my question is: where is the accountability today? What is the minister going to do, and will she admit that the so-called accountability in the new contract isn't worth a hill of beans if it can't prevent somebody like Sergeant Ray coming to British Columbia?

Hon. S. Bond: Because we actually negotiated a contract that allows us to have that kind of input, for the first time in British Columbia we have a contract management committee who have now been directed to actually go to Ottawa and tell them that it is unacceptable that there is a transfer policy instead of a policy that allows for the removal of officers with this kind of conduct.

It is time that the culture of the RCMP changed. I can assure the member opposite that not only am I offended by that kind of behaviour, but that message was clearly conveyed to the commissioner of the RCMP.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Auditor General's report No. 2, 2012-2013, Crown Agency Board Governance .

H. Bains: Petition to present, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

H. Bains: I have 324 petitions signed by the manufactured home owners of British Columbia, asking us to amend the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act to better protect manufactured home owners if the landowner sells the land for redevelopment.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this chamber this afternoon we will continue second reading of Bill 54, intituled the Provincial Sales Tax Act. That will be followed by Bill 51, intituled the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act — I think we should get smaller titles, Mr. Speaker — and follow that with second reading of Bill 53, intituled the Family Day Act. If there's time, we would then move to the Coastal Ferry Amendment Act and the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room this afternoon we will do the committee stage to start with on Bill 39, which is intituled the Emergency Intervention Disclosure Act, and Bill 43, intituled the FNCIDA Implementation Act. The intent is to follow that with the Pension Benefits Standards Act, Bill 38; and Bill 45, intituled the Income Tax Amendment Act.

Those will follow should the debates of second reading complete in here in an appropriate time so that the minister and the critic would be able to move to the other chamber. If not, we would move up the committee stage of Bill 35, intituled the Pharmaceutical Services Act.

In estimates this afternoon we will be doing the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General, and it is expected that after dinner tonight we would start the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

[1430]

Page 12277

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 54 — PROVINCIAL SALES TAX ACT

(continued)

R. Austin: Once again, I'd like to continue with my remarks where I left off when the House last sat about ten days ago, with regards to Bill 54, the Provincial Sales Tax Act. I just want to speak to a few more points.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

This Bill 54 removes the low-income tax credit that was available under the HST and replaces it with a smaller low-income tax credit to help families to cope with the PST. There was quite a lot of debate around the efficacy of this income tax credit or HST credit because, of course, it was the view of the government, the B.C. Liberals, that by bringing in this credit, it would satisfy the extra costs that would be burdened on families around the HST. Of course, what it turned out to be is that it never came anywhere close to being able to cover the extra costs.

Even though the PST tax credit will be considerably smaller, the fact that there are far fewer items that are covered by the PST makes this a fairer thing for working families and especially for those of low income or those who have a fixed income, such as people on pensions. So this is just another way in which this bill makes it easier for families than the burden of the HST.

I also just want to comment around the notion of paying commissions to small businesses. I think it's probably fair to say that of all the people in British Columbia who are a little bit nervous about removing the HST and bringing in the PST, it's those small business people who have to spend hours every day — every week, certainly — to comply with all of the reporting involved in going back to separate sales taxes, one for the province and one for the federal government.

I am happy to see that the government is going to be recognizing those efforts by paying a commission to those who are taking this burden upon themselves to be, ultimately, the collectors of this tax. I think it's also noteworthy that in Bill 54 there are changes made that are different from the old PST that make it easier for those small business people who have to now undergo collecting the tax, the PST — for example, moving the dates and making that easier, so it's one filing instead of two separate sets of paperwork.

I think, also, that some of the software changes that are going to be made will alleviate some of the burden and worry that small businesses have in terms of the amount of paperwork that they have to do.

A lot has been made about this bill not putting in place through legislation some of the regulations around the PST and what it will cover. As we can see, there's this debate between what is legislated and what will be regulated in future through OICs by the government as it moves forward.

In legislation here today the government is making sure that food, fuel, business inventories and manufacturing inputs will still not be covered by the PST. They say that they're going to regulate lots and lots of other items — such as bicycles, electricity, home and heating fuel and school supplies.

I think some people have come to my office saying that, with all that has gone on with the HST and going back to the PST, they're a little bit nervous to think that this is not going to be in legislation. My own view is that, with all that this has cost the B.C. Liberals in terms of their political credibility, I don't feel too nervous about them not doing the right thing and making sure that they regulate all of these changes between now and the date when the PST comes into force.

Quite frankly, if they were to not honour their commitment made in this House by the Finance Minister and by others, then they would be committing a certain death wish in terms of the election that's going to be taking place in 11 months' time.

[1435]

So I would imagine that they will fulfil their obligations in regulation and bring back all of the original exemptions that were a part of the PST — exemptions that, frankly, enabled us to create policy here in British Columbia, provincial policy, which is one of the reasons why it's important for us to have a provincial sales tax.

Finally, I'd like to just make some comments around the whole notion of taxation, and how we go about it. I think something that we can all draw from with regards to the HST and the way it was handled — and I say all of us on both sides of this House — is to recognize that we do not in our politics have very meaningful debates around taxation.

Very often taxation policy is reactive. The government of the day goes in. It does its budget, naturally, in secret. It then presents it here in the House as a fait accompli, and they hope that they've got the right balance — having sufficient government revenues to cover those services that British Columbians deem necessary and indeed want.

I think the way the HST was brought in has shown all of us here that we need to be more forthcoming and have a proper debate around taxation policy, around revenue-gathering in British Columbia. It is very clear that if you speak to many constituents — and they come into our offices on both sides of this House — very often they'll come in and say, "Well, I really like the fact that we've got lower taxes here" or lower fees or whatever. But at the same time that constituent will come in six months later and ask us why it is that their mother cannot get space in a seniors home, because now they need it.

I think we need to have a better debate in this Legislature and around the province — not just here but generally speaking. We need to have a better way of de-

Page 12278

bating the whole notion of taxation so that people understand that you can't have it both ways. You can't have lower taxes and better services.

I know for a fact when I hear some members on the other side of the House and certainly those of us who come from the opposition…. Obviously, we are endorsed by lots of people coming and saying: "Why is it we can't get this, this and this?"

And the reality is that government has, through their own ideological reasons, decided to lower taxes. We heard it today in question period, where the Minister of Finance got up and said very proudly that they had reduced corporate taxes by 40 percent. Well, at the same time we're not providing adequate services for kids with special needs in our public education system.

I would think that most British Columbians — whether they have a child in the education system or not, whether they are grandparents looking after the interests of their children, whether you be somebody who's never had children — recognize that we need to have a proper debate that recognizes the amount of revenue that needs to come into the province of B.C. through a variety of means: through corporate taxes, through provincial income taxes, through fees, from resource rents.

We need to ensure that we bring enough revenue into British Columbia to provide enough public services, sufficient in a way that an average British Columbian feels that they're not living in some country that's too poor to give adequate services. Certainly, I think that that balance has reached a point of being out of whack. I hope that in the near future we can have a debate about this, because clearly we need to make sure, moving forward with Bill 54 and others, that governments have the revenue in place to provide adequate health care, education and all the other services.

Often in this House all we talk about is health care and education, but we don't talk about all the officers who have been let go in terms of environmental protection. There are a whole slew of things which government has an obligation to provide beyond the two big ones of health care and education.

I think that Bill 54 and the whole debacle of the HST will focus people's minds on recognizing that you can't have quality public services without government revenue. I hope that any government that is here in British Columbia in the future will learn from the lessons of the B.C. Liberals' fiasco around the HST.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to take my place and speak to Bill 54, which is an important piece of legislation that's before the House. It's the Provincial Sales Tax Act. It really is, I think, a remarkable piece of legislation.

You know, the government says that it's just about sales tax. It's more than that. It's about democracy in action. It's about who we're here to represent. It's about the public of British Columbia. It's about listening to the public of British Columbia. It's about respecting the public of British Columbia.

[1440]

It's about recognizing that the public of this province are right. They are not dumb. They are not stupid. They are right when they make a decision. This particular piece of legislation is here on this table because the government forgot that.

The government thought that it knew best. The government felt that it didn't have to listen to people. The government felt that it could operate by diktat, that it could impose, that it did not need to consult, that it did not need to do anything. As the government and as members, they feel that they have an unparalleled right to rule without, one would even suspect sometimes, the consent of those whom they're supposed to govern. But they do not. They have to listen to the public, and that's why this particular piece of legislation is here.

I'm talking to Bill 54 because it makes some significant changes in the tax system in the province of B.C. We will be replacing the HST and bringing back the old PST system that was in place on the 22nd of July, 2009, before that fateful day, the 23rd of July, 2009, when the government — without warning, without consultation, without any hints during the election that it would do this — dropped a bombshell on British Columbians. That was the HST.

During the election campaign, in response to questionnaires from industries, such as the restaurant association, the government said that it would not bring in the HST. Then, on the 23rd of July, 2009, it broke that promise. It reneged on its word, and it introduced the HST.

As people got to know what it was about, the uproar at the grass-roots level in communities right across this province was something that we have not seen in British Columbia in decades. People stood up and said: "Enough is enough. We are not going to take it anymore. This government is wrong, this government is out of control, and we are going to make this government listen. We are going to make this government accountable to the people of British Columbia."

Over six weeks that's exactly what they did. They went to see the MLAs of the government, and did they get a response? No, they did not. Were government MLAs being accountable for the decision of the government, of the executive council? No, they were not.

The public said: "What can we do? What tools do we have available to us?"

Deputy Speaker: Member, the contents of Bill 54.

M. Farnworth: Exactly, hon. Speaker. That's what I'm talking about — Bill 54 and why these changes are taking place, why we are changing the provincial sales tax back to what it was. It's important that we understand that so that when we look at each of the sections in this

Page 12279

particular bill and the regulations that the public expects to see and to know what they're about, we have to have that context. So I am speaking to Bill 54 and the contents of the bill — the fact that we're putting back in place the old provincial sales tax. But as is very much the tradition in this House, we have wide-ranging debate at second reading stage.

The public were concerned about what tools they had available to them to change the government's policy, to get the government to see that this was not in the interests of taxpayers of this province. The public wanted the existing PST to stay in place, with all its exemptions. So they used the initiative tools available to them. They used the legislative initiative act, and that meant getting signatures in every riding across the province — 10 percent of those who were registered to vote in the previous election.

Pundits said that it couldn't be done. The government and government members were just dismissive in a way that demonstrated, I think, the arrogance and out-of-touchness of the government.

Well, guess what. More than 700,000 people signed a petition calling for a referendum on the HST — a referendum to send a message to do away with the HST and to bring back what we have before us here today, the details of Bill 54, to reinstate the provincial sales tax.

[1445]

Let me be clear. What are some of those things that people were asking for in that referendum? They were asking for the reinstatement of the PST. What they wanted to see were the exemptions that had been in place prior to July 23 of 2009.

They wanted to see the permanent exemptions that existed on residential electricity and home heating fuel. They wanted to see the exemption on prescription drugs; non-prescription drugs; vitamins and other health care products; children's clothing and footwear; clothing patterns, fabrics and notions; school supplies; magazines, books and newspapers.

They wanted to see the exemptions on basic telephone and cable service. They wanted to see the exemptions on 1-800 and equivalent telephone services. They wanted to see the exemptions on specified safety equipment. They wanted to see the exemptions on labour to repair major household appliances, clothing and footwear. They wanted to see the exemptions on bicycles.

Nothing illustrated the arrogance of this government more than when the HST was brought in and people realized that bicycles would be taxed as well. At a time when we are encouraging people to become more physically active, at a time when communities are investing in bike lanes, at a time when we are trying to encourage alternative forms of transportation…. It is really, actually, somewhat ironic that we are debating this particular piece of legislation this week, which is walk- and bike-to-work week.

Had this particular bill not been here before us today, putting back in place the old PST system, those bicycles would continue to be taxed. That is not what the public wanted. They wanted the old PST.

So what happened? People in ridings right across this province worked. They worked day and night. They didn't care about political ideology. They didn't care whether you were a Conservative, a New Democrat, a Green, a Libertarian, a disaffected B.C. Liberal. They didn't care.

What they cared about was: were you on the same side as the vast majority of the public of British Columbia in fighting to work to defeat the HST? The result was that they were.

I myself sat in the Art Knapp's in beautiful Port Coquitlam, on Dominion Avenue, with other dedicated community activists of all political stripes, gathering signatures. Port Coquitlam passed the test, as did every other riding in this province. The result was that enough signatures were gathered to validate the petition. They were validated by Elections B.C.

A decision was made, the decision that is there in legislation, the tool that exists for the public to tell the government: "No, you are wrong. We don't agree. We don't approve. We want to have our say." The tool that is in place to send a message to a government that is out of touch, that is not listening, was utilized.

The result of that was an overwhelming decision by the public of British Columbia to say: "We want a return to the PST." At election time and at referendum time, when the public makes a decision, they are right, and they are sovereign. It is they to whom we are all accountable in this Legislature.

The result was that the government has been forced to listen to what the public wants. The result of that is Bill 54, which is before us here today and which is what we are debating.

It doesn't matter whether you lived in Fort. St. John, whether you lived in Dawson Creek, whether you lived in Victoria or Port Moody or Chilliwack or Richmond or Anmore or Belcarra or Port Hardy or Port Clements or Port Alice or Prince Rupert or Germansen Landing or any of the myriad of communities across this province. People had their say, and that's important. This legislation is in response to their wishes.

[1450]

Now, what's important about this bill, and what's important that we need to recognize, is that a significant part of it is still to be decided, or to be dealt with, by regulation. What the public hopes is that government follows through on not just the spirit but on the wording of that referendum, which is to return to the situation as it existed on the 22nd of July, 2009. As I have often joked, the 23rd of July, 2009, came and there was a massive tax shift in the province of British Columbia. That also happened to be the day that I turned 50, and I thought: "Oh, so this is what happens. You turn 50, and you get a mas-

Page 12280

sive tax shift."

But the bottom line is this. The public want to know that we are going back to what existed. They want to know that bicycles will be exempt in the way they were before. The same tax regime that was in place on the 22nd of July, 2009, will still be there with the passage of this legislation. They want to know that the exemptions regarding livestock for human consumption, and feed, and the seed and fertilizer around agricultural products will continue to be exempt. Production machinery and equipment will be exempt. Insulation to prevent heat or cold loss from hot water tanks, water pipes and duct work will also be exempt.

These are just some of the things still to be determined by regulation that are not currently in this particular piece of legislation but should be. That is one of things about this particular bill. It does give the government a lot of power to be dealt with through the process of regulation.

For people who may not be aware of it — those who are, perhaps, watching our proceedings on the parliamentary network — in this chamber we are currently debating second reading, which is the principle of the bill. In this case, as they will no doubt be aware, it's Bill 54, the restoration of the PST.

After second reading, after this stage, we go through committee stage. That is a clause-by-clause examination of the bill — the detail of each

section of the bill and its implications. The Minister of Finance will explain, to the best of his ability, those sections and what they mean in their implications. That is done in this open chamber so that people can read in Hansard the questions and the answers. But a key part of that is to be determined by regulation.

Regulation is something that is decided in cabinet at the executive council. The discussions around regulation are not public in that sense. Their deliberations are not public, but the regulations at some point are published and then come into force at a later date. One of the key things that people have and one of the questions around this government is exactly what the nature of those regulations will be. When will they be implemented? What will they cover, and what will they say?

Now, we will have a chance during committee stage, hopefully, to address some of those questions, but the real challenge is that this bill has come so late in the session that that is going to be a challenge in itself to determine the regulations, the implication of the questions around those regulations and exactly how they will be implemented. But the Minister of Finance, hopefully, will be able to shed some light on that so that we and the public, I think, can have solid confidence that their decision, their vote that took place on the referendum will in fact be acted upon.

One of the interesting areas of the bill that we do know something about, some of the exemptions that won't be there when this particular piece of legislation comes to having its final reading and royal assent, are some of the temporary or the time-limited exemptions that were in place that will not be returning. No doubt there are many who will be disappointed to know that some of these time-limited exemptions will not be there.

[1455]

Those exemptions were part of what was an important part of the government's environmental agenda, such as it was, around climate change and the encouragement of energy-efficient appliances to save energy so that we would have more energy across British Columbia, though as we saw today in question period, much water is still being spilt over the dam when it could be sold to other customers. I just digress there for a moment, hon. Speaker.

What is important is that in Bill 54…. What is clear is that those time-limited exemptions will not be returning. I'll just outline what some of those are, because there are people who have been looking at making or postponing important purchasing decisions until such time as the HST debacle mess is sorted out and straightened out. What it did do was bring significant uncertainty to many parts of British Columbia's economy — whether it's home building, whether it's home renovation, whether it's, for example, major appliance purchases.

I'll just, for the hon. Speaker's edification, let her know that if she or other members of the assembly or people watching at home had been thinking of purchasing a major energy-efficient appliance and wondering whether the tax exemptions that existed in place before the 23rd of July, 2009, would in fact be back in place, I can, unfortunately, tell them that Energy Star appliances, refrigerators, clothes washers and freezers….

The exemption that started in 2008 will not be coming back. Neither will Energy Star windows, doors and skylights or Energy Star residential heating equipment. That was first started in 2005. Energy-efficient residential gas-fired water heaters, energy-efficient commercial boilers, hybrid passenger vehicles — where there was an exemption in place, albeit a time-limited one, those will not be coming back.

That's unfortunate, because they really did provide consumers with a choice. There were many, many people who were hoping that those programs with those exemptions would continue with the reintroduction of this particular piece of legislation. Sadly, that's not to be the case.

So if not those, what about other exemptions? I've covered some of them, and as I've said, we will have to wait to see what the regulations are. We will have to wait for the discussion that takes place in committee stage as to whether or not rental of passenger vehicles for eight hours or less will continue to be exempt, whether biodiesel fuel used for heating will continue to be exempt, whether logging machinery and equipment will continue to be exempt.

Those are some of the questions that we will have

Page 12281

within the committee stage of the debate. That's why it's important that we remember, when we are debating this particular piece of legislation, how it got here, why it got here and why it's so important to be able to answer those questions thoroughly in a way that gives people confidence that what they voted on in the referendum is in fact what is going to be put in place by legislation.

Then and only then will the public truly have confidence that what they said loud and clear to this government on that referendum day…. "We will not be ignored. We must be consulted. We must be listened to. Government, you must remember that you work for us. It is not the other way around. The government does not always know best. You govern with our consent, not by your own diktat. What you say before an election matters just as much after an election."

[1500]

Only when we have those questions answered and only when the public truly sees that what they said is reflected in legislation and reflected in the questions that were put during committee stage, will the government finally have listened and finally corrected what was, I think, an unparalleled, egregious error that we have never seen the like of in the province of British Columbia.

No other province in this country went through what we did. I mean, think about it. The fact that we are debating a piece of legislation that reinstates the old provincial sales tax…. Granted, much of the language has been modernized, and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think there are some things in this bill that are an improvement. The on-line ability, to file on line, is one of them.

But think about it. This bill is here because of citizen participation, citizen involvement, people getting engaged in the political process, because they realized that by not being engaged, government had taken them for granted.

Government felt that they could do whatever they want and that people would just need to be patted on the head. Trot out a few friends of government to explain why this was all good for them and in their own best interest.

Then like little kids, they'd be sent up the stairs and off to bed. Don't worry because big government and big friends of government are going to make sure that everything is just fine. "You just mind your own business and carry on. We'll take care of the important stuff because, really, you're too uninformed to understand what's taking place, and you're too uninformed to know what's good for you."

Well, the public said: "No thank you. We do know what's in our best interests, and we will let you know that." That's why, when we go through this bill and the particular clauses, we want to make sure that we've got the answers that the public have been asking about.

As I said, I've mentioned around some of the areas that are exempt. I've mentioned around some of the exemptions that will be in place. I have commented on some of the issues that were raised in terms of items that are taxed or whether they will be tax-exempt.

I've commented a bit on some of the changes that have taken place that, as I said, I think are positive. I don't believe that the opposition should always just be negative. It's not our role to just criticize. But it's also to recognize when there are improvements. I know that my colleague from Juan de Fuca…. That's something that he believes in, too.

So when we look at this legislation, and we see that there have been changes that make it easier to file on line for people, as I said a moment ago, and that will result in some significant savings, I say that's a good thing. I think that that is something that we are happy to support and we're happy to see in here.

But you know what? At the same time, it is our role to point out deficiencies in the legislation. Again, I'd like to point out another deficiency in this particular legislation.

One of the fascinating rationales for this particular piece of legislation, one of the fascinating rationales when the government brought in the HST, was that it was going to save people money. People wised up pretty quickly when they said: "Oh, is that right? So what's going to happen to the price of my bottle of wine? Under the HST, it should go down."

That, in theory, is what should have happened, but the government said: "No, no, no. We're going to raise the prices to make sure we don't lose any money." I think that was one of the first things that really twigged people. "Hey, this is not going to make my life any easier. This is not going to make my family's life any easier. In fact, it's going to cost us more, and it's going to make things more difficult."

Another area that I know people will be disappointed with is…. The $5 levy on car batteries was eliminated with the HST, but it's not being renewed. For many people, the levy ensured that batteries were being recycled.

Interjection.

[1505]

M. Farnworth: I thank the Minister of Finance, who's pointing something out for me. I appreciate that because I think that's a good point.

I'll move on to my next point, which is that this particular piece of legislation is one that British Columbians have been waiting for with a great deal of anticipation. It's caused a lot of political debate in this province. It has created a lot of uncertainty in this province.

What it did, I think, was show people — and I think it's one of the unintended consequences of the decision of the government around the HST — that they could get engaged. They could influence government policy. They could force government to back down. It took the use

Page 12282

of the Referendum Act, the initiative act, to be able to do that, and I think that that's something that we in this province should be proud of — that there is a limit to the power of government. There is a limit to what government can do without the consent and the licence of the people of the province of British Columbia.

I know that my time will be running out shortly and that I will be making way for other speakers on this particular piece of legislation, but I'd just like to recount, if I may, a story.

While gathering signatures, I had many people coming up, and more than one occasion, someone would come up and say: "I've never been interested in politics before. I've never got involved in a political issue before."

One person said: "I've never even voted before, but I certainly will next time around because I realize my vote matters and that decisions of government do matter." Then they signed the petition, and they got their friends to sign it, and a few days later they were sitting beside me gathering signatures.

That, to me, is what was important about the referendum and initiative process. People got involved and engaged, and the result of that engagement is the bill that we have here before us today. It is the bill around restoring the PST.

It's a complex bill with many sections, a bill that we will look forward to exploring in further detail in committee stage. Or hopefully, as I've said, we will get answers to the questions around the regulations and how those regulations will be implemented, the timeline on those regulations and how those regulations are going to work.

If we do that, and we get satisfactory answers to the questions that we have, then I think this Legislature will have accomplished something important, and that is restore some accountability in this province, and given a real sense of empowerment to the voters of British Columbia — that they can make a difference and they can make a change.

That's why I'm pleased to be able to speak to this legislation, to speak on behalf of the electorate of the community of the city of Port Coquitlam and to let them know that as their MLA, I was proud to campaign along with them to make this day possible.

With that, I take my seat, and I look forward to comments from other members of this House.

Statements

DECORUM IN THE CHAMBER

J. Horgan: This morning during private members' business we had a fairly raucous exchange, myself and others on the government side. During that, I may well have overstepped decorum on my way out of the chamber, and I want to make sure that in your eyes I meant no disrespect to you as Chair.

I meant no disrespect to my colleagues on either side of the House. But I felt very strongly that if we are going to grow as individuals, as legislators, and use this building to its fullest advantage, we all need to have the opportunity to speak freely and unfettered without fear of intimidation. I didn't feel that way today, and if, in the course of my departure from the precinct, I meant any disrespect to you, it was not genuine, and I sincerely apologize.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Member.

Debate Continued

S. Simpson: I am pleased to have the opportunity to join debate around Bill 54, the Provincial Sales Tax Act. For those people who might be watching us today, the purpose of this legislation, really, is to restore the provincial sales tax as we move away from the HST — the failed HST.

[1510]

In order to be able to accomplish that, it's necessary to bring back the provincial sales tax. The purposes of Bill 54 are to in fact bring back the framework, the structure for what that tax, the new or the revised provincial sales tax, will look like.

This tax will come into place with the new or the revised provincial sales tax on March 31, 2013. In a little bit less than a year from now this will be back in place, and it will replace the HST, which will go by the wayside at that time in the form it's in now.

What we know, of course…. I'm sure that most British Columbians know the history well. It was one of the most engaged political discussions that we have had in this province in many, many years — maybe the most engaged political debate that we have ever seen on an issue in this province. That was around, of course, the question of the HST, the tax that Bill 54's intent is to replace.

All members here, of course, will know and the public will recall that a citizens' initiative was put in place. That initiative led to a referendum vote across the province, a referendum where people lined up on both sides of this issue — whether we should have the HST, the PST. We know that the government side lined up in support of the HST, the opposition in support of the PST. But more importantly, the public and all stakeholders across this province in different areas took different positions.

It was a very vigorous debate that was had across the province. The result of that debate was a clear majority telling the government of British Columbia, through the referendum and the Referendum Act, that the HST was not acceptable to a majority of people in British Columbia and that it was necessary to go back to the PST, to restore the PST in some form. The result of that is what we have in front of us today, Bill 54, the Provincial Sales Tax Act.

As others have said before…. I would just note this.

Page 12283

Wherever you landed on this issue of HST/PST — which was the best result to go? — I think everybody, and I think it's reflected in the legislation that we have in front of us, has to acknowledge that it was quite a remarkable process that engaged British Columbians in the way that they were and a way that I think we have not seen before in terms of an initiative that led to the public clearly, through a vote, expressing their view on the HST.

Now we have, as a result of that — over a very extended period of time, I would note…. I know that the Minister of Finance has told us, when the questions have been raised to him about the complexity of Bill 54 and getting to Bill 54 and to what we have today and the complexity of moving forward to get rid of the HST and to be able to move back to the PST…. I think that still continues to be a point of some concern, which is the timeline here.

Bill 54 will reinstate the PST as of March 31, 2013. I know that there are many British Columbians who believe that this could have been expedited in a quicker fashion. The minister has certainly defended the view that this was complex and required discussions with the federal government and it was very layered and required the timeline that we have in front of us with Bill 54.

That's a debate that we could have. But the reality is that following the vote on the HST, it has been quite an extended period of time to get to where we are today. And we now know, of course, it will be a number of months before we actually get to dealing with the results of that vote in tangible terms, which will be the return to a provincial sales tax model at the end of this fiscal year.

[1515]

We know that there are challenges around that, and the government will know. I know that there were many industries…. Some of them were particularly more challenged, and the government was put in a place where it was required, ultimately, to look at options to deal with some of these challenges, members of this House would know — areas like the housing industry and particularly the new-housing industry. It was very challenging.

I know, in discussions I had with the Urban Development Institute and people in that sector — their concern, once the decision was made to return to the PST, based on the results of the referendum, of the vote — that it had a very challenging impact on them over that period of time. Mostly, as people who know the industry will know — and I know the minister knows this well — presales in the condominium sector are a very, very big part of how financing happens to allow development to move forward.

The banking and the financial institutions in this province have expectations around levels of presales. In order to qualify new developments for their support and for financing, they require levels of presales that it was getting very, very difficult to accomplish because we had people who were waiting and prepared to wait out the HST until the PST was returned, expecting or anticipating, rightly or wrongly, that they would have a better price at the end of the day if they waited for the PST to return and saw that HST tax removed.

It was very challenging. The government, I know, was put in a place where it was required to in fact put in place some initiatives that would provide some relaxation for that industry so that they could move forward and we could again have some action around that.

Probably more than anything, particularly…. I think in some ways it was probably more challenging for the smaller builders, the homebuilders, than it was for the Urban Development Institute and for the large developers. I know from my discussion with them that much of their biggest concern was certainty.

Certainty was the issue in Bill 54, and what's here has hopefully, in addition to the initiatives that the government obviously put in place to ease pressures for the housing industry…. Bill 54 is there in the hopes of providing some certainty for that sector.

What Bill 54 does is — in large part, as best we can see from the bill — return many of those items back to what might have been. It's not quite status quo but does return much of that back to the old PST model.

There are a couple of clear differences from the old PST. One is a tax that we know will remain. Interestingly, this was not necessarily part of the HST, but it was a tax that was put in place at that time around the tax on designated property.

Under the old PST, hon. Speaker, as you'll know, on things like the private sales of used vehicles, there was a 7 percent tax. When the HST was brought into play, because there was no HST on used vehicle sales — that's the nature of the value-added tax — the government put in place an additional 5 percent, which brought that tax to 12 percent on those sales so that there was a consistency there. Again, this was separate, somewhat, from the HST, but certainly, the motivation for it was the HST, I believe.

So what we had is this 12 percent tax. What we know, what Bill 54 tells us, is that that 12 percent tax will continue in place. It will not be going back to the 7 percent. It will continue in place. The expectation is that this is about a $40 million tax increase across the board that we will see with that tax.

The other thing that we're seeing here is…. A series of time-limited exemptions, many of them for energy-efficient products, were put in place — for example, things like Energy Star appliances. That was put in place, and that exemption has essentially been eliminated.

[1520]

So people know, those time-limited exemptions that we're seeing being eliminated now…. There's quite a list of items that people will now not be able to experience that tax break on.

They would include things like Energy Star refrigerators, clothes washers and freezers; Energy Star windows, doors and skylights; Energy Star residential heating

Page 12284

equipment; energy-efficient residential gas-fired water heaters; energy-efficient commercial boilers; devices which reduce idling by commercial vehicles; hybrid passenger vehicles; the alternative-fuel vehicles; conventional fuel-efficient vehicles that received a rebate based on fuel efficiency criteria that was set under federal programs; electric power–assisted two- and three-wheel cycles; electric motorcycles; and hydrogen-fuel-cell passenger buses.

This is just a list of some of the things that were on the time-limited exemptions, and we won't see the return of those with the passing of Bill 54.

The other thing that I think we're going to see with this bill, which does create a bit of a challenge, is that while there certainly are items in the legislation that are incorporated into Bill 54 itself as part of the legislation, as part of the act — for example, the legislation clearly exempts food, fuel, business inventories, manufacturing inputs — it does not impose the tax on real property or services, with some exemptions. So it's clear about that. The challenge that we have, though, is that there's a very long list of items that are going to be required to be put into regulation.

For those people who are following this debate, the difference here between legislation and regulation is, of course, that if these things are included in the act, if they're included in the bill that comes for debate here in this House, if they're passed by this House, then they are part of legislation, and changes can only be made through an amendment to legislation — an amendment to the act, an amendment to the law.

So if there are items in a list, if there's a

schedule attached to a piece of legislation and that

schedule is passed as part of the legislation, then we have a situation where in fact it is a fixed list, unless the government of the day wants to bring an amendment or bring a change that would change the nature of that list.

If it's passed through regulation, then it really is a matter of cabinet. It's a matter of order-in-council, and it's a matter of the cabinet determining what the list is. That change can happen at the cabinet table. It does not necessarily happen in any transparent or open way. It's a list that is produced, and then it will be presented.

We will all become aware of it at the time that it becomes part of regulation and part of law through regulation. But we won't get a chance to, necessarily, have any discussion about what that list looks like at any time, because it is dealt with at the cabinet table — in private, in secret — and then produced and signed into law by the Premier of the day, the minister of the day or whatever.

To give some sense of what we're talking about when we talk about the list for regulation, the regulatory list, it's quite a long and a broad list of items. We're not exactly sure how they will be affected by this law and whether they will all be incorporated in the Provincial Sales Tax Act as regulations to the act. We're going to have to see.

But to give you some sense, hon. Speaker, of the kind of list we're talking about, it would include residential electricity and home heating fuel; prescription drugs; non-prescription drugs, like vitamins and certain other health care products and appliances; children's clothing and footwear; clothing patterns, fabrics and notions; school supplies.

Also, magazines, books and newspapers; basic telephone and cable services; 1-800 and equivalent telephone services; specified safety equipment; labour to repair major household appliances, clothing and footwear; miscellaneous consumer exemptions — things like used clothes under $100; bicycles; livestock for human consumption and feed, seed and fertilizer; production machinery and equipment.

[1525]

Also, insulation to prevent heat or cold loss from hot-water tanks, water pipes and duct work; production machinery and equipment for local governments for power production and cogeneration; aerodynamic devices for commercial vehicles; equipment to produce energy from ocean currents, tides and waves; rental of passenger vehicles for eight hours or less; biodiesel fuel used for heating; services to maintain or modify software; logging machinery and equipment; mining, oil and gas machines and equipment; and exports.

It's a pretty long list and a pretty broad list that will include a whole lot of our economy and things that are important to our economy. That list isn't here as part of the act. It isn't here as part of a schedule. It isn't a list that we can look at, that the public can look at and say: "Okay, I have an understanding of what's in and what's out."

That is a bit problematic that we have a situation where we have this list without knowing for certain how each one of those matters will be addressed — and others, I'm sure, that may not be included on the list that I provided here, because it's clearly not an exhaustive list. We're going to have to wait to see — after Bill 54 is passed, the Provincial Sales Tax Act — when the minister and the government bring forward the regulations that apply to Bill 54, apply to the Provincial Sales Tax Act, to determine in fact how those regulations affect people in a substantive and meaningful way.

There are a couple of challenges here. One is, of course, that people would like transparency. They would like certainty. I think they would like to know what's on that list. They would like to know how that list is being addressed. That's particularly an issue — and it goes back to comments I made at the beginning of my comments here — that, I think, creates a bit of a challenge, which is that there was anger.

I think many people would say that when the HST was initially brought in, there was a lot of anger over what was seen as a trust issue about in fact what the commitments of government were prior to the 2009 election and then at the point where the HST was introduced in July of 2009,

Page 12285

which triggered all of the actions that followed that and ultimately brought us to where we are today with Bill 54, the Provincial Sales Tax Act. But over that period of time, a lot of that anger, a lot of that frustration….

It was a significant trust issue for many in the public and for many stakeholder groups with the government over their confidence about how tax initiatives and sales tax were being dealt with. That created a real challenge. I know that the government has spent a lot of time since that time. It has, some might argue, largely preoccupied the government for at least the first couple of years of this term, leading up to Premier Campbell stepping down and initiating or probably being the major motivation in Mr. Campbell, the Premier, making that decision.

So today we have Bill 54, and we have a very long list and a whole lot of things that relate to Bill 54, that will be dealt with through the regulatory regime rather than through the legislative processes that we go through here.

Now, hopefully, we will have an opportunity to have some discussion around this and around what that list looks like, to talk in more depth. I know our Finance critic is looking forward to the committee stage of Bill 54 and the opportunity to discuss these matters in some depth. I'm sure that he will take item after item and drill down to find out exactly what the government's intentions are, and I'm sure he will drill down on items that aren't even on this list to find out what the government's intentions are.

The problem here…. And this is a bigger problem than just Bill 54, but it certainly pertains to Bill 54 and our ability to deal with this legislation in a substantive and meaningful way. I heard the Minister of Finance, when questions were raised with him during question period earlier in this session about when we might expect this bill, what the expectations were about how the bill would come forward, how it would proceed….

[1530]

Then I know the minister and I know the Government House Leader on a number of occasions told this House that probably the single biggest priority for the government was to get Bill 54 done and get it in front of the House. It was the priority piece of legislation, in many ways, for the government in response to the decision of the public through the rejection of the HST, through the citizens' initiative. We have this piece of legislation for reasons….

I would note that this session started back in October of last year, so we've had a session that went through a couple of months last year, and then we were back here this spring without a throne speech. It was a continuation of the same session. It took from last October all the way through till we got, just in the last short while, the minister having Bill 54 ready to introduce to this House and bring forward.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

The challenge we have with this — and I know this comment has been made…. We have about 20 pieces of legislation in front of us, with less than four days now to go to deal with these pieces of legislation. Bill 54 is a very substantive piece, but it is hardly the only substantive piece. There are many others.

Now, we have estimates going on in another House, committee stage in another House and second reading going on here. It really does raise questions as to whether we are going to find the time over the next couple of days to be able to have the due diligence on Bill 54, as we will have a challenge to have the due diligence on a number of other pieces of legislation. But will we have the due diligence in committee stage on Bill 54 to really walk through and look at this list of items that will come in under regulation — not in legislation, not a list that we can look at today, as in a

schedule attached to this bill, but in fact as a regulation?

When you have so much of the substance of a piece of legislation that is going to be brought forward at a later time through the regulatory process — through regulation and through order-in-council — it becomes additionally important and an additional priority to make sure that the opportunity in committee stage is there so that the critic and any other member in this House that has questions in relation to this….

We all have heard, since July 23, 2009…. We started hearing about this issue when it was the HST, and we've continued to hear about it right up to where we are today. So it would be very, very positive if we had the chance to really walk through all of these items and understand them fully and had the full amount of time to allow the critic and the minister primarily — but every other member of this House, should they choose to engage in that — to have a full conversation about Bill 54 and all those nuances.

This is tax law. Tax law is complicated, and the devil is often in the details when it comes to tax law. It requires that kind of conversation so that people understand where those nuances may be and then can make their own determination as to how they feel about those matters and about the act itself.

My concern is: are we going to have sufficient time to be able to deal with 54 in the committee stage in a way that's satisfactory to the people of the province and to the expected processes of this House and the due diligence that I think everybody in this House would agree should be applied to any piece of legislation that comes forward?

Our obligation as legislators, whether it's government side or opposition side, is to fully canvass every piece of legislation to ensure that we are delving into it, to ensure that as opposition members we have a sufficient sense of the bill and the ability to ask those questions that the public doesn't get a chance to ask and that they expect us as their representatives to advance on their behalf — that we're asking those questions.

Page 12286

It's equally important to give the minister the full opportunity to answer those questions in a complete and wholesome way so that the public out there can have confidence as to what this really means. We don't always know that.

[1535]

We have a Finance Minister here who is certainly very capable of doing that and of answering those questions in a complete way and is able to provide pretty full information — if for no other reason, I think, than the public education that goes with that over questions around the HST/PST that all is muddled up in Bill 54. It becomes increasingly important, I think, because it goes back to the question that I referenced before, which was the trust issue that relates to the HST and everything that has unfolded since the summer of 2009, getting us to where we are today with Bill 54.

I have to believe that members on the government side…. I think I've heard the minister say that he would like to have got this done sooner because of the difficulties around this and with the public. I think the minister fully understands the issue of that trust and the importance of the government to be very clear with people on all the questions that the public might have around how this bill will bring us back to PST and what the changes and the adjustments and the differences will be between what the PST was pre-HST and what the PST will be after March 31, 2013.

There are differences. Some of them are important differences. In fact, it appears from the legislation — I expect that the regulations will be as we anticipate them to be — that much of it will be very much the same as it was prior to the HST and the 2009 election. We're going to be looking for that. But again, it has to happen in a way that allows that conversation to go on in a meaningful way around the committee stage.

I think the important thing that I would say, the last point I would make about this is that it is a piece of legislation. Obviously, this side of the House, the opposition, was opposed to the HST. We supported and campaigned for a return to the PST. Bill 54 substantially gets us to that place. There are questions to be asked, but we are supportive of getting back to a different tax regime, a tax regime that is based more on the PST model. This bill — Bill 54, the Provincial Sales Tax Act — will largely take us to that place and to where we need to be.

I look forward to the conversation in committee stage. I do hope that this bill does get fully canvassed in committee stage. We'll just have to see over the next couple of days how that goes. I look forward to March 31, 2013, when this is implemented, and then the next couple of months after that will be a time where we'll see, hopefully, effective change in British Columbia and be able to move forward from there.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call on the minister to close debate.

Hon. K. Falcon: I have appreciated over the last several days of sitting and listening to some of the second reading discussions with respect to Bill 54…. I think it's appropriate that I follow the member for Vancouver-Hastings because the member has said something that goes to the very core of one of the concerns and challenges I've had as the Minister of Finance, listening to much of this second reading debate. That has to do with the member for Vancouver-Hastings' stated concern about not having appropriate time to actually debate the bill in the committee stage.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I would have valued the opportunity to actually have gone to committee stage much earlier so that we could get into discussing the details around the bill, but unfortunately the discussion…. I say "unfortunately" because while second reading debate is an important part of passing a bill — it allows members of the opposition, in particular, to have their say and speak to the specifics of the bill — unfortunately, what we heard was a lot of debate and discussion. But sadly, very little of it had to do with the bill before the House today.

It did not have to do with Bill 54, the bill to restore and reimplement the provincial sales tax. It had a lot of discussion about the HST, a lot of discussion about advertising and betrayals and all these other things that were interesting but that have largely been canvassed before.

[1540]

I have to put on the record that I think it is very unfortunate, as I say, that so much opportunity was lost by having repetitive discussions about the HST, which is not actually what's before the House today. It's actually Bill 54, the bill to restore the provincial sales tax.

You know, I get that there needs to be latitude for the politics of a discussion. There's lots of discussion about things having to do with so-called betrayals, etc. Well, "betrayal" is an interesting term. It usually was used by members opposite to suggest that government knowingly, prior to the election, had a plan to introduce HST but decided not to tell anyone until after the election.

That is just patently false. That's been repeated on many, many occasions. I can tell you, as someone who's sat around the cabinet table — and I will absolutely put my entire career and credibility on the line to say — never was there a discussion about it prior to the election. But I get that in the world we live in it's, if you will, grist for the mill.

I would argue that some of the members of the opposition that were making a great deal about this terrible so-called betrayal…. I could wind back the clock and talk about 1991 when they ran for office. I still remember the TV commercials where there was a little piggy bank and

Page 12287

the Leader of the Opposition said: "We will not take one penny more than necessary." No new taxes was what they were talking about, and a year later, in 1992, the largest tax increase in B.C. history at that time — $2 billion of increases — was put through.

Certainly, I remember a lot of people at that time talking about that betrayal. The irony was they actually raised PST from 6 percent to 7 percent — the NDP did — and then expanded the PST to include legal services, pay parking, labour services on cars such as engine tune-ups and tire installation, repairs to business equipment, clothing repairs, just to name a few.

But this House, as interesting as that discussion is, is not really the time to even go back in history and talk about what we may decide or interpret as betrayal or not keeping word or any of those other interesting discussions that we could have, because we're actually here to discuss Bill 54. As I say, we listened to three days of discussion that had nothing to do with the bill. In fact, almost every speaker was on more than one occasion asked by the Speaker, whichever Speaker was sitting at the time, to get back to the subject of the bill itself. Again, I think that is very unfortunate.

The other thing I want to touch on, though, is something that is close to my heart because I do think the real betrayal, in some ways, of going back to the PST is on low-income British Columbians. I said this at the time.

Granted, in fairness, we had a public debate, and the public in their wisdom chose to go back regardless of that. But I do think that for the members opposite who often talk about their concern of representing low-income folks, it is very unfortunate that by going back to a tax like the PST, those that will be punished most will be in the low-income scale.

I'll use as an example a single mother making $24,000 a year with three kids, who under the HST receives $920 a year — $230 for each of her children plus herself — in HST credits, so $920 a year. I know I heard the Leader of the Opposition say: "Yes, but they're now going to be relieved of paying PST on haircuts and things like that."

I do think it's important for the public to know that for them to be in a worse-off position, they would have to spend over $13,000 in haircuts and restaurant meals. That's extremely unlikely, as we all know, on a $24,000 salary.

I want to get on the record the difference because, for that same single mother with three kids, going back to the PST system — the system that they campaigned for — means there is zero that goes back to that single mother. There's not even a non-refundable tax credit, because it's cut off at $18,000 of family income.

I suppose they could say: "Well, you should then bring back that portion and fix that piece." But remember, this whole discussion and debate about the HST was going back to the PST as it was. They campaigned to go back exactly as it was. In fact, I've listened to hours' worth of lectures in here about how they want to make sure that every single part of that is going to be exactly how it was.

[1545]

Well, I just want to make sure the record shows that at least on this side of the House, this Finance Minister is extremely disappointed that when it goes back to as it was…. I think it introduces a level of unfairness that I made the argument for during the debate, obviously, and was unsuccessful. I acknowledge that.

By the way, I don't want to, for a second, try and absolve government from responsibility. I have been probably the most forthright member who has said that our introduction of the HST was very poorly handled. There's no question about that.

We deserve all the appropriate criticism for not bringing the public along and explaining why, in the midst of the worst global economic downturn in at least a generation, we felt it was important to mirror what was happening in Ontario and piggyback on a lot of the work that the Ontario government had done with the federal government in terms of transitioning into a value-added tax world.

It is forever to my regret that we did such a poor job because, as I've been very open in saying, I think the benefits not just for low-income British Columbians but for the entire economy are such that a different result would have obviously been preferable, at least in my mind. I've been criticized for continuing to be honest and forthright about what I think about the PST. I consider it a dramatically inferior tax.

Having said that, I totally respect the decision that the public made, and we will go back, through Bill 54, to reintroducing a provincial sales tax — a dramatically improved provincial sales tax, I am pleased to say — that will allow for on-line registration, on-line payment of remittances, and will allow small businesses to deal with it much more easily than the catastrophic old legislation that involved multiple pieces of legislation — dramatic confusion.

It was, in fact, both legislation and regulation under the old act that we were asking the public and small business to comb through with tax lawyers and accountants to try and figure out what actually applied and what didn't apply. It involved enormous amounts of inefficiency and, frankly, outright stupidity in the

interpretations that were often being provided in terms of what was going to apply and what wasn't going to apply. I do think the PST that is introduced under Bill 54 is dramatically improved, for sure.

I do want to say that we are looking forward to finally getting to the debate where we can have committee stage discussion and get into the elements of the bill. I wish we could have started two days ago, frankly. I would have been much happier had I heard a lot of debate around the actual bill as opposed to HST, which is not the subject of this bill. It is the provincial sales tax and the reintroduc-

Page 12288

tion of the provincial sales tax through Bill 54.

The final thing that I just wanted to respond to a little bit. There was some discussion in a lot of the talk that went on from members of the opposition about various criticisms, of course, and the whole history of HST, and talk about the jobs. Some people referenced the Jack Mintz report and were very highly skeptical and critical, as I recall, of the job projection of 113,000 jobs, etc.

I just think it's probably at least worth getting on the record that we have seen, since July of 2010 and the introduction of the HST, 52,500 new jobs in British Columbia. Jack Mintz had talked about 113,000 potential new jobs by the end of the decade.

I wouldn't even go as far to say that is all to do with the HST. I just think it is interesting to put on the record the fact that there have been some encouraging job numbers. Certainly, the most recent numbers that saw a third of all jobs created in Canada created right here in British Columbia — over 19,000 jobs — were certainly good news for the province of British Columbia. Our unemployment rate dropped to 6.2 percent — in a world, by the way, where most jurisdictions are experiencing unemployment rates double, triple or even quadruple those kinds of rates.

We are in a very blessed position, I would argue. I think the whole range of economic policy around low taxes and reducing business taxes and personal income taxes, ensuring that we have the most competitive possible economy, contributes towards that. But we shouldn't just pretend to ignore the fact that the tax policy associated with the HST may not have had some positive implications.

I conclude by saying that I'm looking forward to moving to the next stage and getting into committee stage. I wish we could have got there a lot earlier. I wish more of the discussion on second reading had something to do with the bill that's in front of the House, but I recognize that sometimes there's an effort made to try and delay things so that you can then make an argument: "Gee, we didn't have time to discuss the merits of the bill."

[1550]

I think we'll hear that a lot in the future, but I will be reminding members opposite, when I start to hear that argument, about all the time that was spent in this House talking about things that were completely unrelated to Bill 54 that's before us today.

With that, I would move second reading of Bill 54.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 54, Provincial Sales Tax Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. I. Chong: I now call second reading of Bill 51, intituled the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2012.

BILL 51 — SOUTH COAST

BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

(continue