2011 Legislative Session: Third 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 30, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 23, Number 5

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Seaspan Marine Corp. bid for shipbuilding contract

J. Mcintyre

Bike to Work Week

L. Popham

Contributions of seniors

M. Macdiarmid

May Day events on Quadra Island

C. Trevena

100 th anniversary of Van Horne Elementary School

M. Stilwell

Response to flooding in Cariboo-Chilcotin area

B. Simpson

Oral Questions

Funding for groups participating in missing women inquiry

A. Dix

Hon. C. Clark

L. Krog

Hon. B. Penner

J. Kwan

B. Ralston

C. James

M. Farnworth

M. Mungall

Petitions

N. Macdonald

H. Lali

B. Ralston

D. Black

R. Austin

S. Hammell

J. Brar

Reports from Committees

Special Committee of Selection, first report for the third session of the 39th parliament

Hon. R. Coleman

Petitions

H. Bains

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 9 — Government response to Judges Compensation Commission report recommendations

Hon. B. Penner

L. Krog

Motion 10 — Government response to Judicial Justices Compensation Commission report recommendations

Hon. B. Penner

L. Krog

Motion 11 — Government changes to harmonized sales tax

Hon. K. Falcon

A. Dix

Hon. B. Lekstrom

B. Ralston

I. Black

D. Donaldson

R. Sultan

M. Karagianis

B. Simpson

Hon. P. Bell

N. Macdonald

M. Stilwell

M. Sather

J. Les

S. Simpson

K. Corrigan

S. Fraser

D. Routley

V. Huntington

H. Bains

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

B. Simpson

Hon. M. De Jong

B. Routley

M. Sather

C. Trevena

S. Fraser

M. Farnworth

J. Kwan

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued)

Hon. B. Lekstrom

G. Coons

H. Bains

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General (continued)

L. Krog

Hon. B. Penner

[ Page 7533 ]

MONDAY, MAY 30, 2011

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

C. James: I have three guests in the gallery and in the precinct with us today: Joe Foy, who is the national campaign director for the Wilderness Committee; Chief Liz Logan, deputy Chief of Treaty 8 tribal council and also the former Chief of Fort Nelson First Nation; and Diane Culling, a member of the board of directors for the Peace Valley Environment Association.

These individuals and others are travelling the province on their Meet the Peace tour. They're in Victoria tonight, telling the story of the Peace River and talking about the concerns they have around the proposed Site C dam. Would the House please make them all welcome.

[1335]

Hon. B. Penner: It's my honour to introduce an individual who maybe doesn't need an introduction, but I would like to welcome him here to the floor of the Legislature. Former mayor of Oak Bay, former member of the Legislature and probably best known as the former Attorney General for the province of British Columbia. Would the House please make Brian Smith welcome.

Hon. M. McNeil: It gives me great pleasure to introduce some very special people in my life: my husband of many, many years, Rod McNeil; my daughter Molly O'Callaghan, along with her children Nora, Fiona and Roger O'Callaghan. In addition, I have my sister of many, many years in the audience, Anne Mathisen. Would the House please make them all feel welcome.

R. Chouhan: I would like to share very special and good news with everyone today. My wife, Inder, and I became grandparents once again, the second time. My daughter Amrita Chouhan Sanford; her husband, Jamie Sanford; our first granddaughter, Chloe; and my younger daughter Anu Chouhan are all very excited to receive our new granddaughter. Please join me to welcome her.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Joining us today are members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia. Their 26,000-member organization helps to ensure the protection of the public, and their organization supports the work of government in many ways.

Joining us in the gallery are 16 representatives, including Frank Denton, their president; Jeff Holm, their vice-president; and Derek Doyle, the CEO and registrar. Would the House please help make them welcome.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Joining me in the gallery today are two very able-bodied individuals who work in the Legislature. I would like the House to please help me welcome Lynette Butcher, my administrative assistant, as well as Holly Unwin, who is my administrative coordinator.

E. Foster: In the House today I have three very special guests. My wife, Janice, is here today, and accompanying her are two young men who have spent the last year with us. Exchange students Nobahiro Tomanaka and Jesus Romos Salazar have lived with us since last September, and they're getting ready to go home at the end of the school year, so I would like the House to make them very welcome.

M. Stilwell: I'd like to introduce Dr. Arvind Gupta today. Dr. Gupta is the CEO and scientific director of MITACS and a professor of computer science at the University of British Columbia. Through unique research and training programs, MITACS is developing the next generation of innovators with vital scientific and business skills. I also see Jason LeSange of MITACS and Brad Bennett, who is the chair of MITACS. Would the House please make them welcome.

I. Black: I have two introductions to make this afternoon. One is becoming a frequent visitor to this House. He is my father. I'm beginning to wonder whether it's the support for his son he's interested in or if he's just keeping a beadier eye on how his tax dollars are being spent. Would the House join me in welcoming my father to the House this afternoon, Stewart Black.

Sitting next to my father is a seven-year-old girl. Her name is Danielle. She is the light of my world. She's my daughter. Would the House please welcome Danielle to the House as well.

[1340]

R. Cantelon: Today I'm delighted to have join us in the House five people who work with InSight developers, an award-winning developer in Nanaimo. These are the people who are the real brains behind the organization,

[ Page 7534 ]

so please welcome Louise Turch, Tracy McLean, Eileen Barker, Clara Ominger and Paula Sled. Please make them welcome in this House.

P. Pimm: Today in the precinct we've had a classroom from up north, North Peace high school, 35 students with their two teachers, Jim Lovell and Darcy Hoff. Certainly, they're coming from one of the best schools in northern British Columbia. I'd like the House to make them welcome today.

L. Reid: We are joined on the floor of the chamber today by two wonderful women. We have Sheila Orr, who was our former colleague from Victoria-Hillside, and Wendy McMahon, who represented Columbia River–Revelstoke. I would ask this House to extend their warmest welcome possible to those who have served with us in the province of British Columbia.

D. Hayer: I have a very special guest on this very historical day, when our new Premier was sworn in as an MLA today. My special guest is my wife for almost 30 years, Isabelle Hayer, my best friend and volunteer. Would the House please make her very welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: It is my privilege today to introduce some exceptional volunteers who help British Columbians in their darkest hours. They are spotters in the sky searching for plane-crash survivors. They are road rescuers who pull injured travellers from their wrecked vehicles. They are emergency radio operators, search and rescue trainers and emergency social service providers. They are all volunteers with decades of dedication.

Those with us today are this year's recipients of emergency management British Columbia's Public Safety Lifeline Volunteer Awards, and I know the House will want to congratulate them.

We have Brady Conroy of Kamloops. He is the emergency management B.C. Emergency Radio Communications Volunteer of the Year. Marie Woodruff of Victoria is the provincial emergency program Air Volunteer of the Year. Bob Zimmerman of Quesnel is the Search and Rescue Volunteer of the Year for 2011. Bev Stenning of Victoria is the Emergency Social Services Volunteer of the Year, and Jim Hurtado of Vanderhoof is the Road Rescue Volunteer of the Year.

These individuals do exceptional service. We were very proud to present their awards today on the steps of the Legislature. I know that all of our colleagues in the House will want to make them welcome and congratulate them.

C. Hansen: Joining us in the House today is a former resident of Vancouver-Quilchena but someone who frequently finds the opportunity to come back to that neck of the woods. Would the House please welcome Peter Ker.

Hon. M. de Jong: Joining us from Summerland today here in the precincts are Carla Wright and Ken Ostraat. In addition to visiting us, I owe a special debt of thanks to Carla, whose daughter toils day in, day out within the Health Minister's office and performs yeoman service. She is a very talented young lady. I know the House will want to make her mom, Carla, and Ken Ostraat very welcome here in Victoria.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SEASPAN MARINE CORP.

BID FOR SHIPBUILDING CONTRACT

J. McIntyre: Following this morning's successful motion put forward by my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano, supporting Seaspan Marine's bid for the estimated $35 billion national shipbuilding contracts, I rise to ask all members of this House to join with me in wishing Seaspan every success as the July 7 deadline for proposals looms large.

They're in competition with three other bidders in central and eastern Canada to become one of the two 30-year strategic partners with the federal government to rebuild and refit the country's naval and patrol fleets. The procurement model is designed to create two centres of shipbuilding excellence in the country that will have the first right of refusal on any and all federal contracts for large combat and non-combat vessels.

If Seaspan were to be successful, this would ensure the stability of the B.C. shipbuilding industry with thousands of well-paid, skilled, family-supporting jobs, averaging $80,000 a year. A recent report estimates the creation of an additional 740 construction jobs as a result of the infrastructure required to build the ships in both Victoria and Vancouver.

[1345]

Additionally, the winning shipyard must foster a viable marine cluster around it to incorporate other shipbuilders and suppliers into its supply chain, thereby adding value beyond their business and further expanding the economic impact for, in our case, the two major shipbuilding centres.

This has the potential to significantly increase the size of our marine industry, which has for decades been subject to extreme economic cycles. Seaspan Marine Corp., headquartered in North Vancouver and with a workforce of approximately 2,000, is an association of Canadian companies involved in coastal and deep-sea transportation, bunkering, ship repair and shipbuilding services in western North America.

Congratulations to Jonathan Whitworth, CEO, and Seaspan for being on the shortlist and know that you officially have British Columbia's full support as the west coast contender.

[ Page 7535 ]

BIKE TO WORK WEEK

L. Popham: When you look around B.C. today, you just might think something's amiss — or a mess, to put it bluntly. It may look like something's a little off or a little flat. You might just conclude that it's bad hair day here in B.C., but actually, it's the first day of Bike to Work Week. Many of us are sporting the very coveted hair style those of us in the know call helmet head. For me it's an everyday look, and I'm proud of it.

H.G. Wells once said: "When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race." Well, would he ever be excited today. It's the 17th annual Bike to Work Week, and it's being held from May 30 to June 5 all across B.C. The vision of Bike to Work Week is to experience the joy of an ever-increasing number of people safely commuting by bicycle. The mission is to encourage more people in all B.C. communities to commute by bicycle through bike-to-work initiatives. Last year in Victoria alone we had 633 registered teams, a total of 5,744 cyclists, 830 new cyclists and a total of 243,798 kilometres cycled.

Albert Einstein once said, "Life is like riding a bicycle; in order to keep your balance, you must keep moving," and that's just what Bike to Work Week does. It helps introduce an opportunity to stay healthy physically and mentally while reducing our carbon footprint. We can arrive bright-eyed and bushy-tailed for work, which leads to greater productivity and a healthier workforce.

I'll leave you with a quote from John F. Kennedy: "Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride."

CONTRIBUTIONS OF SENIORS

M. MacDiarmid: Next week, June 5 to 11, is B.C. Seniors Week. It's a great time for us all to honour and celebrate the seniors in our lives. Our older citizens are an incredibly diverse group of individuals, and I know we all want to thank them for the tremendous contributions they've made and continue to make here in British Columbia.

Who are our seniors? They're the nation-builders who've helped make this province the amazing place that it is today. Our seniors are our parents, our grandparents and our friends.

What are they doing today? Well, some seniors are entrepreneurs, and many are in the workforce, so they're at work. Right now others are swimming, cycling, hiking, doing yoga or tai chi. They are tweeting. They are on Facebook. They are inspiring, listening, mentoring and sharing their knowledge, wisdom and life experience.

Many of them are volunteering. Seniors do thousands of hours of volunteer work every year in B.C. In 2007 seniors volunteered for 44.3 million hours in this province. On average, those who volunteer spend 196 hours volunteering each year. Our seniors enrich our communities and our lives in many ways. They inspire us, and we owe them our deepest respect.

Now, here are some of the ways that you can celebrate with seniors in your community next week. There will be barbecues, dinners, bocce tournaments, picnics and garden parties. If you're a senior in Chilliwack or North Vancouver, you can compete in a talent show to be part of the Canadian Senior Star, the largest talent competition dedicated to seniors. And if you're in Victoria, you can dance at the Rockin' 50s Dance — dance the night away dressed up in '50s attire.

Regardless of where you are next week, please make sure to take some time to celebrate with the seniors in your community.

We owe them so much. Let's make sure to give them the respect and honour that they deserve. So don't forget next week to celebrate with B.C. seniors.

[1350]

MAY DAY EVENTS ON QUADRA ISLAND

C. Trevena: Mounties in their red serge, the colour guard, pipe band and then the floats — a parade that wends through the forest along Rebecca Spit. Saturday marked Quadra Island's 113th May Day. The theme this year was "Gardens of delight." In the past it's been islands, air, oceans. The one guiding rule for the theme according to Sandy Spearing, who runs the community centre, was the request by a young participant years ago: "Can I wear my angel wings?"

This year we had gnomes and bees and garden parties, underwater gardens and many sets of angel wings. There were also the traditional floats and the child care centre, the kindergarten, the May Queen and her court, and the volunteer emergency services in their dress uniforms.

The parade ends at the field on Rebecca Spit, where the May Queen is crowned. This is a comparatively new tradition. The first May Queen was the then 11-year-old member for Saanich South. This year Jane Nighswander was crowned and talked about May Day's place in her life in the community. Of course, there are maypole dances, grade 3s working hard on the intricate weaving of ribbons, year after year, taught by Barrie Calverly.

Every year a person or organization on the island is honoured for their commitment to the community. This year it was the seniors housing society. Gourmet picnics are donated by island restaurants and stores and are auctioned, and people eye the sky for the continued sun and just a touch of breeze for the annual sailing race.

The afternoon is a time for games, for volleyball and races, the building of beach houses and, of course, the grease pole. Now, many visitors to Quadra may assume that that tall pole in the field on the spit is our maypole, but every year Doug and Gretchen Peters make sure it's

[ Page 7536 ]

covered in grease and $50 is attached to the top. While strategies vary to reach it, it usually goes.

Quadra opens itself to the tourists. In fact, this weekend sees the studio tour which marks the start of the season. But May Day is the time for friends and neighbours on the island to celebrate Quadra Island's wonderful sense of community.

100 th ANNIVERSARY OF

VAN HORNE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

M. Stilwell: I want to wish Van Horne Elementary School a happy 100th birthday. Listen to what Principal Phil Moses says about this wonderful school: "For a century Van Horne Elementary School has created a legacy of foundational learning, pivotal experiences, special relationships and an enduring supportive community."

Last week over 600 people came together to celebrate, reconnect and remember the struggles and successes of 100 years. Besides Mr. Moses, 18 former principals were recognized for their contributions and the difference they made in the lives of students, parents and teachers.

Parents have always been integral to the school, and in the 1920s the parents established a soup kitchen and gave free milk to the needy. Today parents continue to make contributions to school life and the community. Many former principals remember efforts of past PACs — the dances, fairs and events held with the surrounding community.

Thanks to Dave Miranda, current PAC chair for his work, and kudos go to all of the centennial committee: Phil Moses, Denise Johnson, Dorothy Watkins, Sean Martin, Erica Saunders, Debbie Blaise, Vicky Rusk and Mary Shields.

Van Horne continues its success due to the hard-working students, their devoted staff and supportive parents. They all thrive following the code of conduct that instils the desire to work together as a team. It was a wonderful celebration, and congratulations to all.

RESPONSE TO FLOODING

IN CARIBOO-CHILCOTIN AREA

B. Simpson: Mother Nature has not been very kind to the Cariboo-Chilcotin this past year. Last summer's fires destroyed thousands of hectares of forests, while smoke blocked the sun for weeks and choked the air throughout the region. Then came the fall storms that washed out Highway 20, and now we have the spring floods.

Many areas of the Cariboo have already been impacted by early spring flooding from rivers and creeks that won't peak until late June. Cedar Creek in Likely now flows like a torrent through the community's ballpark, flooding half of Cedar Point Provincial Park. Just down the road a flash flood of another creek deposited gravel two-thirds of the way across the narrow point of Quesnel Lake. A few days ago Choate Creek wiped out a portion of Beaver Valley Road.

At one point the Cottonwood River rose 18 inches above its historic high at Cottonwood House historic site. Downriver it wiped out the frontage of a small subdivision on the Quesnel Hixon Road, causing government to dismantle three homes in order to prevent them from being swept into the river.

[1355]

I stood with the two families whose homes were to be destroyed and witnessed their anger and anguish as they removed the last of their belongings and complied with the government's need to destroy their private property in order to protect the public interest.

Throughout all of these natural disasters, teams of dedicated individuals manage and coordinate the government's response and assist victims to find shelter and comfort when they are evacuated from their homes. Today I want to recognize the efforts and expertise of the professional staff in the Solicitor General's office, emergency management B.C., the Cariboo regional district's emergency operations centre, emergency social services.

All of these people do their absolute best to mitigate and moderate the impacts of Mother Nature's fury. I ask the House to please join me in thanking all the emergency response personnel from all levels of government who work hard to serve the people of B.C. in the times of natural disasters.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR GROUPS PARTICIPATING

IN MISSING WOMEN INQUIRY

A. Dix: First, on behalf of the official opposition, I want to congratulate the Premier on her return to the Legislature. I'm sure it's a very, very proud day for her and her family.

My question is to the Premier, and I hope it's a question that we can find some agreement on. The government has chosen to deny funding to women's groups, to aboriginal groups, to community groups in the Downtown Eastside at the Missing Women's Inquiry — this in spite of the recommendation of Wally Oppal, who has recommended that these groups be heard, that their voices be heard at the inquiry. Will the Premier intervene to overturn this decision and make sure those voices are heard at the inquiry?

Hon. C. Clark: Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for his kind remarks to start off this very first question period since I've become Premier. It is indeed nice to be back. I owe many thanks, as well, to

[ Page 7537 ]

the people of Vancouver–Point Grey for supporting me and getting me here and, of course, to all the folks sitting on this side of the House who've been holding down the fort while I haven't been here, including the Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier, who's done some full duties in these last couple of weeks. I'm delighted to be here.

Thank you very much to the member for the question. It is tragic what has happened in the Downtown Eastside, and it continues to be tragic — what happens down there for women and children and men who struggle every day in what is certainly one of Canada's poorest postal codes. It has been a challenge for governments for decades to try and get our hands around the issues down there, try and wrestle them down and make sure that it's a better place tomorrow than it has been in the past.

Certainly, this government called the inquiry in the first place and appointed Mr. Oppal to head it up because we want to make sure that people's voices are heard. We want to make sure that we get to the bottom of some of the problems down on the Downtown Eastside and make sure that when we get to the bottom of those problems, we have a way to move forward.

I know the inquiry is committed to making sure that we can hear from as many voices as absolutely possible, because we want to make sure that the Downtown Eastside is a better place, is a safer place and is the kind of close-knit, healthy community that many of the rest of us have the good fortune to live in.

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

A. Dix: Well, there's apparently funding for a large number of government lawyers. We've seen in previous matters, in particular in the B.C. Rail trial, that there's funding sometimes for government insiders — $6 million worth of funding in that case for them to get access to justice.

In this case we're talking about the groups…. I want to quote the former Attorney General, who says: "These groups are closer to the facts at issue. Most of these groups were front-line lobbyists for public attention to the missing and murdered women and ultimately for the establishment of a public inquiry."

[1400]

Now, the Attorney General says there's a line, and because of that line, these voices won't be heard at the inquiry; they won't be supported by the government. But I think that clearly, the government's line is in the wrong place. So what I'm asking the Premier to do is intervene and ensure that those groups that represent women on the Downtown Eastside are heard at this public inquiry.

Hon. C. Clark: Thanks to the member for the question.

The member knows that the government is funding the families to be able to be heard at the commission, and we are making sure that as many voices as possible are heard before that commission. It seems to me to be our obligation to do that, and we're certainly living up to it, although it isn't required by law for us to do that. We want to make sure those voices are heard because, as I said, the issues facing women and children and men who live in the Downtown Eastside are serious, and they are urgent.

One of the things the government has done to try and address those issues and make sure that we really understand them, to make sure we have a road map to try and address them is appoint the commission of inquiry that Wally Oppal is heading.

There are many, many other things, though, that we can do, and among them is making it a little bit easier for all families to get ahead in this province. Make it a little bit easier for all those folks, many of whom are struggling at the bottom of the income scale, many of whom find themselves at the middle of the income scale, some of whom still find themselves at risk of homelessness. Make sure that they have a chance to get ahead.

Putting families first is at the heart of what we are doing as a government. We want to make sure that families have a lighter burden across the board, that it's a little bit easier every day for families to put food on the table for their children, no matter where they find themselves across the province, whether it's in Salmon Arm, whether it's in Prince Rupert, whether it's in Atlin or whether it's in the Downtown Eastside of the city of Vancouver.

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

A. Dix: Putting families first isn't about words; it's about actions. In this case the actions are $6 million in funding for the defendants in the B.C. Rail trial — $6 million, right; that's what it is — and to deny funding to the very groups that Wally Oppal has said should be funded.

What did he say? He said that the groups he has given standing at the inquiry should not be denied participation because they have lack of funds, and this is precisely what the government is doing. The voices who protected and defended women in the Downtown Eastside are being denied access at this hearing.

Why doesn't the Premier intervene, give the same status she's giving to government organizations at this inquiry, give the same treatment that the government gave to defendants in the B.C. Rail trial and ensure that those voices are heard at this inquiry?

[ Page 7538 ]

Hon. C. Clark: Thanks again to the member for the question.

Now, the member knows, as I said, that the government is funding families. We, I believe, have a moral obligation to do that. Even if we don't have a legal one, we certainly are.

We've expanded the terms of reference for the commission so that it's a study commission. They can hear from many other groups as well, so it's a less formal inquiry. The idea with that is to make sure that it's easier for people to be able to access the inquiry and make their voices heard.

There are very specific issues in the Downtown Eastside that we absolutely have to be thinking about. We have to make sure, as I said, that the route going forward is a lot better than the route going backward that we've seen in the past for people in the Downtown Eastside.

But we have to support families all across the province. We have to lighten the burden. That's why the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro is reviewing B.C. Hydro. That's why, when ICBC decided that they were going to start giving people higher rates after they had one ticket, the Solicitor General stepped in. That's why the Minister of Transportation is having a look at B.C. Ferries.

That's why we are lowering the HST by 2 points. We're going to make sure that every family in this province ends up ahead when it comes to taxes. When you think about the total burden that government puts on families — I want to help families get ahead all across the province — I'd sure rather be supporting a 10 percent tax than a 12 percent tax.

L. Krog: I'm sure it wasn't the Premier's intention to trivialize this topic by comparing the discussion today with what's happened at ICBC. For years these women's groups have been arguing and fighting to seek justice. We are talking about dozens of women whose lives are gone, women who have disappeared.

[1405]

It's a very simple proposition. The former Attorney General was very clear. He's a respected jurist. He was a respected lawyer in his time. He was a respected Attorney General. He has stated very clearly that these groups should be funded.

I'm simply asking the Premier to say to me today, to tell this House, to say to this group: why is it okay to pay for $6 million in legal fees for Dave Basi and Bobby Virk but not for these women's groups?

Hon. B. Penner: As the Premier has correctly noted, we do feel an obligation to respond to the tragedy that took place in the Downtown Eastside with the murdered and missing women. That's why our government established the inquiry. That's why our government expanded the terms of the inquiry to allow for not just the formal hearing study or hearing commission but also a study commission so that all people can participate, if they want, without the need to rely on lawyers for cross-examination in a more adversarial setting. So we responded.

In addition, as the Premier noted, we have decided to fund legal representation for the families of the murdered and missing women, because we know that this is an important issue.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: If the former Attorney General, the head of this commission, had thought the funding was adequate to simply fund one lawyer to represent all of the families, he would have said so. But that's not what Mr. Oppal said. He said: "My intention was to ensure that no group with standing before the inquiry would be denied legal counsel at the evidentiary hearings due to lack of funds."

The simple fact is that no one goes into this kind of inquiry without counsel and expects to get the same hearing or have the same kind of job done. Businesses don't go into courtrooms without high-priced lawyers because they appreciate you need an advocate. The fact is that the former Attorney General recognized the need for advocates for these groups to ensure that all the voices were heard.

Again, my question to the Premier is: why is it we can fund Bobby Virk and Dave Basi, but we can't fund these groups?

Hon. B. Penner: Obviously, the public as well as the government — and, I would assume, the opposition, from the comments I've just heard — have a limited appetite for spending unending amounts of money on lawyers and their fees. That's why we've decided to prioritize. Our priority is putting families first.

Like we did for the Braidwood Inquiry looking at the tragic death of Robert Dziekanski, where we provided funding for the family of Mr. Dziekanski to be represented in that inquiry, we are providing funding for the families of the murdered and missing women that sadly lost their lives in the Downtown Eastside at the hands of Mr. Pickton.

There is not an unlimited amount of money that can be spent on taxpayers' fees. Our government recognizes that, but nevertheless, we are providing the funds necessary so that the families of the murdered and missing women have legal representation at the inquiry.

J. Kwan: Some 60 women have gone missing from the Downtown Eastside community, and 20 other women have gone missing from the Highway of Tears since 1995. Wally Oppal, the inquiry commissioner, on May 3, 2011, recommended that the government pro-

[ Page 7539 ]

vide funding to 13 applicants who requested financial assistance to participate in the formal hearing of the commission.

For this inquiry to deliver real answers and lessons, residents of the Downtown Eastside, women's and indigenous advocacy and service organizations must be full participants. They were close to the women who have gone missing. They knew their struggles, and they knew their lives. They are the ones who drew public attention to these cases and have been fighting for justice.

My question is to the Premier. Will she support their participation in the inquiry so that B.C. has a meaningful and full missing women's inquiry?

Hon. B. Penner: As I indicated, our government is providing funding for legal representation for the families of the murdered and missing women so that they can participate in the formal inquiry component that's taking place. But as I mentioned, our government responded to a request from the commissioner himself in March to expand the terms of reference so that it would allow for a study commission, which is less formal, less adversarial and more open for people to participate, with or without legal representation.

[1410]

That avenue is there. I know that the commissioner does intend to hold study commission hearings and to make it as successful as possible for people to participate.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Let me just put this quote on the record.

"This inquiry has a responsibility to highlight those systemic injustices that allowed the unimaginable deaths and disappearances of so many women from the Downtown Eastside. The membership of organizations and groups like the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre and the February 14 Women's Memorial March Committee provide the critical context necessary for this inquiry as we knew the women and their lives."

Without their participation the inquiry will be incomplete. Many fear that it will become an exercise that generates no real answers or lessons. This inquiry is not just about understanding what happened. It is also about preventing more cases of women going missing from the Downtown Eastside and other parts of British Columbia.

Will the Premier reconsider? Will the Premier do the right thing and allocate legal funding to support these organizations so that they have full voice and full participation at this inquiry?

Hon. B. Penner: In addition to what I've already stated about the informal study commission component that our government recently added to the terms of reference for the commission of inquiry, last week Commissioner Oppal was quoted on May 26 as stating that people at the study commission don't need to cross-examine witnesses. That's confirmation that in order to participate in the hearing you don't need to have a taxpayer-funded lawyer.

Now, we did see fit to provide legal representation for the families of the murdered and missing women. We felt that that was appropriate. It's similar to what government has done with other inquiries such as the Braidwood Inquiry into what happened to Mr. Dziekanski when he arrived at the YVR international arrivals lounge.

As the Premier pointed out, and she's quite correct, we have no legal obligation to do that. We felt it is important to do it for the families, and that's why we are funding representation for the families.

B. Ralston: My question, too, is for the Premier. Clearly, Mr. Justice Oppal, as he was, and the former Attorney General, did not make this recommendation lightly. It came after careful consideration and submissions by the commission. He has recommended that in order that justice be done…. I'm going to quote from what he said. "My recommendation to the provincial government was to fund all the groups that satisfied me that they would not be able to participate fully without financial support."

This is coming from a very respected jurist, a former Attorney General, who did not make this recommendation lightly. Why will the Premier not heed that advice and overrule the Attorney General?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm sure the commissioner will be pleased to know that the opposition, who used to criticize him on a daily basis, now considers him well-respected. I'm sure he'll appreciate that change of heart on the part of the NDP.

Again, as I've said, our government is putting families first. There is a limited amount of money and a limited amount of taxpayer appetite, frankly, for spending money on lawyers and their fees. We have decided to prioritize funding for legal representation for the families of the murdered and missing women.

That's similar to what government has done with previous inquiries such as the Braidwood Inquiry that I've already talked about, where we provided funding for the mother of Mr. Dziekanski but not for other groups that wanted to participate. There were other people seeking funding, but the government decided to put the funding for the families first.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Well, that limited appetite wasn't much in evidence when the government approved $6 million in legal fees for Bobby Virk and Dave Basi.

Once again I return to what Mr. Justice Oppal said: "My intention was to ensure that no group with standing

[ Page 7540 ]

before the inquiry would be denied legal counsel at the evidentiary hearings due to lack of funds" — again, for the evidentiary hearing, a considered response by the former Attorney General.

Will the Premier intervene and overrule this Attorney General and fund those groups?

Hon. B. Penner: As the Premier noted, we are all tragically touched by what happened on the Downtown Eastside and the loss of all those lives in such a senseless, tragic and, frankly, horrific way. That's why we're pleased to see a conviction entered and the sentence imposed upon Mr. Pickton, but we didn't want to stop there.

[1415]

That's why our government appointed an inquiry of commission to look into whether there were systemic issues that prevented Mr. Pickton's arrest at an earlier date and his earlier conviction. So we're funding the commission of inquiry.

We've expanded the terms of reference for the inquiry so that people can participate in the study commission without the need for taxpayer-funded lawyers, so that they can do that in a less adversarial way but still have their voices heard. In addition, because we are so touched by what happened and so distraught, we have made funds available to provide legal representation for the families of the murdered and missing women.

C. James: This is the government's own commissioner, appointed by the government to manage the very serious issue of missing women across this province. The commissioner himself has recommended to government that these groups and organizations need to be funded in order to participate in this very serious inquiry.

I heard the Attorney General say that it's about priorities, that we have to prioritize money. Well, it's very clear what the B.C. Liberals have made a priority. Their friends and insiders Basi and Virk got $6 million — and nothing for the missing women's inquiry.

My question is to the Premier. If the Premier wishes to put families first, here is an opportunity. Fund the groups and organizations today.

Hon. C. Clark: Thanks to the member for her question. I am very glad that the rumours of her imminent demise are turning out to be untrue. She's provided a great voice for women in British Columbia. We haven't always agreed on everything, but I'm delighted that she's continuing to take her seat in the Legislature.

As the Attorney General has said, our government is deeply concerned about what's happened in the Downtown Eastside, and that was why we appointed the commission of inquiry in the first place. That was why we took Justice Oppal's advice and expanded the terms of reference so that it could be a study commission and could hear from more people. That's why we are providing funding for the families to be heard in this — so that they can be represented by lawyers, just like we did in the Braidwood Inquiry.

The government is, I think, with all of these actions, demonstrating in this particular aspect that we do really…. This is an incredibly important issue. We have to make sure we get to the bottom of it. And we have to make sure that, going forward, the Downtown Eastside is a safer place in the future than it has been in the past.

Our government remains deeply concerned about this, not just with respect to the work of this inquiry but even further. We need to, as I said, look at the total burden on families overall. We need to make sure that low-income families in particular are doing better than they have been. That's why our government has provided a whole series of rebates and made it a whole lot easier to be able to support the burden of government when you're at low income now than it was about ten years ago.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. James: I remind the Premier that we're talking about the missing women's inquiry, and the missing women's inquiry would not have happened if it weren't for those 13 groups who stood up to this government to insist on having the inquiry. These are groups and organizations that put time, that put energy, that put their own resources into making sure the inquiry was going to be there, in making sure they would have a voice to try and do everything possible to ensure that these kinds of things don't happen again. Now when they're asking for funding to fully participate, this government has said no.

I ask my question again to the Premier. Why won't the Premier, why won't the B.C. Liberals support these groups and organizations, support the work they've done to get the inquiry so that they can fully participate?

Hon. C. Clark: To the former Leader of the Opposition, many thanks again for the question. Although I was on the outside at the time, I am reliably informed…. I remember this from my days in radio. The government said at the time that they would support an inquiry when the legal proceedings were complete.

[1420]

The government kept their promise and has gone further, has accepted the recommendation of Commissioner Oppal to expand the terms of reference to make it a study commission so that more people can be heard, and has followed the example that was set in the Braidwood Inquiry and made it possible for the families to be funded and be heard at the inquiry.

I think those are very important steps to have taken, and it really reflects more than anything this gov-

[ Page 7541 ]

ernment's deep concern about the conditions in the Downtown Eastside.

All of those missing and murdered women were lost to their families and to our communities in the most tragic way possible. It's incumbent on all of us in every aspect, in every corner of our society in British Columbia, to care and to show that we care by doing something about it. That's what this government has done.

M. Farnworth: My question is to the Premier. This is not about the HST. This is about missing women, women who were murdered at the Pickton farm. It's about a botched investigation. It's about mistakes that were made and should never happen again. That's what this inquiry is about. It's not about the HST.

The individual heading up that inquiry, a former Attorney General of this province — who, though we often disagreed with, we always respected — has said that these 13 groups should be funded. Those 13 groups know more about the Downtown Eastside than the Premier and her entire government will ever know.

My question is to the Premier. Why doesn't she give the former Attorney General, Wally Oppal, what he's been asking for: that funding be provided for these 13 groups so that we can get a report that really does accomplish something?

Hon. B. Penner: I'll say it again. Our government was very touched by what happened. We watched closely, and we helped fund the investigation as it took place. Prosecutions were pursued, convictions were obtained, and a sentence was imposed. I don't think Mr. Pickton will be seeing the light of day anytime soon, and that's appropriate.

However, we didn't stop there. We felt it was important to establish an inquiry to look into whether in fact there was a botched investigation. The member has reached his conclusions. I'm interested in hearing the conclusions of the commission in that regard, and that's why we established it. We are providing funding so that the families of the murdered and missing women can directly participate with legal representation in the formal inquiry and also in the study commission, which are the less formal hearings.

My understanding is that Commissioner Oppal is hoping to start those less formal hearings within weeks and will be travelling to northern British Columbia to do so.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Commissioner Oppal knows what he's doing. He asked for funding for a reason. When the Premier has been asked about this funding, she has talked about wanting to make things better, and she has talked about the HST.

This is not about the HST. This is about missing and murdered women from the Downtown Eastside and a commissioner, a former Attorney General, who is recommending funding for 13 groups.

Why will the Premier not listen to the commissioner, the former Attorney General of this province, who has recommended the funding for those 13 groups? Why will the Premier not fund those groups?

Hon. B. Penner: I've heard the opposition complain day after day about how much money has been spent in the past on legal fees, and our government actually shares many of those concerns. It's why I've appointed Stephen Toope, the president of UBC and former dean of law at McGill University, to review the indemnity policy to get a better handle on legal fees through the indemnity policy in the future.

Unfortunately, we can't turn the clock back. We can't put a different date stamp on a memo and set the clock back on that issue. What we can do is get a better handle on expenses in the future, and that will give us more resources in the future to spend on things like providing representation for families in public inquiries.

In this public inquiry our government is funding the families.

[1425]

M. Mungall: Mr. Speaker, 13 organizations have put their hearts and souls into the Downtown Eastside. It is because of them that we have this inquiry. They have been strong advocates for their communities. They need to be heard at this public inquiry. They need to have the funding necessary to do so.

Will the Attorney General today commit to that funding? It's a simple question, and they need an answer.

Hon. B. Penner: The member is incorrect. The reason for the public inquiry is because of the families of the murdered and missing women. It's because our government, like everybody in British Columbia and frankly anybody in the world that heard about this case, was horrified about what happened. We want to find out if there are lessons that we can learn so that we can prevent something like this from happening in the future.

That's why we appointed the formal inquiry, that's why we've expanded the terms of reference as requested by Commissioner Oppal, and that's why we're providing legal representation for the families of the murdered and missing women. I want to get the results as soon as possible so that if there are lessons to learn, if there are policies and procedures between the police forces that need to be changed, I want that information as quickly as possible so that we can make improvements in the future and stop something like this from happening again.

[End of question period.]

[ Page 7542 ]

Petitions

N. Macdonald: I would like to present a petition signed by almost 300 residents of Golden asking for safe access to Donald and Dejorie roads. The petitioners are very concerned about the proposed intersection as it joins the Trans-Canada within the current highway upgrades as part of the Donald Bridge project.

H. Lali: I'd like to present a petition with nearly 500 signatures from residents of the Botanie Valley near Lytton.

"NorthWest Organics LP, a company with strong links to some Lower Mainland waste management businesses, is in the process of constructing what we believe to be an industrial composting facility on a local ranch.

"We the undersigned residents and friends of Botanie Valley respectfully request that the government of British Columbia immediately enforce a construction moratorium on the proposed facility pending the completion of a B.C. government environmental impact study."

B. Ralston: I'm filing a petition from Surrey residents concerned about the negative impact of inadequate school space on our education system and calling on the government to (1) allow for an exception to the current funding formula to address Surrey schools' immediate needs in this year's capital plan, and (2) review and change capital funding policies for schools to ensure that they continue meeting Surrey's ongoing growth.

D. Black: I rise to present a petition signed by a number of residents in New Westminster urging this Legislature to adopt endangered species legislation that protects species at risk by protecting their habitat, including transparency and accountability in the legislation.

R. Austin: I also have a petition from Surrey residents concerned about the negative impact of inadequate school space on their education system who are calling for the government to do two things: to allow for an exemption to the current funding formula to address Surrey schools' immediate needs in this year's capital plan and, secondly, to review and change capital funding policies for schools to ensure that they continue meeting Surrey's ongoing growth.

S. Hammell: I also rise to present a petition from Surrey residents concerned about the negative impact of inadequate school space on our education system. They are calling on the government to allow for exceptions to the current funding formula to address Surrey schools' immediate needs in this year's capital plan, and to review and change capital funding policies for schools to ensure that they continue meeting Surrey's ongoing growth.

[1430]

J. Brar: I also rise to submit a petition signed by Surrey residents concerned about the negative impact of lack of school space on our education system and calling on the government to do two things: first, allow for an exception to the current funding formula to address Surrey schools' imminent needs in this year's capital plan and, second, to review and change capital funding policies for schools to ensure that they continue meeting Surrey's ongoing growth needs.

Reports from Committees

Hon. R. Coleman: I have the honour to present the first report of the Special Committee of Selection for the third session of the 39th parliament.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

H. Bains: Presenting petitions.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

H. Bains: These are petitions from Surrey residents concerned about the negative impact of inadequate school space on our education system, who are calling on government to address Surrey schools' immediate needs in this year's capital plan, and to review and change capital funding policies for schools to ensure that they continue meeting Surrey's ongoing growth.

All of them add up to 659 petitions today. These are in addition to a petition that was presented here from the member for Surrey–White Rock calling for the same.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: The business in this House this afternoon will be Motion 9, judicial compensation, and then Motion 10, judicial compensation. Following that will be Motion 11 to deal with the HST.

In Committee A this afternoon we will be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Health to completion, followed by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, the Ministry of Attorney General and the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

[ Page 7543 ]

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 9 — GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

TO JUDGES COMPENSATION

COMMISSION REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

Hon. B. Penner: I move Motion 9 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[That pursuant to

section 6(2) of the Judicial Compensation Act the Legislative Assembly reject seven of the fifteen recommendations of the Final Report of the 2010 British Columbia Judges Compensation Commission as laid before this Assembly on May 3, 2011, as unfair and unreasonable for the reasons outlined in the Government Response to the Report of the 2010 Judges Compensation Commission filed in this House today:

1. The recommended salary increase for April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014 of an amount based on the cumulative change in the British Columbia Consumer Price Index (the “BC-CPI”) over the preceding three-year period is rejected. The salary increase for April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014 is set at zero.

2. The recommended increase in the pension accrual rate for judges from 3% to 3.5% effective April 1, 2013 is rejected. The pension accrual rate is set at 3%.

3. The recommended increase in the pension contribution period for judges from age 71 to age 75 effective April 1, 2011 is rejected. The end of the pension contribution period is set at age 71.

4. The recommendation that the cost of long-term disability benefits be separately funded by government outside of the budget of the Office of the Chief Judge is rejected. The method for budgeting the cost of long-term disability benefits will remain within the budget of the Office of the Chief Judge.

5. The recommendation that long-term disability benefits be extended to judges to age 75, effective April 1, 2011 is rejected but in substitution the long term disability benefits to judges will be extended to age 75 commencing on April 1, 2013.

6. The recommendation that judges be enrolled in the government flexible benefits plan, effective April 1, 2011 is rejected but in substitution the judges will be enrolled in the government flexible benefits plan, commencing April 1, 2013.

7. The recommendation that, effective April 1, 2011, the Senior Judges Program be expanded by an amendment to the Judicial Compensation Act is rejected. The recommendation to increase the possible number of sitting days for senior part-time judges at the discretion of the Chief Judge, with a three-year “sunset clause” is rejected. The following recommendation is substituted:

a. the Legislative Assembly accepts in principle that part-time judges should be permitted to exceed the existing remuneration caps but recognizes this requires legislative amendment at a future sitting and is outside the scope of the Judges Compensation Commission;

b. the Legislative Assembly recommends that the remuneration caps limiting a senior part-time judge’s salary to no more than 40% of the salary of a full-time sitting judge and the combination of salary and pension benefits to no more than 100% of the salary of a full-time sitting judge be removed;

c. the Legislative Assembly recommends that a future legislative amendment should allow the Chief Judge, using discretion and if adequate budgetary resources exist, to authorize one or more part-time judges to provide coverage to meet urgent and unforeseen needs resulting from illness or injury; and

d. the Legislative Assembly also accepts that these changes should be reviewed after three years.

That the Legislative Assembly accept the remaining recommendations contained in the report.]

I'd like to take a few moments to speak to this motion respecting the compensation that is paid to the province's Provincial Court judges. The process that is followed to determine their compensation is necessarily different from collective bargaining.

The reason for this is the need to ensure that judges are, and are seen to be, independent of government. Indeed, judicial independence is a cornerstone of our justice system. It is critical to our democracy so that anyone accused of a crime or who challenges government before the courts can be sure that their case will be decided based on its merits.

This principle of judicial independence as it applies to setting judicial officers' compensation has been affirmed in numerous court judgments. Guidance has been given to governments by the Supreme Court of Canada respecting an appropriate process to follow. What is most important is that governments and judges do not engage in bargaining over judges' compensation. Instead, a process has been determined whereby government and representatives of the judiciary make representations to the independent commissions. In British Columbia there's one for judges and one for JJPs, better known as judicial justices of the peace.

These commissions in turn make recommendations to government setting out what the commissions believe would be the appropriate salaries and benefits for judges and JJPs for a three-year period. This process unfolds according to the broad constitutional direction set by the Supreme Court of Canada, as well as the more detailed provisions contained in the British Columbia Judicial Compensation Act. Governments are not bound to accept commission recommendations, but if they wish to depart from them, they must clearly articulate a rational reason for the rejection.

In B.C. we have provided in the Judicial Compensation Act that government must find a recommendation to be unfair or unreasonable in order to reject it. Government's responses, which have been appended to these motions, contain more detail respecting the criteria for government to follow in rejecting commission recommendations.

[1435]

Before I address government's response to the 2010 Judges Compensation Commission, let me first say a few words about the judges of the Provincial Court. I haven't been in my role very long as Attorney General, but it is a great privilege for me to have the opportunity to work with the Provincial Court judiciary.

I first encountered them, I think, during my first summer of articles between first- and second-year law school when working in Chilliwack for a private law firm, and over that time I've had the experience of appearing before many of them. I'm always impressed with the dedication, innovation and commitment that our bench devotes to the public.

[ Page 7544 ]

Responding to the reports of the two compensation commissions is challenging in many ways. The respect we have for the processes established for determining judicial compensation as an aspect of preserving judicial independence governs our decision-making, but so do the fiscal imperatives that government is operating within. Government has endeavoured to be fair-minded, reasonable and thoughtful about a response to these important reports.

In considering what is fair and reasonable, we have developed our recommendations in the context of the current fiscal climate and the impact that has had on salary and benefits throughout the public sector. The details of the reasoning in relation to these issues are contained in the response documents that I filed on the 25th of May, 2011, when I filed the notices of motion. I'd like to highlight some of the general principles you will see in our reasoning.

Government has determined that it must limit compensation increases paid by public funds. A compensation arrangement for judges that provides protection against inflation is not consistent with this determination, nor are substantial increases in benefits. Protection against inflation has not been offered to employees in the public service. In pursuing its approach to deficit reduction, the government has established a net-zero public sector compensation mandate. This mandate is an across-the-board measure affecting every person who is paid from the public purse.

A similar approach is fair and reasonable for Provincial Court judges. The Supreme Court of Canada recognized, in the P.E.I. reference case, that the guarantee of a minimum acceptable level of judicial remuneration is not a device to shield the courts from the effects of deficit reduction. The court recognized that "nothing would be more damaging to the reputation of the judiciary and the administration of justice than a perception that judges were not shouldering their share of the burden in difficult economic times."

Judicial compensation has increased significantly in recent years. In 2004 judges' salaries were $161,250 a year. They are now $231,138 annually. This is a cumulative increase of 43.3 percent since 2004. This substantial increase flows from the 2004 and 2007 judicial compensation commission recommendations. Although the current net-zero mandate established by government does not extend as far as the judges commission, the current economic climate dictates this response for the entire term of the commission's recommendations. If all judges commission recommendations are accepted, the three-year total cost to government would be $6.86 million.

I want to be clear that the costs I'm discussing relate to the cost of judges only. These are the only costs the government's decision is based on.

In light of the present uncertain fiscal situation for government, a recommendation of no increase in the salary of judges for the 2013-14 year, as well as the prior two years, is fair and reasonable. Of further consideration is the uncertainty regarding the financial impacts that government may face as a result of the harmonized sales tax referendum being conducted in June of this year.

We have accepted some very minor benefit adjustments that would allow the judges to benefit from some of the benefit programs available to others in the public sector, such as the flexible benefits programs and long-term disability. But we recommend those adjustments at a later date — again, to be fair to the broader public sector, which will not be seeing benefit increases until 2013 at the earliest.

I'll take my seat and await the remarks of my learned friend.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

L. Krog: I'm delighted to rise to this today. The issue of compensation for positions of importance in our society — and certainly Provincial Court judges are very high on that list — is always problematic. The Attorney General has commented to some extent on the history of Provincial Court judge salaries. Between '92 and '97 they remained constant at $118,402 a year.

[1440]

Commission recommendations were adopted in 1998. They were increased to $134,000 that year, $139,000 in 1999 and $144,000 in 2000, and then there have been increases since. Judges can currently earn $231,128 annually. Supreme Court judges are set at $271,400 per year.

Now, there's always been a teasing sort of competition between the Provincial and Supreme courts in this province. When I say teasing, it's reflected in the backroom chat of lawyers in the barristers' lounges, etc., that Supreme Court judges have it easier and Provincial Court judges do all the work, and it's even easier in the Court of Appeal.

Like most things in life, there may be a tiny bit of truth in all of that, but it's not necessarily accurate or fair.

The reality is that Provincial Court judges in the courtroom are working very hard. The numbers of cases they have to face now are substantial. The subject of the Charter in criminal cases has made, I would say to some extent, the lives of Provincial Court judges extremely difficult; 90 percent of the criminal cases in the province are dealt with in Provincial Court. Often those cases involve significant Charter arguments. Cases that many years ago might have been dealt with in a morning — an impaired case — now can take a day or two or three, with numerous experts potentially giving evidence.

Charter defences to all kinds of cases arise, and quite appropriately. The Charter protects our rights and freedoms. That's why we call it the Charter of Rights

[ Page 7545 ]

and Freedoms. However, that means that judges are dealing with very difficult issues and, of course, face the inevitable appeals to the Supreme Court or the B.C. Court of Appeal eventually, if things get really hot and heavy.

One cannot question that they are doing their job and are working hard, but many British Columbians are in the same position and in positions of importance. I am referring only to those who are in salaried positions. I'm not talking about the small business person facing a struggling economy. The small business people in my community are probably no doubt feeling the effect of a 16 percent unemployment rate in Nanaimo. I'm talking about people who are in senior positions, whether that be in the public service generally, in the judiciary, on the boards of Crown corporations, including ICBC, B.C. Hydro, etc.

At $231,000 per annum, that is, by everyone's standard, a lot of money. At a time when we are saying to the public service generally — or, more properly speaking, the government is saying to the public service generally — that this is not an appropriate time for an increase, one is stuck in a very difficult position to be able to turn and say to a group that is already amongst the highest income-earners in the province, notwithstanding the difficult job they have, that "it's okay; we're going to give you a substantial increase" — which in percentage terms looks large and in actual dollar terms looks extremely significant to the average British Columbian.

I know that some years ago in the former configuration of my constituency, Nanaimo's average family income was $49,000 per annum. It was the third-poorest constituency in the province of British Columbia. That is family income. That assumes the possibility that parents and one or two of the so-called standard family of four children are indeed working.

Moreover, I am moved by what the Attorney General had to say about what the cost of this would be.

I have complained in this chamber on many occasions, and will continue to do so, about the significant lack of Provincial Court judges in this province. We know we are down by at least 17 judges in the province, if you accept even the most minimalist figures. At $1½ million per annum to fund a Provincial Court judge, approximately — including the court, the staff, sheriffs, all those necessary to support our justice system — the increase alone would more than cover the costs of four new appointments.

That is a significant number. It is a number that you cannot ignore. Moreover, I appreciate that the judges in a perfect world would receive the raise that has been recommended and should probably get it. But currently our courts in British Columbia pay, for Provincial Court judges, the second-highest after the province of Ontario. In the province of Ontario it's set at $248,057. That's above the national average, of course, as we are here in British Columbia, the national average being $214,360.

The subject of compensation will always be difficult, but there is a time when, in the circumstances that we are, it is hard to suggest that these recommendations are appropriate.

[1445]

There is some suggestion that it would be appropriate to get Provincial Court judges, without it being mentioned directly, up to approximately 90 percent of the level of Supreme Court judges. That would be a very significant figure.

The other thing is that from a taxpayers' perspective, one has to ask the question…. The judges are defeating themselves, in a sense, when I say this. The concept of compensation is often related to the quality of talent you wish to attract. That is a presumption. The more you pay, the greater the quality of the people who will seek the position.

The reality is…. Speaking as someone called to the bar in 1980 in this province, my observation, for what it's worth, is that the quality of the judiciary in this province at every level of the courts — but I think, most obviously and most particularly, at the Provincial Court level — has increased significantly.

You do not get some of the radical decisions or the less-tempered individuals that I experienced in my younger years. They don't get appointed anymore. We have a fairly good system, in my view, of appointing judges to the Provincial Court. I don't have to talk about the other levels of court, but certainly provincially we have a fairly good system. It requires a broad consultation with respected members of the bar and other professionals in the community.

The fact is that we have a good talent pool. I do not see a lot of Provincial Court judges retiring to go back into private practice. I certainly am not aware of — and if there was, I'm sure the Attorney General would have pointed it out to me already — any significant lack of applications for the Provincial Court judiciary.

I see the Attorney General nodding sagely as I am saying this, which confirms what many of us believe. Having been consulted from time to time myself or asked if I would be prepared to recommend or vouch for applicants, there are a significant number of very able lawyers in this province who are prepared to undertake the significant responsibilities of sitting on the Provincial Court bench.

At this time I think the government is essentially taking the correct course. I know the Attorney General may fall off his chair at those remarks, of course, but that is, I think, the fairest thing I can say. That is not to say, however, that the opposition is happy with the conduct of this government with respect to appointments to the bench in general, as I mentioned earlier.

[ Page 7546 ]

The reality is that we are facing a significant problem in the Provincial Court: a high demand for court time, an unusual number of cases — probably, by most estimates, in the range of 2,000 cases in the Provincial Court criminal division that may be tossed because of the Askov line of cases. Justice delayed is not just justice denied; it is justice dismissed. That is what will happen with these cases.

The concept that one has to wait months and months to have difficult family cases heard in Provincial Court is not a compliment to our system. It is not a situation that can continue. The fact that so many people continue to have to appear and in increasing numbers appear in Provincial Court unaided by the benefit of having an advocate, a lawyer, on their behalf is nothing other than a blemish on our system.

Having said that, many of the Provincial Court judges will no doubt argue that that is what makes their job difficult, which is why they would merit the compensation increase they are seeking. It is because they are having to deal so often with unrepresented litigants in small claims or family court and unrepresented accused in Provincial Court criminal division.

All of that makes the job difficult, but it is simply not the time. Although in the best of worlds we would be in a position to simply okay the commission's recommendations, that is not the case. I think it is most important, when you set up these kinds of commissions to make recommendations about salary, that wherever possible they be followed.

In this case the process is very clear. The government has had to respond and take a position on it. The opposition, very conscious of the importance of the work done by our Provincial Court bench, nevertheless has to reluctantly in these times and these circumstances agree with the motion brought forward by the Attorney General, and the opposition will be supporting it accordingly.

[1450]

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, the member for Burnaby North seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Lee: Madam Speaker, joining us in the House today — actually, right now in the gallery — are 56 members of the Lee's Association of Vancouver, led by chair Maurice Lee. Lee is the most common Chinese surname and probably one of the most used in the world. The Lee's Association of Vancouver was established 81 years ago to serve the community. Would the House please join me to give our guests a very warm welcome.

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. B. Penner: I appreciate the comments from the opposition Attorney General critic. At this point, I would move Motion 9.

Motion approved.

MOTION 10 — GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

TO JUDICIAL JUSTICES COMPENSATION

COMMISSION REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

Hon. B. Penner: I move Motion 10 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[That pursuant to

section 6(2) of the Judicial Compensation Act the Legislative Assembly reject six out of the ten recommendations of the Report and Recommendations of the 2010 British Columbia Judicial Justices Compensation Commission as laid before this Assembly on May 3, 2011, as unfair and unreasonable for the reasons outlined in Government Response to the Report of the 2010 Judicial Justices Compensation Commission filed in this House today:

1. The recommended salary increase for full-time JJPs for April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014 of 8% is rejected as unreasonable and unfair. The salary increase for April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014 is set at zero.

2. The recommendation amending the compensation formula for per diem JJPs is rejected. The compensation formula for per diem JJPs will remain unchanged.

3. The recommendation that the compensation formula for per diem JJPs should be applied equally to ad hoc JJPs is rejected. The compensation formula for ad hoc JJPs will remain unchanged.

4. The recommended increase in the professional development allowance from $1,000 to $1,500 effective April 1, 2011 is rejected. The allowance will remain at $1,000.

5. The recommended extension of the professional development allowance to per diem and ad hoc JJPs is rejected as unfair and unreasonable. The allowance will continue to be available to full-time JJPs only.

6. The recommendation to enrol full-time JJPs in the flexible benefits program, effective April 1, 2011 is rejected but in substitution full-time JJPs will be enrolled in the flexible benefits program commencing April 1, 2013.

That the Legislative Assembly accepts the remaining recommendations contained in the report.]

Madam Speaker, much of the same reasoning applies to the government's response to the Judicial Justices Compensation Commission, as was just articulated in response to Motion 9, so many of those comments apply, particularly with respect to the fiscal environment faced by the government.

If all the Judicial Justices Commission recommendations are accepted, the three-year total cost to government would be about $448,000. Again, government has a difficult balancing act to do. The men and women who serve as judicial justices of the peace perform an invaluable role, but our response to compensation and benefit increases is shaped by

[ Page 7547 ]

the broader fiscal challenges that government is currently facing.

Further details are laid out in the documents supporting Motion 10 that I filed last week.

L. Krog: In response to this motion, I can indicate quite clearly that the opposition is, likewise, supporting it. I would be remiss, though, if I didn't make some comment about some of the changes the government has made with respect to judicial justices of the peace.

In a more complex world, it is now recognized, essentially, that you don't get to any position unless you have the formal training and qualification. And it struck me, of course, that someone like one of the most distinguished of British Columbians, the late Roderick Haig-Brown, would never be appointed a justice of peace as he was, because he lacked that formal legal training.

That aside, that is a decision that government has made in the last while, so we now are in a position where the individuals who are JPs, as they're commonly called, are in fact lawyers, legally trained, by and large, obviously; able to do their job; familiar with some of the complexities of the law — even at the less stressful level, if you will, of work that they are required to undertake, keeping in mind, of course, that their hours are not necessarily the hours that one would want to keep. It's not a nine-to-five job, as the Attorney General well knows.

Nevertheless, my comments with respect to the judiciary and the Provincial Court judges apply here as well. It is difficult in circumstances where others are being asked to receive no increase or, indeed, face a lack of employment or dismissal. It is hard to argue that others who are in a position — notwithstanding how important it is in the community — that many of us would like to be in…. It is hard to advocate for an increase for them at the present time.

That's not to say that that may not happen. We are not talking about a lot of money overall, according to the Attorney General — less than a half-million dollars. Easy for me to say; not easy for the average person of the public to hear it. But it wouldn't even be a rounding error in the Ministry of Attorney General's overall budget, in fairness.

Nevertheless, the recommended increase of 8 percent is just too substantial to face. That increase in real dollar terms is roughly, I gather, about $8,000, properly speaking, I believe, if you're looking at a JP earning roughly $91,000 or a hundred thousand dollars a year. Again, that's a significant amount of money for the average British Columbian. Notwithstanding the valuable and important work they do in our system, it is only appropriate, I think, that the government receive the support of the opposition, again, with respect to Motion 10.

[1455]

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, the member for Surrey-Newton seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

H. Bains: In the vicinity we have 25 grade 10 students from Ecole Gabrielle-Roy School, along with Ms. Samantha Marshall, and there are five parents along with them. Please help me welcome them to this beautiful House.

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. B. Penner: I move Motion 10.

Motion approved.

Hon. I. Chong: Now I'll call Motion 11.

MOTION 11 — GOVERNMENT CHANGES

TO HARMONIZED SALES TAX

Hon. K. Falcon: It's my pleasure to rise in the House this afternoon in support of the motion I tabled late last week, a motion that through legislative intent confirms the intention of this government to move forward with a series of improvements to the HST on a

schedule that I will talk about in a little more detail in a moment.

[That the Legislative Assembly authorizes and directs that the Minister of Finance must act as follows:

(

a) In relation to the Comprehensive Integrated Tax Coordination Agreement entered into between British Columbia and Canada on November 30, 2009, further amended on March 2, 2010, to authorize Canada to introduce a Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) in British Columbia effective July 1, 2010, of which the provincial portion of that rate is 7%, the Minister of Finance must:

(A) 6% effective July 1, 2012; and

(B) 5% effective July 1, 2014.

(

b) If the Chief Electoral Officer announces that the result of the Harmonized Sales Tax referendum is that more than 50% of the validly cast ballots vote “No” on the question, the Minister of Finance must do the following:

(

i) introduce by the end of the 2011 calendar year, or as soon as possible thereafter, measures in cooperation

[ Page 7548 ]

(A) $175.00 for each child under the age of 18 years;

(B) $175.00 for each single senior person with an annual income up to $40,000.00, the benefit being gradually phased out at annual incomes over $40,000.00; and

(C) $350.00 for each senior couple with an annual family income up to $40,000.00, the benefit being gradually phased out at annual incomes over $40,000.00.

The Minister of Finance shall use existing appropriations within Budget 2011 to finance such transition payments in

section (b)(i)(A),(

B) and (C).

(ii) Prepare and introduce to the Legislative Assembly for approval, a bill to amend the Income Tax Act that would increase the provincial corporation income tax rate to 12%, from 10%, effective January 1, 2012.

(iii) Delay the introduction of the planned change referred to in the 2011 Budget speech to reduce the small business income tax rate from 2.5% to 0% on April 1, 2012.]

This comes about as a result of the fact that next month British Columbians will be voting on what may be the biggest public policy decision they have ever been directly involved in. Of course, I'm talking about the harmonized sales tax, which I, along with many others, continue to believe is absolutely sound fiscal and tax policy and the right direction for our province, for our future and our children's future.

A lot has changed over the last few months. We have a new Premier in British Columbia — one who recognizes that families are at the very core of our communities and, indeed, at the very core of our province.

We both agreed when we engaged in initial discussions about HST that we needed a new approach with the HST, a new approach that starts with, first of all, listening to the public, listening to families on how we can improve the HST — again, a public policy that we believe is a very sound tax policy for this province. And two, and perhaps just as importantly, is making sure that we get independent facts, real facts, out to the public so that the public can make an informed decision when they vote with respect to the HST on the referendum that will be forthcoming.

Now, this started, of course, with the appointment of an independent panel — a panel that was chaired by Jim Dinning, a former treasurer of the Alberta government. It included such luminaries as Tracy Redies, the CEO of Coast Capital, one of the largest credit unions in the country.

I had included a former Auditor General of B.C., George Morfitt, who served a couple of terms as a very highly regarded Auditor General in B.C. It included a public policy professional from Simon Fraser University and former NDP MLA, as it happens, who also provided some very important advice into this.

The report was widely applauded, even by critics, as a result of its even-handedness. It was an unbiased, plain-spoken and clearly written account of the HST. I called it sort of the good, the bad and the indifferent, with respect to the HST.

Of course, while it commented on many of the positive aspects of the HST — the international trend moving towards what are called value-added taxes or harmonized sales taxes and why countries around the world are doing that and why a majority of the provinces, representing 80 percent of the population, have done that here in Canada — it also talked about one of the key downsides, if you will, with respect to the HST. And that was that the HST was costing the average family, on average, about $350 more per year.

So one of the things that we agreed we would do moving forward, as I mentioned, is engage in, under the direction of the Premier, the largest public listening exercise that any government, I would argue, has ever engaged in, in the history of the province of British Columbia.

It included the usual sort of form of public engagement — countless meetings with stakeholder groups — and that's to be expected. And it included, of course, an on-line survey with over 5,000 British Columbians taking part. But what is really unique about this listening exercise is that for the first time in the history of our province, it engaged technology in a way it has never been used before. It engaged technology through the telephone town halls.

[1500]

I hear a little bit of piping up coming from the NDP opposition leader, apparently uncomfortable with the use of this new technology. But I can tell you as Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier, it was remarkable — the result of utilization of that technology.

We, along with my colleagues the MLA for Peace River South and the MLA for Prince George–Mackenzie, listened to over 275,000 British Columbians and answered their questions in a series of almost one dozen telephone town halls in every part of the province. But what was really interesting to me is that of all the households we contacted, it was absolutely common that we would have anywhere from two-thirds to three-quarters of the individuals who picked up their phones staying on the telephone line for up to an average of 17 minutes to listen in and participate in an issue of major tax policy, being the HST.

We heard two things coming out of that loud and clear. The first is getting information, factual information out to the public. And why was that important? Because one of the things that the on-line surveys certainly showed us is that even today there is still an enormous amount of misinformation with respect to the HST.

I'll give you some examples from the on-line survey. Some 61 percent of those surveyed, for example, think that basic groceries have gone up under the HST, when there has been absolutely no change to basic groceries. Half think that gas prices have gone up due to the HST,

[ Page 7549 ]

when in fact we're spending about $270 million a year to ensure that the tax component of HST had no impact on gasoline and on filling your car.

Forty-eight percent of people thought electronics increased after the HST. In fact, it's exactly the same as it was under the PST and GST, remembering, of course, that we had a 7 percent PST and a 5 percent GST. Thirty-four percent of people thought that prescription drug prices had increased. Not true. Exactly the same as it was under the PST and GST.

And 36 percent of people thought that the resale of homes had increased, and one in four thought that new homes less than $525,000 had increased. Not true on all counts. The resale of homes, whether family homes or condominiums, has absolutely no HST associated with them. New homes, of course, have no change up to $525,000, and there is only an additional cost beyond the $525,000 threshold.

So that was very important to us. As the Minister of Finance, I can tell you that making sure the public has the facts before they make a decision like this is important to me. It's also important to me on the rebate side, because there are 1.1 million lower-income British Columbians that are receiving HST rebates, which are rebates from the province, who were not receiving those rebates prior to the HST back in the GST plus PST days.

I use the example regularly of the single mom from Kamloops earning $24,000 a year with three kids, and that single mom got absolutely zero in terms of rebates under the old PST-GST model. But under the HST, she is entitled to a full $230 not just for herself but for every single one of her children under 18. That is $920 more per year to help deal with the harmonization and the introduction of the HST.

I believe that single mom in Kamloops or Prince George or the Downtown Eastside, or wherever she may be, needs to know that when she's making a vote, she's making an informed vote to understand and know that we won't have to have people coming to us after the fact, after the vote, and saying to me: "Minister of Finance, why didn't you tell me that I would be losing those kinds of rebates as a result of voting to get rid of the HST?"

That is an obligation that I take very seriously, and I would have hoped that the opposition, which that often pretends they're on the side of lower-income folks, would also have stood up to make sure that information is being shared with those groups. Unfortunately, that is not happening.

As a government, the other thing we did is listen to what the public told us on those telephone town halls, and we responded. Last week, on May 25, we committed to march the HST rate down to 10 percent in two stages.

[1505]

We did this in two stages because we wanted to make sure we could do it in a fiscally responsible way, in a way that allowed us to meet and continue to meet our balanced-budget targets. That is something that's required by law, a law that we introduced and we're proud of, and something that maintains the confidence of the investment community and the rating agencies.

We also wanted to mirror how the federal government marched their rate down on the GST from 7 to 5 percent. They did it over three years, and we're mirroring the same approach in our approach. So the first 1 percent cut would kick in on July 1 of next year, and that would drop the HST to 11 percent in British Columbia. The second 1 percent would come off on July 1, 2014, for a full 2 percent reduction, or a flat 10 percent HST in British Columbia.

To bridge and transition families and modest- and low-income seniors to that first rate cut that will take place on July 1 of next year, we will provide transition cheques of $175 per child for all families in the province of British Columbia. For a typical family with two children, that's $350 that will be provided to transition and bridge them to that first rate cut on July 1 of next year. The same goes for low- and modest-income seniors. Those that are earning under $40,000 a year will also receive $175 transition cheques to again bridge them to that first rate cut on July 1 next year.

That's important because, as the independent panel noted, even with a 1 percent rate cut, the majority of families are now better off under an 11 percent HST than they are under a 12 percent PST plus GST. Even more important, under a fully implemented 10 percent HST every family — regardless of income, from the lowest to the highest — comes out a net beneficiary, to the tune of about $120 a year to the good, as a result of a 10 percent HST, not the 12 percent PST plus GST that the opposition and some others are pushing.

We are also, in response to what we heard from the public, rebalancing the equation — rebalancing the equation in recognition that the HST is a significant benefit to the small business and large business communities. We've certainly heard that loud and clear from the business sector — how supportive they are.

But we wanted to make sure that we rebalanced the equation so that we could continue to meet our balanced-budget objectives and ensure that we retain the triple-A credit rating that we fought hard to rebuild after a decade of NDP government that saw it knocked down on multiple occasions and saw a decade in the 1990s where we had eight out of ten budgets running fiscal deficits. That is certainly not an era that we want to go back to.

We believe that the increase of the general corporate tax rate from 10 to 12 percent, though certainly not something we would ever be generally happy with supporting, is a modest rebalancing that enjoys the support of the business community for the reasons that I've enumerated earlier — the fact that they on balance

[ Page 7550 ]

receive a significant benefit as a result of harmonizing the HST.

Perspective here, of course, is important, because when I first got elected in 2001 along with our government and we formed government for the first time, we inherited a general corporate tax rate from the opposition NDP that was at 16½ percent. Over the years we have marched that rate down to 10 percent, with our friends opposite voting against every one of those reductions, to the point where today we do have a 10 percent general corporate tax rate — one of the lowest in the country.

Importantly, the increase that we are putting through on July 1 of next year is timed to come into effect at the same time the federal government is reducing its share of the general corporate tax rate by 1½ percent, which means that the net change for B.C. businesses will be a half-percent increase — something that the business community has widely advised me is certainly manageable from their point of view.

But the small business tax rate is important too. You know, small business, as frankly both sides of the House are fond of pointing out, is the engine of our economy. Our small business approach in British Columbia is that we want to see our small businesses become large businesses.

Again, when I got elected in 2001…. In fact, in the late '90s while the Leader of the Opposition was actually the chief of staff to the government, British Columbia had an almost 9 percent small business tax rate. That rate today in British Columbia is 2½ percent, the third-lowest in the country.

More importantly, we said that we want to make sure that the threshold for what defines a small business is changed. Again, in 2001 the threshold was that only companies that had income up to $200,000 could qualify for that lower small business tax rate. We increased that to $500,000 so that in British Columbia a company earning up to $500,000 is considered a small business and will benefit from the third-lowest rate in the country.

[1510]

Our commitment going forward is that we will make no change in the small business rate. We will not continue with the planned further reduction we were going to do on April 1 of next year to reduce that rate to zero. Again, we are going to make sure that we balance our budget in 2013-14 as we've committed to do and that we do that in a responsible way.

As I discussed earlier, the independent panel pointed out what the impact on average families was, but they also pointed out — and we've also pointed out — that every family at every income level is better off under a 10 percent HST than they are under 12 percent PST plus GST. What you'll hear from the opposition and what I hear during question period every day is that they'll sort of scour the landscape looking for examples of where someone isn't better off. So they'll talk about someone that needs to get their roof replaced.

Well, I acknowledge there are times when you're getting your roof replaced, and we should acknowledge that under HST, even at 10 percent, that will have an additional cost for families. That's something we should be very upfront about. But what they often forget to talk about is where families benefit from a 10 percent HST. All clothing is now going to be cheaper — not 12, but 10 percent. All electronics — the iPads, iPods, whatever folks are buying, big-screen TVs — will now be 10 percent, not 12 percent. Clothing — sorry, I mentioned clothing. Furniture will be 10 percent, not 12 percent.

More interestingly, buying new and used cars. If you're buying….

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: I appear to have the attention of the member for Yale-Lillooet. He should listen to this, because I can tell you in rural B.C. where they're buying pickup trucks…. Under the NDP, they introduced what they called the luxury tax of 3 percent. Every vehicle being sold over $30,000 was considered a luxury in the NDP world. When we got elected, we moved that up to $55,000 because we felt it's not a luxury to be paying $30,000 for a new car. So we moved it up to $55,000.

Under 12 percent HST, the luxury tax is gone. Under a 10 percent HST, if you're paying $60,000 to $65,000 for a new vehicle, you're paying 10 percent instead of 15 percent under the PST-GST luxury tax option that the NDP want to go back to. That is a saving of over several thousand dollars for families. That is an example you can look for on the benefit side.

I acknowledge that you can give examples. I know a cup of coffee will increase by 20 cents or so. I know that a fast-food meal will go up perhaps 80 cents on a typical $8 meal even under a 10 percent HST, but there are significant benefits — $1.7 billion worth of benefits every year to families in lower prices as a result of a 10 percent HST, instead of going back to a 12 percent PST-GST.

It is important — you hear a little bit of laughing on the other side — to understand the totality now of the NDP agenda as we understand it for our small business community. One, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out when he was running for leadership of his party, he wants to roll back all the business tax rates to 2008 levels. So let's recap what that means. That means an 80 percent increase in the small business tax rate. Two, it means an increase in the general corporate tax rate to 12 percent. I'll give him a pass on that because we're doing the same thing, as I pointed out.

Thirdly, he wants to bring back the corporate capital tax. If anyone can remember that, that was the biggest red flag to investors in the 1990s when they brought that

[ Page 7551 ]

in. It scares away capital faster than almost any other tax change you can talk about. It's such a bad tax that the federal government actually provided transition dollars to provinces like British Columbia and Ontario and others to move and get rid of that job-killer tax called the corporate capital tax.

The final piece of the HST — I called it a trifecta of economic damage. But it's actually a quadfecta, now that I think about it. It's to go back to a PST-GST at 12 percent and hammer the small business and large business sector in British Columbia. The one huge benefit of HST is that all those input tax costs, all that invisible PST that they are paying — whether it's on purchasing vehicles, repairing vehicles, their legal bills, their heating, their electricity charges or whatever it is…. All of those invisible PST costs which were passed on to their customers in the form of higher prices are now gone. They're gone.

If you accept that business probably passes on additional costs to consumers, I guess you've got to accept the argument that when they get a benefit, they're probably passing on savings to consumers too. That's really one of the significant benefits.

[1515]

As I start to come towards the end of my remarks, I want to recap some — what I call — uncomfortable NDP facts with respect to the debate over HST at 10 percent or going back to a 12 percent GST plus PST, and that is this. Employment has increased 1½ percent in the period since the HST's introduction compared to the same period prior to its introduction. That's the job creation that they keep laughing at, but it's actually important to families to know that job growth is going to happen.

Second uncomfortable NDP fact. Housing starts have grown 11.9 percent since the introduction of the HST when compared with the same period prior to the HST. This gives B.C. the second-fastest-growing housing starts out of the ten provinces. I say that because I know we're probably going to hear how apparently the housing industry has been devastated.

Table A3 in the 2011 budget. I keep recommending the members opposite look at it. They keep forgetting to. But I'll remind them that it summarizes all taxes paid in British Columbia, whether it's personal income tax, child benefits, property taxes, consumption taxes, MSP premiums. British Columbians are still ranked second-lowest overall tax rate in the country, right behind Alberta.

British Columbians are still well ahead of where they were when that Leader of the Opposition was actually chief of staff under the NDP government of Glen Clark in the 1990s. I'll give some examples. I like examples.

A senior couple earning $30,000 in 2001, in the last year of the NDP government, paid $3,391 in total taxes, under the burden that I just mentioned — the total tax burden. In 2011, under our B.C. Liberal government, that same senior couple earning $30,000 is now paying $2,417, a 29 percent reduction — almost $1,000. A family of four earning $30,000 — again, low-income family of four, earning $30,000 — paid $3,739 under the previous NDP government. Today, under a B.C. Liberal government, $2,087 — a 44 percent reduction. On and on I could go.

I do think that in a debate like this it's probably better to listen to the job creators of our province, and I want to quote from some of them. Mark Startup, the president of the largest representative of retail outlets in the province, Shelfspace B.C. Here's what he says about his members, retailers across the province: "They liked harmonization. They like the simplicity. It saves them time and money. All of those attributes of the HST we heard about actually play out for the retail community.

So what happens this week is that the acceptance of the retail community of HST gets even broader as a result of bringing the rate down to 10 percent by 2014." By the way, that's 93 percent support among Shelfspace B.C. members at a 10 percent rate.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the voice of small business across the province. Here's the quote from Laura Jones, who is their vice-president for western Canada. "'I think it's good news, and we can live with this,' said Laura Jones, the vice-president for western Canada. 'I think it will sell the HST, and that's good news for consumers, business and good news for the province.'" That was in the Times Colonist on May 26, 2011.

B.C. Cattlemen's Association, the ranchers of our province: "We've noticed that under the new system our accounting is easier, and we're eligible to apply for a refund on all of the items we use on the ranch. Under the former PST-GST system, agriculture businesses were exempt from PST only on tax items that were on an approved list. The old PST list didn't include everything that ranchers need to conduct business. Even some types of farm tractors weren't eligible for exemption." That's Kevin Boon, the B.C. Cattlemen's Association general manager.

On and on I could go. Forest industry, mining sector and on and on it goes. Why does the business community, large and small, say this? Because under the NDP's preferred approach of going back to a 12 percent PST plus GST, if you've ever run a business, as I have, you have to understand the joy people have to go through in doing the paperwork associated with the PST, then the paperwork associated with the GST, then dealing with tax auditors from the PST and the GST departments. To go back to the NDP's preferred approach, we're going to have to do some changes — not just go back to a higher rate, but we're going to have to spend about $25 million hiring back and equipping a new PST office.

[1520]

We're going to have to rehire 300 tax auditors in the province at a cost of $35 million a year so that we can

[ Page 7552 ]

then reimpose all that great joy that small business enjoys when they're having to deal with the paperwork and auditors from a PST and a GST system, and again we're going to have to do it at a higher 12 percent rate.

Madam Chair, I can tell you that everything I heard from families across British Columbia in the telephone town halls that I participated in and the meetings that we have held was very clear. They want government to lighten the tax burden on British Columbians.

It's why we have marched down the personal income tax rate by 37 percent — a 37 percent reduction since 2001. Those members opposite voted against each and every one of those reductions.

It's why we took the general corporate tax rate from 16½ to 10. It's why we took the small business tax rate from 4½ to 2½. It's why we have constantly tried to reduce the regulatory burden by over 40 percent for small business in the province of British Columbia — to ensure that we have an economy that is saying to small business: "We want you to invest; we want you to grow; we want you to hire; we want you to have every best possible opportunity when competing with the other 80 percent of Canadians that are operating under an HST but also, more importantly, with the 140 countries around the world that are competing with a value-added tax which is identical to the harmonized sales tax."

There's a reason why there are 140 jurisdictions around the world that utilize an HST or a value-added tax. It's because it is more sensible. There's a reason why 140 jurisdictions…. Not one of them has gone back to the NDP's preferred approach and reintroduced or introduced a retail sales tax like the PST in the last 35 years.

There's a reason: because they make no sense. The last jurisdiction that did it in 1975, Barbados, got rid of it a year later because it made no sense for Barbados. It makes no sense for modern jurisdictions, for modern taxation policy, for economies that want to see their economies grow.

Finally, I will say this. I will talk for a moment about the restaurant sector. I have been inundated in the last number of days with calls from members of the restaurant sector that are huge supporters of the HST. I know that the NDP opposite will talk about the lobbyist organization for the restaurant association.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Minister.

Members, I need to be able to hear the speaker.

Hon. K. Falcon: I know that they will bring forward the voice, as they should. I have no problem with the lobbyist association for the restaurant industry.

But Madam Chair, I want you to know this. Whether it's small family businesses; whether it's chains like Cactus Club, the Keg; whether it's high-end restaurants like Gotham or Shore Club or others, I have heard from restaurant owners across the province that have talked about how it is a benefit when they have a growing economy and growing jobs that are going to be able to give people the opportunity to go and take part and shop in the restaurants and buy food.

I can tell you this. They get how important it is. When you put $1.7 billion in purchasing power back in the pockets of British Columbians every single year with a 10 percent HST, that is $1.7 billion that finds its way back into the restaurant sector, into the retail industry, into small business, big business in every part of the province.

I will say this too. When you invest $200 million in transition cheques to families with children, to low- and modest-income seniors earning under $40,000, that $200 million finds a way back into the restaurant sector, back into the fast-food restaurants, back into the casual-dining restaurants, back into the high-end restaurants. That is good for the restaurant sector, and that is good for the economy of British Columbia.

Let me conclude by saying this. We have listened to the public. We have responded to what we heard from the public. The public asked us to improve the HST, and that is exactly what we've done. In about two weeks….

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: Apparently, the NDP opposite is concerned about the fact that we've listened to the public and have responded to what we heard from the public. I can understand the discomfort of going out there and saying: "We must go back to a more inefficient, higher 12 percent GST plus PST." I can certainly understand that discomfort.

[1525]

But I can tell you this. I'm sorry that they are uncomfortable with that, but that's what we heard from the public, and that's what we're responding with — a sensible, responsible, fiscally prudent plan that marches HST down to 10 percent and ensures that in British Columbia we are going to have a growing, confident, small business and large business economy that generates jobs and incomes for families in this province and ensures that as we go forward, British Columbians will have a modern, efficient taxation policy.

That's what we are putting forward to the public of British Columbia. That's what we are comfortable having the public of British Columbia choose between — a 10 percent improved HST with transition cheques to families with kids, with transition cheques to low- and moderate-income seniors, or we can go backwards to an NDP plan of a 12 percent PST plus GST, one of most inefficient tax regimes possible.

I will allow and I will be confident that the public, fully informed, will make the right decision for the future of the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 7553 ]

A. Dix: Well, the bluster there indicates the desperation of the government. The Minister of Finance — who for eight years was part of a government that opposed the HST, that days before the election told people in British Columbia in writing that they weren't going to introduce the HST — just says: "Trust me. Believe me now."

Interjection.

A. Dix: Of course he does.

He says it's the worst thing that ever happened. It was their policy for eight years. It was the previous Premier's policy for 15 years. They misled people, and everybody knows it.

Then, completely contrary to what they're saying now, in the fall of 2009, the spring of 2010 they said it brings in the same amount of money as the PST.

It's a transfer of $1.9 billion. Well, there they were. They sent out correspondence to people. Even the former Minister of Labour, the parliamentary secretary for something…. Even he was part of a government that sent letters out to people saying: "Oh, this is revenue-neutral. Don't worry about this. This is revenue-neutral." Then it wasn't.

Relevant to this motion, in the spring of 2010 they brought in a budget in this House that said every penny of the HST was required to pay for health care. It's the law of the province. They passed it. They said every penny was going to health care.

No more. That was a dead letter virtually the minute they put it out. Now, if you assume that every penny goes to health care, $1.7 billion less to health care as a result of this motion.

Interjections.

A. Dix: Here they go again. I hear the Minister of Finance yelling out, who said that his controlled telephone town halls were the biggest consultation in history, where he gets to select the questions and the answer.

He calls people up in British Columbia, and he says: "Oh, you're going to pay for this." You pay for the call. The Minister of Finance calls you up; you've got to pay for the call.

He says that this is the biggest consultation in history. Of course it's not. One other consultation was bigger — the 700,000 people in British Columbia who signed petitions against the HST.

Then we had the new Premier. The new Premier said…. Well, what did she say? She said that playing around with this process, promising a rate cut…. And let's face it: nothing the government says on the HST can be believed. Nothing that they say can be believed. But she said in March that playing around with this process by promising, before a referendum, a rate cut would be equivalent to buying votes. She wasn't going to do it.

Then we have this spectacle in the House this week, where the government, desperate to win a referendum, desperate to bring forward a policy that the people of British Columbia oppose, is playing these games again.

[1530]

Well, actually, the people of B.C. are not buying it. They will vote that way in the referendum.

Interjections.

A. Dix: Oh, the minister talks about the polls. Well, I'm looking forward to it. I'm looking forward to the debate on the HST. I'm looking forward to this debate.

On every occasion, the government has misled British Columbians. In the spring of 2009, in the fall…. And nobody believes them now.

It's a motion to deny British Columbians something they worked hard to get: the opportunity to decide themselves on the fate of the HST.

The HST hurts services that didn't pay PST previously. It hurts those industries. It removes from the economy hundreds of millions of dollars that families would be spending on everything from clothes to dinners out to home renovations. According to the government's own report — their own report — it's $1.3 billion from families in the current fiscal year, $1.3 billion from families in the next fiscal year. It's $2.6 billion they've taken out of the pockets of families.

We have to hear the Minister of Finance talk about how people will have more money to spend in restaurants. They've taken money out of people's pockets. It leaves a massive hole in the budget which they are pretending to fill, using every dime from contingency reserves and forecast allowances.

If the B.C. Liberals are re-elected — and let's face it; this is not a likely prospect — you can imagine what they'll do to fill the budget hole. It's what they've been doing for years: increasing MSP premiums — that's what they've been doing — increasing hydro rates, increasing ICBC rates. That's their approach to public policy, and they will be driven to do it over the next few years by the decision we are making today.

From the beginning of this mess we were told things that weren't so. Now the chickens have come home to roost, and we get this last act of desperation from the government. The bottom line is this. We can't trust a word the B.C. Liberals say on this issue.

A month ago we talked about what the Premier said two months ago — that she would never do what we're debating in the House today. She wouldn't do that because it would be like buying votes. What did she say at the same time? She said that the referendum campaign would be conducted like a provincial election.

Well, in a provincial election the government can't use public funds to mislead the voters with their own

[ Page 7554 ]

money, as the government is doing with TV ads. In a provincial election people have to declare their contribution to the process. In a provincial election there are limits on both sides to ensure fairness. Broken promise No. 2 from the Premier. She hasn't been there on this issue very, very long.

What else? She didn't stop there. She said: "When it comes to the HST, the public wants straight answers from the government, not a position that shifts without warning. This is the kind of doubletalk that led to the breakdown in public trust…government must have to be successful." It's more than ironic that the most devastating arguments against this motion and against this HST are provided by the Premier herself.

We know and the government members know why the HST plan could not have been revealed before the 2009 election. People already had enough of the regressive tax-shift program of the B.C. Liberals. Even the Premier has called the B.C. Liberal assault on the truth in that election campaign sneaky — sneaky but also very unfair to the families who are now faced with the burden of the HST.

Every opportunity to avoid, to delay, to obscure, to mislead the real issues has been brought forward in this campaign on the HST, in this government effort on the HST. The massive tax shift, the reduction in purchasing power that hurts local business and the cuts to vital services that will follow the next big budget hole — on all of these counts, the families claimed by the new Premier as her chief concern will in fact be her chief targets. What the HST is about is making families pay more and get less.

[1535]

Here's what the government has told us about the HST. It saves business, big business, $1.9 billion a year. That's what it's all about — another tax shift on the part of the government.

Surely the government, the ministers in this House have the obligation when they're talking to the public to tell the truth about what's going on. Even the $650 million in "proposed temporary corporate tax increases…." This is just too much fun for words, what they said about these things before, when I proposed them. They called them 18th century socialism. But now that risk is the biggest tax shift in history — a tax shift onto families and away from big business. They're doing everything they can to save it, and now even this is in play.

What else did they do? What else are they doing? They're increasing taxes on small businesses. That's what they're doing. They're not going ahead with increases on small businesses the minister talked about earlier. The minister talked earlier about proposals that he suggests we have. Of course, he wasn't accurately reflecting those proposals outside the House. I could say directly what he was doing, but I will say this. We — myself and the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant — met with a group of small businesses yesterday, and small businesses again are getting the short end of the stick.

If you are a restaurant and you have been punished by the HST, and they have…. According to the Restaurant Association, if you lost 15 percent of your business because of the HST — and they have — now as a small business, in addition to that, as a restaurant you are effectively getting a small business tax hike from the government. This is a double whammy that's bad for the economy.

What do we have, in short? The continuation of a common thread under the B.C. Liberal government — a tax shift onto families that continues every day. On January 1 of this year there was an increase in MSP fees and an increase in long-term care fees. MSP premiums, long-term care fees — 18 percent over three years in MSP increases after a 50 percent increase before.

On that same day the same businesses that have benefited, according to the government, to the tune of $1.9 billion as a result of the HST and the same families who have paid the price for $1.3 billion as a result of the HST…. What happened on January 1? The government did it again. They cut taxes for business. They cut taxes for big business, and they increased MSP premiums for families.

This is a common thread that has gone through ten years. The minister says: "Trust us." That's what he says. He says: "Trust us." I heard him on CKNW this weekend. He was phoned by someone, and someone said: "Why would I possibly trust anything you have to say about the HST?" You know what the minister responded? He said: "Well, take a look at our fiscal record." The fiscal record is the cause of where we are now.

So $495 million — that's what the Minister of Finance said that the budget deficit was, and not a penny more. That's what the Premier said. That's what all the Liberal MLAs said the deficit was prior to the last provincial election. It was the most massive mistake in the history of budget-making in British Columbia. That's why they brought in the HST — to cover up that mistake. So when we hear this from a government that has failed us so utterly on these issues and then we find out that in the bargain, families will have to pay more again but get less….

That's why we've raised the issues we have in this session. That's why we've raised the issue of the suffering of patients because of Liberal orthotics policies. That's why too many rural communities have lost their schools. That's why the working families of the Tri-Cities are still waiting for the Evergreen line.

[1540]

They pay more, but they get less. This motion drives that Liberal policy further and inflicts more financial pain on B.C. families, and again, the truth will not be redressed by the Premier of British Columbia or the Minister of Finance or any other Liberal. This has been a

[ Page 7555 ]

ten-year project. The rich have got richer, the poor have got poorer, and the middle class has been squeezed, as has small business.

This is fundamentally what the HST is all about. It moves $2 billion annually from household budgets, from individual pocketbooks, from their earnings to the business sector. This is after ten years of the action we've been talking about, when British Columbia has suffered the lowest rate of economic growth under any government in my lifetime, a lower rate of job creation than the 1990s, a government that inherited a balanced budget and that has run a deficit over ten years — over ten years, hon. Speaker.

This is their sad record, and we are getting more now. The people of British Columbia want change. That's why they signed petitions against the HST, and that's why they're going to oppose the