2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, April 12, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 13, Number 7

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Statements

Condolences for victims of Polish airplane accident

Hon. G. Campbell

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Chester Johnson

Hon. G. Campbell

Statements

Condolences for victims of Polish airplane accident

C. James

Introductions by Members

Tributes

B.C. elementary schools table tennis championships

R. Lee

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Terry Fox

D. Horne

Vaisakhi parade and celebrations

H. Bains

G.P. Vanier Secondary School improv theatre championship win

D. McRae

National Environmental Education Week

R. Fleming

Telestroke program at Chilliwack General Hospital

J. Les

Turban-tying competition in Surrey

S. Hammell

Tabling Documents

Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on Recommendations for Legislative Change

Oral Questions

Role of T. Richard Turner in B.C. Place roof project

C. James

Hon. G. Campbell

Hon. K. Krueger

S. Chandra Herbert

B. Ralston

N. Macdonald

J. Kwan

B.C. Liberal Party fundraising with independent power producers

J. Horgan

Hon. B. Lekstrom

R. Fleming

Funding for farmworker safety programs

R. Chouhan

Hon. M. Coell

School district funding and staffing levels

R. Austin

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Status of therapeutics initiative

A. Dix

Hon. K. Falcon

Petitions

M. Sather

N. Macdonald

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

B. Routley

J. McIntyre

D. Routley

D. Horne

D. Thorne

Hon. R. Hawes

N. Simons

Hon. P. Bell

C. Trevena

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (continued)

Hon. S. Thomson

K. Corrigan

L. Popham

B. Simpson

V. Huntington

D. Donaldson

R. Chouhan

J. Brar

H. Bains

M. Sather

[ Page 4105 ]

MONDAY, APRIL 12, 2010

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Statements

CONDOLENCES FOR VICTIMS

OF POLISH AIRPLANE ACCIDENT

Hon. G. Campbell: On behalf of all British Columbians, I'd like to express our condolences to the people of Poland for the tragic losses they suffered in this weekend's plane crash in Russia. The terrible crash killed 96, including Poland's President, Lech Kaczynski. Those who perished in the crash included top government aides and lawmakers, military personnel, religious representatives, national historic figures and many more. The plane was travelling to Katyn to make the 70th anniversary of the horrific 1940 massacre of Polish officials during World War II.

British Columbians of Polish descent are in mourning today, and I know that this Legislature would like to send out our prayers and best wishes to all of them. I ask all British Columbians to think of them in their hearts and prayers as well. This is a difficult time for the Polish people, and I'd like them to know that they have the support of British Columbia's Legislature — all of us here — and the people of British Columbia as they work to overcome this incredible tragedy that's taken place at the heart of their nation.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I am also pleased today to stand here and welcome back to the precinct the current CKNW radio host Christy Clark, a former member of this Legislature, a former Minister of Education. She's joining us here in Victoria to help promote Pink Shirt Day, an important day to raise awareness of bullying and to help remove it from our society.

This Pink Shirt Day is on April 14, and I know we'll all be participating. We all have an important part to play to ensure that bullying stops here in our lives, in our institutions and in our communities. I look forward to seeing all of our MLAs in their pink shirts. I thank Ms. Clark for helping raise awareness of this issue, and I ask the House to please make her welcome.

Tributes

CHESTER JOHNSON

Hon. G. Campbell: Finally, it is with sadness and regret that I rise to inform the House of the passing of a great British Columbian. Chester Johnson passed away last month.

Chester was a great builder, a determined visionary and one of the best friends the province of British Columbia could have asked for. He was someone who saw the potential of our province and, most importantly, the potential of the people who live here, and he always helped us reach for that potential.

He led the evolution of Whistler from a small resort town to an internationally renowned tourist destination. He helped us win the right to host the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. He was the chair of B.C. Hydro. He was the chair of the Vancouver Airport Authority, and he was a leader in the forest industry.

Chester always put the public interest ahead of his own personal interests. He's been recognized with some of the highest honours that British Columbia and Canada have to offer: the Order of Canada, the Order of British Columbia and the Queen's 50th anniversary medal.

Chester will be missed by his friends and his family, but his memory will live forever in British Columbia.

Statements

CONDOLENCES FOR VICTIMS

OF POLISH AIRPLANE ACCIDENT

C. James: I'd like to add our condolences to the people of Poland. This truly is a time when you see the strength of our global world and our global communities, when you have seen people from the Polish community and all people of the world come together to pass along our sympathies and our regrets to the people of Poland for this incredible plane crash and incredible tragedy for their country.

This plane, as was said by the Premier, not only had the President of Poland and his wife but also government officials, business leaders, community leaders from Poland, so this truly is a tragedy. I want to pass along, as the people of Poland mourn and as Polish communities across British Columbia mourn, that our thoughts and prayers will be with all of them as the country rebuilds and as they go through this tragedy.

Introductions by Members

L. Reid: We are joined today by some students from Linfield College in Oregon. They are in fact part of a comparative politics class, and they are studying Canada. They see this field trip as an opportunity to see our system in action as well as to have direct interactions with Canadian politicians and citizens in order to better understand Canadian politics, political culture and Canada-U.S. relations.

It was my pleasure to speak with them this morning. They asked fabulous questions. They're joined by their

[ Page 4106 ]

professor, Dawn Nowacki, and I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm delighted today to have as a guest in the Legislature someone who has been an absolutely exceptional public servant. He actually has a distinguished career with over 38 years with the provincial government. The majority of that time was spent with the Ministry of Transportation, or Highways, and he has done exemplary work.

[1340]

I know that you would want to help me today in honouring Tracy Cooper. Many of you know him, I know. He's done a great job for all of us in British Columbia. As a side note, I want you to know that on Monday, Tracy has qualified and will be running in the Boston Marathon. So congratulations.

Hon. M. Polak: Joining us in the House today are Louise Smith, Bret Rob, Penny Petersen, Robin McNaughton and Sue Khazaie. I had the pleasure of getting to know each of them along with their colleague Rod Santiago over the lunch hour, learning more about the services provided by Abbotsford Community Services. Would the House please make them welcome.

N. Simons: It's a pleasure today to introduce in the House my constituency assistant from Davis Bay, part of the lower Sunshine Coast. She is a former child protection social worker, and she's been excellent at both those employments. I'd like to ask the House to please welcome her here today — Kim Tournat.

J. Les: I have the very great pleasure to announce the arrival of another granddaughter. Ashlyn Elizabeth Kooyman was born on the 2nd of April, on Good Friday. She clocked in at about eight pounds. She's doing very well. She's the first little girl for my daughter Sharon and her husband, Ron, and of course a little sister for her big brother, Nicholas. I'd like everyone to help me welcome her into the world.

N. Simons: I also want to acknowledge the Minister of Community and Rural Development and the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport, along with the Leader of the Opposition and MLAs from the opposition who were all in attendance in Powell River at the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities.

I'd like to also acknowledge Lori Blackman and the city staff of Powell River along with the mayor and council for doing an excellent job. The concert in the evening was wonderful. Don James, Order of Canada recipient, conducted a wonderful choir. Lovely singing, Celtic music. It was enjoyed by everyone, and I'd like to thank the city of Powell River on behalf of the House.

Hon. B. Stewart: It gives me great honour to introduce His Worship Mayor Doug Findlater from the newest municipality in British Columbia, the district of West Kelowna, and his chief administrative officer, Jason Johnson, who are here in the precinct today to do work and meet with other ministers.

S. Cadieux: I have the great pleasure today of introducing my first guest in the House. In the gallery today is one of my best friends and my mother, Patricia Homewood. Please make her welcome.

Tributes

B.C. ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

TABLE TENNIS CHAMPIONSHIPS

R. Lee: I would like the House to join me to congratulate my daughter, Leanne Lee, for winning the B.C. Elementary Schools Table Tennis Championships.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

TERRY FOX

D. Horne: One of the Tri-Cities' and Canada's most well-known citizens is being remembered today. Thirty years ago today, Terry Fox began his remarkable journey, dipping his foot into the Atlantic Ocean and beginning his journey to go across Canada to raise money for cancer research.

[1345]

Terry was determined to raise $1 million, a feat which many at the time saw as overly ambitious. It didn't take long for the nation to get behind this young man and his cause. Terry spent 143 days running a total of 5,300 kilometres, a marathon each and every day. The Marathon of Hope was to raise more than $24 million in just two years. This equalled a dollar for every Canadian at that time. Terry received the Order of Canada in a ceremony in Port Coquitlam, and the province honoured Terry with the highest award, the Order of the Dogwood.

The Terry Fox Foundation is responsible for raising close to $20 million for cancer research each year, totalling more than $500 million worldwide. The recent tribute to Terry Fox at the Paralympic Games provided an opportunity to witness not only his contribution

[ Page 4107 ]

to cancer research in Canada but his stature globally. Thanks to Terry Fox and the money that his dream continues to raise each year, we have made huge steps forward in beating this disease, but there's still much work to be done.

VAISAKHI PARADE AND CELEBRATIONS

H. Bains: I am pleased to stand here today to talk about Ross Street Temple Vaisakhi parade. This Saturday the Sikh community joined together in Vancouver to celebrate Vaisakhi, the birth of Khalsa, and many members of this House also were on hand to participate in this event.

People of all ages, of all backgrounds, came together to celebrate the rich history of the contribution of the Sikh community. There were children playing the dhol. Many community clubs and the Indo-Canadian Vancouver police officers were taking

part in the parade. Family and friends were out together, handing out free food and drinks to all, and live performances took place at various stages along the parade route.

The vibrant festival of Vaisakhi is considered to be an extremely important festival in India for a number of reasons. Apart from being important for the farmers as a harvest festival, the festival is of prime importance in Sikhism as a foundation day of Khalsa Panth.

In 1699 something happened in a tiny village called Anand Pur Sahib where the tenth guru of the Sikhs, Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji, decided to end the structure that separated and divided the society for centuries on the basis of caste. He did not only preach those words but put a structure in place for the coming generations to follow. He brought out five Piaras from five different castes, and after serving them amrit, he asked them to serve him the same.

Then after giving them all the same name, Singh, he declared the end of the caste system and started a society that is based on equality where everyone would be valued based on their character rather than what social structure they belonged to.

This year tens of thousands of people came out to celebrate the 311th year of the Khalsa. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the executive members of the Khalsa Diwan Society of Vancouver and hundreds of volunteers for their hard work in organizing yet another very successful community event, which showed the values of these efforts. There's another one coming this Saturday, on April 17, in Surrey, and I invite all of you to come and join us in Surrey for another wonderful event.

G.P. VANIER SECONDARY SCHOOL

IMPROV THEATRE CHAMPIONSHIP WIN

D. McRae: I want to congratulate G.P. Vanier Secondary School's improv team on winning its second national championship in the past two years. The team has been competing for several years now under the brilliant tutelage of teacher Lori Mazey and local theatre guru Robinson Wilson. These two individuals have taken a combination of skills, focus and fun to help make Vanier a theatre powerhouse.

To reach the national championships, Vanier had to compete at the Vancouver Island regional championships against eight other schools, and then after winning there, they travelled to Ottawa in March to compete in the nationals.

At the national tournament 20 teams from 14 regions came together to vie for the title. Vanier was dominant on March 24, winning their semifinals by 60 points. The top five teams from the semis then competed on March 27 in the finals. Vanier ended that night with 1,074 points which assured them first place. Close behind them, with 20 points behind, was Guelph Collegiate Vocational Institute.

The Vanier team was made up of captains Anthea Morritt, Paige Fraser, Kristie Gunther; players Alyssa Bell, Connor Lucas, Jasmine Ruff, Andraya Walters, Dylan Sullivan, Dan Comeau, Mallory Gibson, Bri Summers, Chloe Naswell; and team alternates Alex Christensen and Ian McConnell.

I've had the privilege of knowing many members of this team. I know their hard work and passion that they bring to the sport. Not only are these great young men and women, but they are skilled at improv, and they're also great role models in the community.

I've been fortunate to have a long relationship with G.P. Vanier. I went to preschool there. I graduated from the school, and I taught there for 14 years. The school has always had a strong academic and athletic tradition. The impressive trades programs have given countless students both job skills and confidence to enter the workforce, and the school also has a very strong tradition in nurturing the arts.

[1350]

G.P. Vanier's winning the national improv tournament only serves to reinforce the importance that the school and the community place on the arts. I'd like this chamber to congratulate the students, their coaches and parents, the community who came together and helped the school and the performers win this honour.

national ENVIRONMENTAL

EDUCATION WEEK

R. Fleming: National Environmental Education Week takes place this week from April 11 to 17. This year's theme is "Be water and energy wise," which speaks to our need for greater conservation in our lives, in our homes, in our places of work and in our businesses.

This is the largest organized environmental education event in North America. Environmental Education

[ Page 4108 ]

Week increases the educational impact of Earth Day later this month by creating a full week of educational preparation, learning and activities in K-to-12 classrooms and in places like nature centres and zoos, museums and aquariums.

By participating in Environmental Education Week, students in my constituency and elsewhere across this province are being encouraged to make a difference in their schools and communities. World Fisheries Trust, which is a local non-profit education organization in my community, hosted the kickoff event at the Gorge waterway education centre yesterday on Sunday, April 11, from 1 to 3 p.m., to begin National Environmental Education Week in Victoria.

Along with the Galiano Conservancy, the Sierra Club and the compost education centre, this week they will be showcasing hands-on education programs and displays that will be available in a variety of public locations and in our schools. The event is designed to celebrate and build awareness about the many opportunities for our citizens to be part of environmental education and stewardship in the capital region.

With very limited funding, the Gorge waterway education centre has seen over 500 people volunteer their time and come through their doors in less than two years. The centre has delivered over 40 different programs to nearly a thousand students and community members who are now trained, knowledgable and skilled in environmental stewardship. They're aware that we live in a time of climate change and adaptation.

Mr. Speaker, I invite all members of this House to join me in applauding the grass-roots organization, the sponsors and the many volunteers who put the 2010 event together. I also want to take this opportunity in the House today to express my support for the great work that the Gorge waterway education centre has been doing.

TELESTROKE PROGRAM AT

CHILLIWACK GENERAL HOSPITAL

J. Les: Last Friday I had the opportunity to play the role of a stroke victim to help launch the Telestroke initiative at the Chilliwack General Hospital. Although I was fortunately only acting, I was able to put myself into the shoes of someone who had experienced a stroke.

Telestroke allows neurology specialists at a tertiary hospital to examine, diagnose and help treat patients at other hospitals. With Telestroke a patient is able to "see" a specialist within minutes of arriving in emergency. Doctors at Chilliwack General connect by video conference with neurologists working out of Vancouver General Hospital and consult directly in order to make quick decisions for their stroke patients. The faster a stroke is treated, the less brain and neurological damage a patient will sustain.

Telestroke is an excellent technology with incredible outcomes. It brings specialists and doctors hundreds of kilometres apart face to face, and it bridges the gap between patients and the very best specialists available. I know that Chilliwack General is excited to have Telestroke available, and they can now ensure that it is able to offer patients the best care possible while often avoiding the need to transfer patients by ambulance to Vancouver and elsewhere.

As for me, I'm glad I was only acting the part of a stroke patient. But it is reassuring to know that Telestroke is there for our community. In the past I've personally seen how friends and acquaintances have been devastated by the results of a stroke. Telestroke will help to alleviate and avoid those impacts for many patients and their families. For that, many people in Chilliwack will be very grateful.

TURBAN-TYING COMPETITION

IN SURREY

S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, about 3,000 people from the diverse city of Surrey and the surrounding communities came together to enjoy the eighth annual turban-tying contest or competition. There were six different categories of competitors based on age.

The contestants tying their turbans were judged on the form, the time taken and on not allowing the seven metres of cloth to touch the floor. The form a well-tied turban will take, as I have now learned, is having the cloth's apex right in the centre of the forehead with neat and equally spaced folds. A well-tied turban will not allow one strand of hair from the head to be shown under the turban.

[1355]

The Surrey turban-tying contest is the largest of its kind in North America and was covered by the ethnic and the mainstream provincial media. The event was also attended by celebrities from the sports and entertainment fields, and the odd politician also wandered through. Kuldip Singh with Radio Sher-E-Punjab describes the event as religious, cultural and educational for Sikh and non-Sikh alike.

The idea for the competition grew out of the negative reaction shown by some to people wearing turbans after the terrorist attack in the U.S. on September 11. There was then much confusion between the Sikh and the Taliban, who both wear turbans. Radio Sher-E-Punjab felt a turban-tying contest might draw attention to the ritual of the dastar, and the competition was meant to develop self-awareness, self-esteem and self-confidence. The competition encourages kids that it's okay to be different.

Hon. Speaker, kudos to Sher-E-Punjab radio station for conceiving the idea and organizing the contest. I invite everyone to the ninth annual next year.

[ Page 4109 ]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on Recommendations for Legislative Change .

Oral Questions

ROLE OF T. RICHARD TURNER IN

B.C. PLACE ROOF PROJECT

C. James: Every employee and appointee of government has to live up to a code of conduct. The code of conduct says that an employee is in conflict if he or she "benefits from or is reasonably perceived by the public to have benefited from a government transaction over which he or she can influence decisions."

My question is to the Premier. Does he agree with this code of conduct?

Hon. G. Campbell: Yes, hon. Speaker.

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

C. James: As chair of ICBC, T. Richard Turner is vested with the public trust. He heads up one of the most important Crown corporations in the province. As such, he has a responsibility to live up to the highest standard. Yet Mr. Turner called the Minister of Tourism in connection with a decision about a major government project awarded to a company in which he was a director, a project that involved hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.

My question is to the Premier. Does he see anything wrong with that, or is that acceptable conduct from a government appointee?

Hon. K. Krueger: The Leader of the Opposition must be aware that her critic put this matter before the registrar of lobbyists last week, having thoroughly canvassed it with me before that. It is now inappropriate for us to discuss the matter in this chamber.

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

C. James: I don't suppose it would surprise the public to find out that this government doesn't believe it's appropriate to talk about a code of conduct. Ethics are important to the public, and the government should be talking about it.

According to news reports over the weekend, T. Richard Turner said that after the May election he became concerned that the province might be waffling over the retractable roof. He and his fellow directors decided: "I should call the minister responsible. We decided it was my role this time around." Mr. Turner, the chair of ICBC, was handpicked by Paragon to lobby the minister.

Again, my question is to the Premier. Is this the conduct of a chair of a major Crown corporation? Is that conduct acceptable to this Premier and his government?

Hon. K. Krueger: Is there anything ethical about laying a matter, submitting a complaint to the registrar of lobbyists and then wanting to interfere with his work by raising the matter subsequently in this House?

S. Chandra Herbert: Let's look at the facts. The Minister of Tourism confirmed that he got a call on his cell phone from Mr. Turner urging him to ensure that the $563 million project for the retractable roof would go ahead as it was, according to the minister, essential for Mr. Turner's casino company.

[1400]

My question is to the minister. Over a week ago the minister promised this House that he would provide more information on Mr. Turner's role. Will the minister stand up today and tell this House what meetings with government were organized by Mr. Turner, who attended, what was discussed and when did those meetings happen — as the minister promised to share with the House?

Hon. K. Krueger: When the critic for the official opposition submitted his complaint to the registrar of lobbyists, surely he laid out his questions and the things that he believes in that submission.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess it should come as no surprise that this government wouldn't understand a question about ethics and a code of conduct and refuses to release information on this deal which they promised to release to this House.

Again, my question to the minister: what's there to hide? Release the dates. Release the meeting information. Release who was there. This is what the minister promised within estimates debate two weeks ago. Why doesn't he do it today?

Hon. K. Krueger: What comes as no surprise is that this opposition cannot follow the rules of the House as they've failed to follow other rules all their lives.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Ralston: The Minister of Tourism made a public commitment here in the Legislature to release the infor-

[ Page 4110 ]

mation that my colleague has set out. These are objective facts about meetings that took place, who arranged them and when they took place. So they're uniquely in the possession of the minister and his ministry. Why will the minister not release those to the public as he promised to do here in the Legislature more than a week ago?

Hon. K. Krueger: The matter was canvassed between the critic and myself the week before last. A commitment was made that PavCo would provide a letter within two weeks. Two weeks is next Wednesday, and he will have his letter.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Mr. Turner's office as the chair of a major public Crown corporation carries a great deal of public trust. It's a very important office in the province, and it's important that that office and those duties be discharged with integrity. So my question is to the Premier. If the actions of Mr. Turner don't violate the code of conduct, what would?

Hon. K. Krueger: This matter has been put before the registrar of lobbyists on a complaint by the critic. We will fully cooperate with the registrar of lobbyists, who is now responsible to investigate this matter. The opposition should really know better than to be following this line of questioning, let alone attack an honourable servant of British Columbia in this chamber in their typical cowardly way.

I suggest that the opposition Finance critic should take himself out in the hallway and make those accusations so that Mr. Turner can defend himself appropriately.

N. Macdonald: Well, I think we've all heard some ridiculous defences in this House, but this has got to top the list. The fact of the matter is that this minister knows what has taken place here.

Let's be clear. T. Richard Turner is not only a B.C. Liberal insider and donor, T. Richard Turner not only has a financial interest in the casino that we're talking about, but he is also in this case — and, I think, most importantly for this House — chair of ICBC. There is a code of conduct that he should be living up to. He is not. Does the minister think it is acceptable that that take place?

Hon. K. Krueger: This opposition has told us before that they can come to conclusions about environmental assessments before they're over, court actions before they're over. Now they refer a matter to the registrar of lobbyists and then want to pursue it in this forum.

[1405]

What is going to be required for this opposition to understand how to do its job after all these years?

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: A fairly straightforward question. Does the minister feel that the code of conduct was followed?

Hon. K. Krueger: Well, this member, like the one who questioned before him, should take his false and scurrilous and cowardly behaviour out in the hallway. If he wants to level accusations at Mr. Turner or any other civil servant, he should go out there where he's in a forum where they can speak for themselves, because his group, the opposition, have made sure that it's now inappropriate for me to answer questions in this House.

J. Kwan: I have a straight-up question for the Minister of Tourism. Could he please advise this House if Mr. Turner followed the code of conduct set out by this government?

Hon. K. Krueger: This member has been in this House longer than anyone else on those benches, except the member two seats to her right, and she surely knows better than to try and pursue this line of questioning when her colleague has put the matter in a complaint to the registrar of lobbyists.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: The Premier just confirmed that an employee is in conflict if he or she benefits from or is reasonably perceived by the public to have benefited from a government transaction over which he or she can influence decisions.

My question to the minister is quite simple. It's not about the registrar's office or the lobbyists registration; it's about the government's own set of code of conduct. In the minister's opinion, did Mr. Turner violate the government's own set of code of conduct that's set out by his employees?

Hon. K. Krueger: The opinion that matters now is the opinion of the registrar of lobbyists, to whom the opposition has referred this question.

B.C. LIBERAL PARTY FUNDRAISING WITH

INDEPENDENT POWER PRODUCERS

J. Horgan: Let's just see how elastic our ethics on that side of the House can be. On January 18 of this year, on the eve of the announcement of which companies would be awarded contracts by B.C. Hydro, the Minister of Energy and the Minister for Climate Action held a fundraiser. An invitation was sent from the Independent Power Producers of B.C. to all of its members saying: "This will be an opportunity for IPPBC members to spend time with the ministers."

[ Page 4111 ]

My question is to the Premier. Does he believe it's appropriate on the eve of announcing contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars for his ministers to shake down those very companies for donations?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: As I said before, we've canvassed the issue of how contracts are looked at by B.C. Hydro. It's a very rigorous process. They go through it. I have the utmost respect and confidence in the men and women that do that work. There are independent evaluators of these contracts that are looked at. I think they do an incredible job.

I think all British Columbians should be thankful for the work that they do on all of our behalf, and I have the utmost confidence and the utmost trust in the people that look at those contracts before determining whether to award or not award a contract.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Well, today we learned that ten of the 14 firms that were awarded energy purchase agreements this year over the past five years had given $385,000 to the B.C. Liberal Party — not an insignificant amount of money.

Again, my question is to the Premier, and it's, again, a very simple one, and it goes to the heart of the ethics of his government. Does he believe it's appropriate for his ministers to shake down procurement possibilities from companies that are bidding on clean calls at B.C. Hydro?

[1410]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I find it interesting that the member seems to be somewhat opposed to clean, green energy. But if you're alleging something inappropriate, I would encourage you to go outside and make those, because those allegations are not…. What I will follow through with is….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I do find it somewhat hypocritical from his comments when, in fact, one of these companies that made, as the member indicated, significant contributions to the government has made a significant contribution to the NDP on the eve of the last election. So do your homework, Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: We know that this party pocketed a whopping $600,000 in IPP-related donations in 2009, and here, on the eve of an award for multi-billion-dollar contracts, we have the B.C. Liberal Party taking the opportunity to organize yet another fundraising shakedown.

The minister doesn't see a problem in any of this, but I want to ask the minister here today. Will he tell us, on the eve of issuing these electricity contracts, how much did his party shake down from energy companies in January 2010, and will he disclose that in the House here today?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Let me start off again by reiterating that the process that is used to evaluate these contracts is very rigorous. It is reviewed by independent third parties — someone that I think all of us can have a great deal of respect and time for. I have that respect for most British Columbians, to be honest. I think everybody goes out and tries to build a better province. I think all of us in this building are doing that.

But let me go back. It's extremely interesting, and I won't lose the opportunity. I'm going to encourage the member to do his homework here — to go back and check to see the donations that these energy companies gave to the New Democrat Party prior to the last election. Please do that, Member.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

R. Fleming: The minister doesn't get it. People in British Columbia trust B.C. Hydro. They do not trust this government. British Columbians know how this government works. When a donor wants a retractable roof as part of a bid process, he phones a cabinet minister. When a minister wants to raise cash from an industry that's waiting for contracts, when a minister wants to raise money….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister.

Members.

R. Fleming: When a minister wants to raise….

[ Page 4112 ]

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

Continue, Member.

R. Fleming: When a minister wants to raise cash from an industry that's waiting on contracts, the B.C. Liberal Party targets them for a shakedown.

[1415]

Now, the minister said that he would like to see…. He criticized parties for taking donations. Well, I would like to hear the minister's opinion on this. People are tired of big money running politics. They're tired of it running this government.

Will the minister put on the record today…? Will he support cleaning up his clean power call by banning corporate and union donations to political parties in British Columbia altogether for all time?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We're not going to continue, Minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: First of all, we should clarify that as he indicated in his talk, I didn't criticize fundraising. I think both sides of this House utilize fundraising. That's part of the political process.

What I do want to capture is something we do agree on. People do trust B.C. Hydro. I think it's a great Crown corporation, one our party fully supports, and we also support clean, green energy development.

I'm not quite sure. I think the member's a little bit confused. He gets up and asks a question about fundraising, about how that could actually affect an EPA, when in fact it's B.C. Hydro — and independent people that B.C. Hydro contracts to — that evaluates the energy purchase agreements, looks at them, does their due diligence and then makes a recommendation to move those forward or not.

FUNDING FOR

FARMWORKER SAFETY PROGRAMS

R. Chouhan: While the Minister of Labour claimed that he has taken action on recommendations from the coroner's jury into the tragic deaths of three farmworkers, the minister's words just don't match with his action. This year the B.C. Liberals are cutting programs like the voluntary inspection check program. The inspection rate has been reduced by 60 percent since 2007.

To the Minister of Labour: how can he say that he's taking actions to prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future when he's cutting funding to the program which saves workers' lives?

Hon. M. Coell: I'd first like to reiterate my condolences to the families who lost relatives in that tragic accident and also to the people who were hurt.

We take the coroner's report very seriously. We have responded to it, but I would remind the member that in 2007 we had an integrated approach to farmworker safety. We have a testing program that has tested over a thousand vehicles. In 2007, 30 percent of those vehicles failed. In 2008, 11 percent failed. In 2009, 10 percent failed. The latest survey is 4 percent failed. We're working to get compliance with this program, and it's working.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Chouhan: The reality is that the minister's own interagency that was established in 2007 has recommended that these programs must continue to save the lives of farmworkers. They have not done it. In fact, the government is now cutting funding for all of these programs, including the voluntary inspection in the field for these vans.

My question again: if the minister is serious about protecting farmworkers, why is he cutting the funding for these programs which really protect farmworkers' lives?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the member knows that we legislated the use of seatbelts in all of those vehicles. We have checked, as I said, over a thousand of them. We continue to check, with an integrated strategy. We're getting compliance. Compliance is what will save lives in the future.

[1420]

SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDING AND

STAFFING LEVELS

R. Austin: Last week school districts around B.C. announced cuts to address shortfalls in education funding. Here are a few examples: Vancouver school district, 30 job cuts in instructional support staff and 113 teaching staff; Saanich school district, 23 full-time, including 13 teaching positions; Kamloops, 30 teachers, five principals and 21 support staff; Richmond, over 100 positions.

My question to the minister is this: how do these cuts that directly affect the classroom square with the B.C. Liberals' commitment to protect public education?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Let's start with something that we agree on. The member opposite said on March 17 — this is the critic for Education, "We have one of the best public education systems, probably, in the world," and that's….

[ Page 4113 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Let's talk about one of the districts that the member opposite has mentioned. That's the Vancouver school district, a district that is facing significant enrolment decline, as are many other districts around the province. This is a district that has, actually, 7,000 empty spaces. Like many places around the province, there are classrooms that are 50, 60, 70, 80 percent empty. Imagine a school where eight out of every ten classrooms are empty.

There is no question that this is difficult, and it makes things difficult for districts. It means we have to do things differently.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: It's true. We do agree on that. But here's the difference. On this side we want to protect it. On that side you want to chip away at it.

Here's what the former dean of education at Simon Fraser, Professor Shaker, has to say: "The cutting that's gone on in the past couple of years has been severe, and now they're in a kind of crisis management. I think they're desperate. There's just no place to go. They're cutting to bare bones. What was a school system in British Columbia that the world would come to study is now going on life support."

Again to the minister: are these cuts to teaching staff your idea of protecting education in this province?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: There is no question that school districts around the province are working hard for the students in this province and that they are challenged. It is largely because of the profound loss of students we've had. By this fall we're expecting thousands and thousands fewer students — probably 60,000 fewer students.

Let's talk about some of the things that have been said by school districts. Today the former NDP Minister of Education, Paul Ramsey, had this to say. This is what he had to say about the claims the Vancouver school board is making: "The shortfall is a fiction on paper. It's not a real deficit. It's a wonderful game that school districts use to jam Ministers of Education."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat, Minister.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: In fact, we've increased education funding this year for the ninth year in a row, and I'd like to point out that the last time the Vancouver school board saw a reduction in their funding was in 1998-99 under the NDP.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1425]

STATUS OF THERAPEUTICS INITIATIVE

A. Dix: A question for the Minister of Health. UBC's therapeutics initiative has long put British Columbia on the cutting edge of prescription drug policy. The minister will know that. It's saved lives, and it's saved money. I think the minister may have heard it.

My question is very simple to the minister. This agency, the initiative, has garnered British Columbia an international reputation, and yet the government is getting rid of its role in the drug approval process and threatening its grant. Will the government restore the therapeutics initiative to its appropriate role in the drug approval process, and will it restore its grant this year?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, the member would know that in 2007 there was a Pharmaceutical Task Force. The Pharmaceutical Task Force was made up of eminent British Columbians. [Laughter.] Apparently, that's humorous to the members opposite. It looked at how we can ensure we have a rigorous, ongoing drug review process in British Columbia. What was recommended by….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: What was recommended by the task force was that the review of new drugs should go through a process that is more transparent, more open, that includes patient input, that allows professionals with clinical expertise from around the world to also have an ability to have input into that process. But I'll tell you this. We will continue to have a very rigorous process for drug review in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: It's the fox in the chicken coop. The minister and the government put the chief lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry in charge to decide the fate of an agency which tries to constrain the excesses of the pharmaceutical industry. Not surprisingly, they recommended that the therapeutics initiative be eliminated.

This is an agency that saves lives, that garners international respect, and the minister wants to get rid of it.

[ Page 4114 ]

He wants to put British Columbia drug policy back. He wants to damage the long-term prospects for the entire public health system with this ridiculous decision. How can the minister justify putting the public interest so low on his list of priorities?

Hon. K. Falcon: Naturally, the NDP, of course, has already written his narrative. He ignores the fact that the dean of medicine at UBC was part of the committee, that a former Auditor General was part of the committee; ignores completely the recommendations coming out of the Pharmaceutical Task Force; believes, apparently, that there's no possibility whatsoever of improving processes.

The fact of the matter is that the new process will be rigorous, but it will also be transparent and open and will ensure that patients and other professionals have opportunity to have input into the review of drugs. That's exactly what's going to happen in British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

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

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

M. Sather: I have with me a petition signed by 500 folks in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows calling on the government to scrap the HST.

N. Macdonald: I have a bundle of petitions from Canal Flats against the HST. This should be getting towards the end of them, as we come into a different set of petitions that are going around on the HST.

Orders of the Day

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

[1430]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Consumption Tax Rebate

and Transition Act

(continued)

B. Routley: This HST is going to hurt, not help, British Columbians. More than 80 percent of British Columbians are opposed to this harmful tax. British Columbians are angry and feeling tricked by this government.

Clearly this Liberal government has no mandate to bring in the HST. During the election they said that the HST was not on their radar. That's what they said — not on their radar. And now this government has taken to flying under the radar.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

With an absolutely thundering reversal of their political position, they now intend to shake down all of the B.C. consumers — $1.9 billion of consumer tax just to start with, and then escalating billions after that. B.C. consumers are going to pay and pay and pay some more, year after year, day after day — tax, tax and more harmful tax.

And guess who's going to be benefiting. Guess who will be benefiting. If you would be thinking, "It's the people of British Columbia," you would be dead wrong, hon. Speaker. No, it's the multinational and corporate pals of this government who are going to be winning the HST lottery.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

B. Routley: They'll be receiving over $2 billion in tax cuts — truckloads of cash — all courtesy of the consumers of British Columbia, who will now be required to pay the former corporate tax bill of $1.9 billion. That's just to start with. Yes, that's the plan. As a result of this bill, this Liberal government will give the people of B.C. the tax bill for the corporate share of the provincial tax burden. That's what this bill will allow this government to do.

The tragic reality is that none of this harmful tax will even help to reduce this Liberal government's growing deficit. It won't help to reduce the B.C. debt, which is now headed towards $40 billion, and it will not help to reduce this province's $50 billion in contractual obligations.

This harmful tax. British Columbians will pay even more while the Liberals continue to slash, cut and destroy services to British Columbians. And they wonder why British Columbians are mad.

This harmful tax will be forced on all British Columbians. They're going to be forced to pay a lot more for a lot less service. British Columbians are already facing a multitude of cost increases that are coming at them in all directions. Bank reports show that consumer debt is already at record levels in British Columbia. Yet this government thinks they can just download billions more onto B.C. consumers, who are already stretched to the max. That is why so many British Columbians are frustrated and upset with this government. Consumers are already hurting.

With this HST, it's just more corporate welfare. This bill makes absolutely no sense in terms of helping British Columbians. This Liberal government is absolutely fix-

[ Page 4115 ]

ated on the notion that if they just give enough cash away to all their big multinational and corporate pals, surely they will reinvest here in B.C. and trickle down some things for British Columbians.

[1435]

Why, the Liberals are absolutely sure the big corporations will not use this cash to pay down corporate debt. Oh no. And they won't be hoarding any of the cash. They won't be using it to fatten up shareholder dividends or add to the bottom line. Oh no. Nor will they give big bonuses to their executive pay raises or themselves. Oh no. And they will not be taking any of this money and investing it in the United States or other provinces or overseas.

No, these Liberals believe that the CEOs are going to be sitting around the corporate board table almost right away making strategic plans on all the many wonderful ways that they're going to help to trickle down all this cash to the fine people of British Columbia. That is the fairy tale that they want us to believe in.

Does this government honestly believe they can simply give away buckets of money and somehow it's all going to work out best for the people of B.C.? Is this the best idea that they can come up with, acting in the public interest? It's shameful. It's absolutely awful.

This government apparently chooses to ignore global evidence, particularly that corporate profits and investments are running off to nations with lower costs, lower environmental standards, lower employment and safety standards. Does this Liberal government really think that they can win the race to the bottom? Is it their plan to lower provincial and community standards even further in some kind of rat race to the bottom? Is that where we're headed? And what about the trade imbalance, hon. Speaker?

The problem we have here in British Columbia, which points to this HST harmful tax, trickle-down theory failing on many fronts…. Financial reports continue to show that investment is not connected in any straight line to government tax reductions. In fact, while this government and the federal government were reducing corporate taxes, investment was fleeing North America and British Columbia for greener pastures.

This bill is not connected to investment in any way, shape or form. It's just a pure and simple gift to their corporate pals. That's what this is, and this harmful tax has created winners and losers amongst the B.C. business community.

With this harmful legislation and this bill, this government has not properly accounted for all the jobs that will be lost in restaurants, tourism, real estate, the new home construction and other HST-impacted businesses that will lose jobs as a result of these harmful tax increases. These businesses feel absolutely betrayed and misled by this government. This Liberal bunch during the election told them that the HST was not on their radar; it was not on their election platform. Then this government went back on their word.

This government has never even called for a proper independent study on the impact of the HST on the B.C. economy. They had not done any cost-benefit analysis on the application of the HST before they signed a deal with the federal government, continuing with no consultation, no debate, no transparency with the people of British Columbia.

You know, even the pundits are saying this government "has already poured suffering taxpayers a poison cup of vile swill called the HST, and now comes the foul-tasting chaser: a steaming tankard full of brutal fees and hikes" — everything from camping fees to ferry fares, hydro, Terasen Gas and transit. It's all going to cost taxpayers more, and yet this government's plan is to squeeze taxpayers even more. It's a plan that's failing. It's not going to work, and it's hurting British Columbians.

J. McIntyre: I'm delighted to take my place and have the opportunity to address the House today on Bill 9, although I have to say that not being a former union organizer, I don't think I can do it at quite the same volume, but I'll try. Maybe I'll try.

[1440]

I appreciate that debate today is on Bill 9, which basically repeals an embedded provincial sales tax and provides for transition to a harmonized sales tax, but having listened to members opposite for the last number of days in question period and even in estimates — where some of this subject doesn't even belong — and debate for days now, I've decided that I can no longer sit still and just listen to this rhetoric without trying to put it into some kind of context.

I'd like to focus my remarks today on the role of the NDP in this issue. I really believe it's important for viewers and the public to understand why the NDP is so critical and so intent on dragging out debate on an issue that is absolutely fundamental to economic recovery here in British Columbia. The NDP rhetoric and their actions all point to a single fact — that they're just merely exploiting this opportunity. So when we say "white," they just automatically say "black." We say yes; they automatically say no.

They never give credit where credit is due. I sat here for five years. They can never give credit to any kind of good idea. Also, I sit here and have often wondered when sometimes one by one, every member of the opposition stands up and speaks against a bill, and then they turn around at the vote and all stand up and vote for it. As far as I'm concerned, it's pretty weird in what our Minister of Health likes to call the NDP world.

I have to make an important point here. The Leader of the Opposition, after the last election about a year ago, admitted publicly…. I saw it on television. She admitted that they had made a terrible error in spending the last

[ Page 4116 ]

term only criticizing, just being negative and criticizing everything the government brought forward. I saw her promise to work on behalf of British Columbians and formulate a vision. Give us some alternatives. Give us positive alternatives. Let us see what the other side of the House has as a vision for this.

As I say, it's been almost a year. What have we seen? Absolutely nothing. Nothing. I am completely convinced that NDP really stands for "no discernible policy."

What does the NDP plan for economic recovery? We're in the worst recession since the Great Depression in the late '20s. Dead silence. What is the NDP plan for the forest industry? It's been on its knees. Dead silence. No, wait a minute. I think the best they came up with was ripping up the softwood accord. Can't believe it.

What's the NDP plan for mining? Oh yes, of course, they sent mining out of this province in the '90s — right? We had to work very, very hard to get investment back in this province after the NDP chased mining.

The HST is fundamental. It's a fundamental building block in helping us kick-start economic recovery. It's especially to our resource industries — right? This tax will remove about $140 million in costs for the forestry sector. It will remove about $80 million in costs for the mining and oil and gas sector, about $880 million removed from the construction sector and about $210 million estimated to be removed from the transportation sector.

These are forestry jobs, mining jobs, jobs that are in rural areas of this province. Resource-based communities depend on them. These are the very people that the NDP purport to represent. What are they doing? They're actually standing up here and blocking economic recovery. They are actually working against jobs in the very communities where we need them so badly.

As far as I'm concerned, the NDP absolutely lack credibility. They are standing here and opposing the HST just like…. This is like déjà vu, just like that movie of Bill Murray's, Groundhog Day .

Now they're opposing the HST because they think that on the surface, the public of course will just react. They won't want any more additional taxes. It doesn't matter the merit of the tax; it doesn't matter the necessity. It doesn't matter how important it is or how many of the sectors or resource communities it will help. They revert to their same old patterns and just oppose.

In fact, what's even more shameful is that they go further than just opposing. They engage in some of the fearmongering tactics. We've heard some of them. They're scaring people. They're scaring seniors. They're scaring people on fixed incomes, and that is unconscionable.

I'll give you an example. There's an e-mail going around, sort of a viral e-mail that I'm sure most people in this House and many others have seen. It says that a senior couple on a $40,000 income will be spending an extra $2,100 as a result of HST. The mathematics — just like NDP math — is absolutely ridiculous because they'd need to be spending about $30,000 of their income simply on goods that were PST-exempt before.

[1445]

Well, that's a heck of a lot of movies and haircuts and restaurants. No, it's ridiculous. I mean, the math doesn't even add up, and yet people are being taken advantage of and being frightened.

Let's look at the NDP track record in other areas. Let's take the environment. I've debated about this on a number of occasions. They were anti–carbon tax, as I said. Actually a tax that was revenue-neutral, a tax that was offset by tax cuts to individuals, to small businesses and to corporations. No, they were all against it.

Then, lo and behold, it came back and bit them in the election, when all of a sudden people who had previously supported them admitted out loud that they were being political opportunists and were exploiting carbon tax, when in fact it was a good thing for British Columbia. So there. They got caught on that.

Then cap-and-trade. They sat up in the House and voted against cap-and-trade. What happened? Then we're flip-flopping. In the election, now the NDP is saying — I think their leader was saying: "Oh no, well, some cap-and-trade is okay," or whatever. They have no coherent policy on any of this.

Green energy. I've debated their Energy critic for years now in the House on that. Again, fearmongering and destroying jobs in the rural, resource-based communities and places where First Nations have an interest in economic development. No, they're opposed to that. They're opposed to anything. They're opposed to all renewables. They're opposed to nuclear. Oh, and Site C. No, none of that. They don't want anything. The only thing they've settled for is importing dirty power. That's where they're at on that, so no credibility on that.

What about health? The critic has been saying, "Oh, just throw billions of dollars at health" — right? — without any plan. I sat here in this House, and here's a great example of political opportunism. I felt my heart went out to a number of seniors that were invited to the gallery. They were from a long-term institution in Surrey. I think it was the Zion centre. They were here begging and trying to embarrass the government.

They said that this institution needed $80 million for a revamp, a modernization of one of their wings and that these poor people were going to be thrown out on the streets — scaring seniors. So what happens is the then Minister of Health stands up and has to explain and embarrass the opposition. It was actually a private operator and had nothing to do with the Fraser Health or anything to do with government. They don't even do the facts right. They were talking about throwing $80 million without any plan.

How about advanced education? Let's look at the record on that. Oh great. That was when they froze tu-

[ Page 4117 ]

ition fees. Not only did it harm students; there were no investments in classes, no new instructors and no infrastructure for new classrooms. Then, people are taking six years to get a degree from UVic instead of four because they can't get any of the courses they need to graduate. So that's a good idea.

How about transportation? Their record on that is good: fast ferries. I don't even have to go into that one. That was how good they were. They had a labour agenda that produced ferries that didn't even properly work. They didn't invest in any infrastructure — no highways, bridges or roads. The Leader of the Opposition flip-flopped on the Port Mann bridge. She's going, "Wrong bridge, wrong time," and then — oopsies — some of her members are from that region and — oh — maybe some people in Surrey and the Fraser Valley would like a bridge.

How about finance? They raised taxes. Apparently, they are the party that raises taxes, and I just learned today that they actually were the party that raised the PST from six to seven points. They loved it so much, they thought: "Let's have more of it."

Interjections.

J. McIntyre: Yeah, the capital tax — right? They never met a financial target in eight or nine years. They didn't have any reliance on outside economists to guide them in their budget planning. No, they tinkered and interfered internally, and you know what we got with that. That was the old famous fudge-it budget.

They have been opposed, as we were discussing this morning, to removing provincial barriers to trade across the country. They've been protectionists forever and ever. They have no credible track record on taxation policy.

Then, the best thing is they position themselves as caring for the vulnerable and the poor — right? That's where the home is. Then what do they do? In the '90s they put a casino in at Main and Hastings. That was a good idea too.

They got rid of volunteers. They got rid of all the volunteers who were helping with Meals on Wheels. They kicked parents out of schools. They said: "Oh no, parents can't be volunteering in schools. No, that's exploiting. That's exploiting labour, so let's get rid of all the volunteerism in British Columbia." That was also another fabulous NDP policy. As I say, no credibility and no discernible policy. I have to wonder why any member of the public would put their faith and their trust in NDP facts and also in NDP math.

[1450]

They have an extensive track record of not understanding economic matters or, maybe worse, ignoring the realities and then exploiting public concerns and engaging in fearmongering tactics. That's no record I'd be proud of.

Briefly, HST, harmonized sales tax, tax policies — always technical. It's not easy to explain in some 30-second or 60-second sound bite. Yes, some consumers will pay more for a hodgepodge of goods that were previously PST-exempt. And yes, some industry sectors are being disproportionately affected, like some of the new homebuilders of luxury homes.

We're not trying to pretend that there aren't some negative implications to some in society, but we've been straight-up about it. We've made adjustments where it was important, where we were able to adjust for home heating fuels and we exempted gasoline tax, things like that.

We've been very, as I say, straightforward about some of these adjustments and implications, in fact, where it's been negative to our treasury. We've tried to sort of soften some of the transition time as we move to a different taxation system.

The NDP has been just basically trying to take advantage of this situation, and they've been misrepresenting and exaggerating the impacts. It's really easy to simply say no — right? — to have no alternative but just to say no. I think they've been trying to whip up a frenzy and whip up the public and, as I say, sort of use scare tactics.

Now what we have is what I'll call an unholy alliance of Bill Vander Zalm and the Leader of the Opposition. Well, there we've got an ex-Premier, who was already discredited for financial dealings, and the Leader of the Opposition, who has had no credible plan in almost a decade of opposition. Now she's jumping into bed with a disgraced Premier. All I can wonder is what the pillow talk is like. That's all I can say.

It's basically embarrassing that the NDP won't even say publicly whether or not they would repeal this tax — right? They've been all over the map. I'd like to read into the record here some of what the NDP has been saying out there. I'll start with their Finance critic from Surrey-Whalley. He says, meaning the HST implementation: "It's a bit like having your appendix out. Once it's done, it's done. It's very hard to go back." That was on CKNW on August 4 last summer when it was introduced.

Then the next thing is the leader is not saying that they would keep it. She's now saying that they would serve notice to the federal government. She says:

"We're locked in for five years on this agreement if it passes. At the end of five years you have an opportunity to serve notice, and I've said that's what we'd do if we were elected. We'll serve notice on the federal government, and then you have an opportunity to get rid of it, to renegotiate it, to lower the tax, to look at what works for British Columbia. That's our commitment, to serve that notice."

Well, that's one heck of a commitment. That was on CKNW on March 30 of this year, just recently.

Then we have another member, the member for Juan de Fuca, on CFAX on February 10. Now he's saying that they would get rid of it. "That means that the next government elected in 2013 will have a four-year mandate,

[ Page 4118 ]

and over the course of those four years, the HST will be eliminated in British Columbia. That's what we've said."

How is the public supposed to know? Here we've got three prominent members of a party that are all saying something different.

On a positive note, I'd like to put into the record what others, certainly more credible than the NDP, have to say about the HST. This is not the government speaking. These are third parties who have expertise and experience and who have a global perspective, not just the narrow focus of the opposition.

Let me start with yet another quote from John Winter, who is the president and CEO of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. This was in response to the recently released Mintz report, which was very favourable about what the harmonized sales tax will do to the British Columbia economy. Mr. Winter says:

"This report is further evidence that the HST is essential for creating jobs and attracting new investment in British Columbia. The HST will further contribute to B.C. being one of the best investment climates in the world and make our businesses more competitive."

He goes on to say:

"There's been much discussion about the increased prices facing consumers with the implementation of HST. Making businesses more competitive and eliminating the layers of imbedded PST on consumer products will mean lower prices on a wide range of goods. We saw this when the Atlantic provinces adopted HST. Savings passed on to consumers means that household incomes will have increased purchasing power, and that, too, will strengthen the B.C. economy."

Let me also quote a great

article in the Tyee last summer, 24th of August, by Calyn Shaw. It was actually quite amusing, and I think some of us had to even chuckle that an

article like this could be in the Tyee , which is sometimes not so friendly. They're talking about coming to realize that the HST was the right thing to do. He says:

[1455]

"It's hard not to think so, if you take the time to speak with tax policy experts, look at the results of HST in other jurisdictions, most notably Atlantic Canada, and consider that most other provinces are following Ontario's example by moving to HST.

"The opposition can muddy the waters, and consumers can complain that they are getting the short end of the stick, but the truth of the matter is very simple. HST was a good policy move by the B.C. government.

"Is it perfect? Of course not. No government policy decision ever is. Are there going to be losers, especially in the short term? Of course there are; there always are. Is this a policy that makes so much sense for the government that it belongs in the no-brainer category? Absolutely.

"And it isn't just the government that believes so. Professor Kevin Milligan from the department of economics at UBC is an enthusiastic supporter of the new tax policy and gave it high praise when I spoke with him last week. 'HST isn't a left-right issue, and it isn't ideological as far as economists are concerned. It is just good policy,' said Milligan. He went on to point out that 'it isn't pro-business and anti-consumer. It's the necessary modernization of tax policy.'"

Jock Finlayson, who is the executive VP of policy at the B.C. Business Council, last July said:

"In what is arguably the most important provincial tax reform measure in a generation, the B.C. government has announced that it will harmonize the provincial sales tax with the federal goods and service tax, effective July 1, 2010. For anyone keen to see a more productive and globally competitive B.C. economy, this is welcome news."

He goes on to say:

"Replacing the PST with a value-added sales tax tied to the federal GST is the single best thing the province can do to promote investment, exports and productivity; encourage the growth of higher paying jobs; and reduce the administrative and compliance costs for business. The HST system should position British Columbia for a more robust and sustained economic recovery once the current downturn is behind us."

Exactly what we need.

Even Les Leyne in the Victoria Times Colonist at the end of March this year, March 31, says:

"The HST will be simpler to administer. More than 300 provincial Finance Ministry staff will switch to becoming federal employees.

"It will cut business costs and may well spur growth. It will result in a $250 million cash transfer from Ottawa to B.C. by the end of the week, with $769 million more to come July 2 and $580 million a year later. It's in line with economic thinking around the world."

Then finally, the last quote I would just like to read into the record here is Richard Rees, whom I had the pleasure of working with when we were looking to hire the new Auditor General. He's the CEO of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C. He says: "We have been calling for harmonization for several years. Given the current economic climate, and Ontario's recent move to harmonization, there is no better time than now to take this important step."

There we have a number and a variety of different experts who bring experience and expert views to this very important move that we're making. This is not just the government trying to say what we think about it. I think it's very important. We've been trying to do a lot of reading and understand and have economists and have expertise and experience guide us in trying to make these decisions as legislators. It's very reassuring to have experts be so unanimous, I think, in their support for this move.

There's also a number of business associations that represent small and mid-size and even some large businesses that have been lining up since we introduced this last summer. Again, some of them have jobs and support businesses that are in rural areas of the province, things like the B.C. Agriculture Council, the Lumber Trade Council, the Forest Products Association. We also have Conference Board of Canada, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, Mining Association of B.C., Retail Council of Canada. It just goes on and on. I won't read them all into the record.

I would like to give a quote. This is a gentleman who is not in a major industry association but someone that I actually had the pleasure of meeting socially over the holidays. We got into a conversation. Quite naturally, when he found out I was an MLA, he sort of slipped into

[ Page 4119 ]

a conversation about HST. He was so excited. He couldn't wait to tell me how he has a business in the Fraser Valley and also in Ontario, and in both jurisdictions, starting July 1, his business is going to have the ability to take advantage of the flow-through taxes and all those things that will accrue to small to medium-size business.

I asked him. I phoned him not long ago and asked if he would mind stepping up publicly, helping me in my dealings and the people I talk with. He agreed. Well, he provided me with this, actually, and agreed that I could use it publicly. He said:

[1500]

"As a small to mid-sized business owner and farmer, I believe the move to an HST makes good economic sense and will be good for British Columbians. No one likes taxes, but the HST makes a lot more sense than the PST it replaces. As a business owner with operations in both B.C. and Ontario, I support the HST as being long-term positive for our company and our employees."

That's John Schroeder, who's the president of Valleybrook International Ventures.

There's so much ammunition, and there are so many people who are supporting this. I just think that it's very important to get this on the record and for the public and those at home to understand that this is a very important economic step for British Columbia.

By opposing this Bill 9, the NDP want to maintain an antiquated, cascading and penalizing tax regime that will make job creation that much more difficult. It makes B.C. industries less competitive nationally and internationally and, further, will make B.C. a less attractive target for investment, exactly at the time when we are trying to recover from recession and when we're trying to create jobs.

The quick timing on this move, which admittedly caught many off guard, is precisely because we want to launch simultaneously with Ontario so we don't lag behind and lose share, and this is basically a pre-emptive move.

It's an important aspect — that alone — to catch Ontario this July 1, because look even at what's happening in our own film and new media industries, where Quebec, Ontario and Saskatchewan are actively trying to recruit and lure businesses away from British Columbia. So we need to be very attractive, not only to get new business but also to keep the businesses that are burgeoning and flourishing here in the province, and HST helps that.

As I said earlier, HST is a complex topic, and there's plenty of information during this debate and on the Ministry of Finance website and other materials for those who would like to dig deeper and learn more about it. It's wrong for government to just be patronizing and say, "You know, this is complicated," pat people on the head and say: "Trust us." That's ridiculous and sort of political suicide.

So I'm encouraging the public and viewers to learn not just how it might affect them personally but what it will be doing for the British Columbia economy. Take the time to understand the importance to British Columbia's competitiveness.

When we have a positive, growing economy, as we just experienced for most of this decade under this government's leadership, we have more money for the social programs that we need and an ability to help the most vulnerable in their time of need. We need to restore a strong economy. We need to restore funds in the provincial coffers. We cannot afford to be left behind. We cannot afford to let the NDP's political opportunism prey on public concern and even their fears. We need facts. We need expert opinion to help guide us.

I think that after the uproar when HST was first announced last summer, once it was time to study the situation and look at the pros and cons, you see that the experts and businesses from all around the province have come to the conclusion that this is a favourable tax policy. I think we even got some favourable editorials in both the Globe and Mail and the Sun last summer after all of this.

I just thought, as I close here, that I'd like to read what Gerry Martin said in the Vancouver Sun last August 13, 2009, under the heading "The HST Will Provide Benefits to B.C. for Years to Come." He comments that their recent report, Investment in British Columbia: Current Realities and The Way Forward , describes:

"B.C.'s below-average productivity performance as well as underlying causes and possible solutions. The most important recommendation is to replace the provincial sales tax with a value-added tax, preferably harmonized with the federal goods and services tax.

"Services and some goods will be subject to more tax, and relative consumer prices will change, although they may not increase significantly on the whole. There are several tools available to offset the impact on consumers. All of those identified by the B.C. Progress Board are incorporated in the proposed HST: less than full input tax credits; special treatment for new housing; some items excluded from the provincial portion of the tax; and enhanced tax credit; and federal transition funding.

"Although the HST has critics, no one is claiming that harmonization is bad for the province as a whole. The diffuse benefits from increased investment, productivity and increased living standards will benefit us all, even those who preferred the PST."

So I believe we have little choice in a global economy but to modernize and keep pace. A value-added tax like the HST does just that. For these reasons, Bill 9 has merit, and I think that in time HST will prove to be a major boon to B.C.'s economy. If only the NDP could stop the gamesmanship, the fearmongering and the foot-dragging simply to score political points. It's a real shame sometimes when crass politics gets in the way of good economics and clouds the facts for the people we are so privileged to serve.

[1505]

D. Routley: Thanks to my colleagues on this side of the House and the, I believe, somewhere around 88 percent of British Columbians who are opposed to the

[ Page 4120 ]

HST for listening in on this debate on Bill 9, intituled Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act.

The previous speaker essentially said, "Ontario made us do it," yet our Finance Minister claims not to have been aware of the fact that Ontario had harmonized its sales tax. They were caught off guard. Well, that either displays an absolute incompetence or a lack of integrity. Pick your poison, Madam Speaker.

Either way, British Columbians have come to hold this government in such disregard that they feel sorry for our democracy in British Columbia for having to experience such a betrayal. Their principles, the principles of British Columbians, have been affronted by the behaviour of this government.

Over the past ten years this Premier has campaigned against harmonizing the provincial sales tax with the GST. I would wager, in this age of expanded gambling in British Columbia, that in fact not a single member on the other side of the House said nary a word about the HST on the doorsteps during their campaigns.

If they were so proud and if they were so convinced of its merit, why weren't they prepared to share it with the people? That is what people have really reacted to. They have responded to this continuing deceit — a government that would mislead them, a government that has misled the province of British Columbia.

It is a double-cross. It continues a solid pattern of B.C. Liberal deceit. Why should British Columbians believe their government? Why should British Columbians? I believe that British Columbians want to believe in government and in democracy, but their cynicism grows with every passing day of this continued Liberal deceit.

Why would we believe them when they promised not to sell B.C. Rail? The Premier promised the province that he wouldn't sell B.C. Rail, and yet they sold B.C. Rail.

Why would the people of British Columbia trust a government that promised not to tear up the contracts of the Hospital Employees Union workers and then did it? Condemned internationally, condemned in the Supreme Court of Canada, it's not believable. This government is not believable, has lost all of its credibility.

They stood in this House and campaigned throughout B.C. before the election, promising the people of B.C. a deficit not exceeding $495 million and delivered five times that. It's clear to every British Columbia that they knew better, that they knew revenues to government were sliding in such a way that that was an unachievable target. But did they share that at the doorstep with the voters of British Columbia? No. They misled the voters of British Columbia. Finally, what has come to be the crystallized symbol of this deceit? The HST.

This province has experienced a very difficult decade. We've seen the decimation of our forest industry. We saw the loss of over 50 sawmills and over 20,000 forestry jobs during a housing boom in the United States. This is a mismanagement of the fundamentals of the B.C. economy.

Real wages in B.C. over the past decade have declined 3.8 percent, while in neighbouring Alberta they have increased by 6.8 percent. Growth in the 1990s was higher than in this Liberal decade of deceit. In fact, what we have seen is the decimation of the fundamentals of the B.C. economy. While housing prices provided, for a time, the impression of increased wealth through increased debt, people now see how the B.C. Liberal mismanagement of the economy has left us individually and collectively without the means to recover.

[1510]

The fundamental industries of this province are decimated — forestry, fisheries, agriculture. They have doubled the provincial debt — that without even considering the off–balance sheet debt of their privatization schemes. They have destroyed the forest industry, fishing and agriculture. Now their only answer, their only vision, is a $1.9 billion transfer of tax from corporations to small businesses and consumers so that they can take a $1.6 billion payoff to do what they promised not to do in the first place — $1.6 billion to cover up at least a fraction of their mismanagement.

Real people have been struggling under failed B.C. Liberal economic policies. We have seen this decimation of the forest industry, a dismantling that led to the loss of over 50 sawmills and over 20,000 jobs before there was any downturn. Those jobs were lost at the height of a North American building boom, and your government, members on the other side….

Those members of the government deregulated recklessly a forest industry and decimated the foundation of the B.C. economy at a time when there was the largest rate of growth in housing in the United States. A province dependent on an industry that supplies that marketplace died. Those jobs won't be coming back. It was a disaster. It was a double-cross of this province. They sold out the province and gave away….

The Auditor General has referred to the giveaway of the forest lands on Vancouver Island as a failure to protect the public interest — and now the ultimate symbol of that deceit: the HST.

There is not a single member on the other side who had the courage or the knowledge, perhaps…. Perhaps their Premier, perhaps their cabinet didn't share it with them, but not one of them went to the doorstep and told the voters that what they planned to do, the best thing for the economy, was to harmonize the provincial sales tax with the GST and transfer $1.9 billion of tax obligation from the biggest corporations in this province down to consumers and small businesses.

We are now to trust their judgment in bringing in this hated sales tax? We are now to trust those who betrayed the voters of B.C. on B.C. Rail, the HEU contracts, the true size of the deficit and the real cost of the Olympics? Two million British Columbians will be paying more. This is a massive double-cross. Just as the province strug-

[ Page 4121 ]

gles to emerge from a recession, the B.C. Liberals decide to burden that recovery with the HST.

What wizards these B.C. Liberals — wizards who continue a bad spell, a spell that has seen this province maintain the tragic notoriety of having the highest child poverty rates in the country, a spell that has seen B.C. sink to the lowest minimum wage in the country, without even considering the $6-an-hour training wage. That spell has seen our largest factor of growth become growth in homelessness.

What a disaster. And now this, the HST, the ultimate hidden tax, hidden from the public during the election, hidden from the builders of B.C., who were double-crossed in writing when the B.C. Liberals told them that the HST was not on their radar — that in writing to the B.C. builders.

Another double-cross. The B.C. restaurant and food association sent out a questionnaire to all parties before the May election. One question was whether they would implement the HST. The NDP replied that they would not. The B.C. Liberals responded with detailed reasoning on why they would not harmonize the HST with the GST.

Let's take a look at what was said to these restaurant owners and their association. During the election they were told that the HST would extend the PST tax base to a broader range of goods and services that are presently exempt from provincial sales tax. This is major concern. Well, I guess not a big enough concern to hold them back from implementing it the day after the election, practically.

[1515]

The B.C. Liberals are also mindful that a harmonized GST would reduce the provincial government's ability to unilaterally adjust sales tax rates. Apparently, before the election they saw that it was beneficial that the province have the autonomy to reward behaviours that it considered to be good for the economy and the environment, such as buying bicycles, buying energy-efficient appliances, but all that is out the window now.

So if this member on the other side had such courage, why during the election didn't he knock on doors and tell the voters of B.C. that that was what he was going to do? Didn't the members on the other side have the courage of their conviction, or were they aware that had they shared that news, those 88 percent of British Columbians who were opposed to this tax would have turfed them from government?

N. Letnick: Because they're being misled.

D. Routley: Yes, the member confirms it was because they were being misled. Absolutely. That is why the voters of B.C. are reacting with such anger.

It is certainly dismaying to see a government behave in this way, to see a government betray the population that it represents. All through its history, right from B.C. Rail, through the HEU contracts, all the way to the HST — a continued track record of betrayal.

If a person were to succumb to this depressing scenario, then certainly the most booming commodity in B.C. would be cynicism. But I'm proud and I'm happy to say that I see British Columbians reacting with outright anger at this, and that reassures me that people still do care about their democracy. People do still expect that these members, these B.C. Liberal members who were elected on a promise not to harmonize the provincial sales tax with the GST, shouldn't do that — shouldn't do what they promised not to do during the election campaign.

Yet what did they do? A flip-flop, a gymnastic miracle. They have decided that they can do whatever they please. It doesn't matter what they've promised the people of B.C. — again. So when we speak to young people who are rather dismayed and cynical about politics, we have to defend our system against this kind of an abuse.

Hon. B. Bennett: Is that like a fudge-it budget?

D. Routley: Then the members talk about a fudge-it budget. I think they're referring to the fact that their Finance Minister promised the province that the deficit would not be greater than $495 million. I think that's what they're referring to.

What they're saying and confirming again is that the people of B.C. were misled, that just as the member says, they were manipulated and misled. They were misled by our Finance Minister, who told this province that the deficit would not be more than $495 million, even during the election campaign. But now we find out that the minister and the Premier knew that revenues were plummeting to such an extent that that was an impossible target.

Did they share that with the voters? The member who's talking on the other side — did he share it on the doorstep with the voters in his constituency? "Well, I know the Finance Minister said it's going to be $495 million, but it's actually going to be about five times that." Did he share that? No. Just like he didn't share the news about the HEU contracts, B.C. Rail or this harmonized sales tax.

This is pathetic. This is very sad. This is very sad for our democracy and our province that a government elected in British Columbia — such a beautiful province; such a strong, wealthy, healthy province — can entertain such deceit. That is unfortunate.

Now, on top of those disastrous facts, British Columbians will see this $1.9 billion transferred from the biggest corporations in our province — particularly those who are exporting our resources in raw form, like raw logs — onto the backs of small business.

[ Page 4122 ]

Interjection.

D. Routley: You're right — onto the backs of farmers and small business people and consumers. This comes on the heels of massive MSP premium increases, soaring ferry fares and huge increases in other fees, such as camping fees and health services.

[1520]

The TD Bank estimated that 21.4 percent of the goods British Columbians buy will be newly subject to the HST and that, on average, consumer prices will rise by 1.5 percent, even if businesses reduce their prices. B.C.'s PST applies to a narrower range of goods and services than the sales taxes of other provinces, so the effect will be even larger here.

Only 11 percent of British Columbians….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, forgive the interruption.

The other members will come to order.

Please proceed.

D. Routley: Only 11 percent of British Columbians support this tax. More than 80 percent are opposed to it, and yet here it comes. It doesn't have to be this way.

Only seven of those members…. If they could develop the courage, if they could connect with the expectations of those they purport to represent…. The HST could be defeated if only seven of them voted against it. I'm sure that with the narrow margins that many of these members were elected by, they must be considering the dubious future they face as politicians if they support this HST, which they campaigned against implementing. This is not acceptable.

British Columbians are reacting across the political spectrum with anger and outrage, and I'm glad they are. If they weren't, it would mean that our democracy truly is in peril, because people would have resigned themselves to the fact that being misled during an election campaign is acceptable. And it is not. Thank goodness it is not, in British Columbia.

What is the raw cost of all this? Well, to use the government's own claims, a $1.9 billion transfer, based on a population of 4.4 million people, results in $432 extra for every man, woman and child. How on earth are we to pay?

We will pay when we pay for…. Well, let's take a look at the list of what we're going to pay for. It's long, so I have to ask the member's and the Speaker's forgiveness for going through such a long list. It includes real estate fees. It includes….

Interjections.

D. Routley: Yeah, okay. Well, they'll be glad that I can't actually find the list right now. Here we are — the HST hit list. Don't fret, Members. I've found it. Don't fret. You'll need to know, as you plan your monthly budget, just like every other British Columbian needs to know what's going to cost them more.

Restaurant meals, cable TV, new homes, non-prescription medication, telephone services, Internet services, propane and natural gas, hockey tickets. Oh, hockey tickets, Members. How could you do it? Some groceries, prepared foods, haircuts, admission fees, membership fees, movies, theatre, bus fares, magazines and newspapers, rent and strata fees, taxi fares.

Airline tickets — that'll affect the members opposite. Golf fees — that will certainly affect a lot of the members on the other side. Music lessons — not so sure. Skiing, spa services, massage therapy, resort packages, parking, coffee shops, fast food, beverages, dry cleaning, car maintenance and repair, vitamins, dietary supplements.

I'm halfway through the list, Madam Speaker. I can't read it all, because I want to finish my speech.

It's amazing that we're going to take $1.9 billion from the biggest corporations and shift it onto the everyday lives of ordinary British Columbians — the very people that this government purports to represent, the very people who were misled when they were told that the government wouldn't do this. They were promised.

Well, you know what? One might arrive at the conclusion that the B.C. Liberals have forgotten for whom they work. That would be assuming that they ever really worked for the people in the public interest of British Columbia. It is clear, though, through their many assaults on the common wealth of this province, that the B.C. Liberals have never really truly worked for the benefit of this province and its people but rather have always danced to the tune of their corporate masters — in fact, that narrow band of corporate interests that have donated and supported the Premier and his party.

[1525]

If your values and your beliefs tell you that it's okay to funnel the wealth of a society up to the already powerful and secure, then fine. Fine. Put that in front of the people. Tell the people of the province what you are going to do, and then do it. Don't mislead them by telling them you will not impose the HST and then do that very thing. If you have the courage of your conviction, if you believe that this was the right thing to do, you should have put it in front of….

Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Chair, please.

D. Routley: Let the voters choose the real agenda. Don't hide your agenda and veil your plans. Don't campaign against the HST and then turn around and impose it only after you're elected. If your values and beliefs are that this great province should work for every one of its citizens, that every one of those people deserves an equal chance, an equal opportunity, then don't imple-

[ Page 4123 ]

ment the HST. Don't impose crippling fee increases on British Columbians. Don't mislead British Columbians about B.C. Rail, about HEU contracts, about the true state of the province's finances.

Don't cut from services that support British Columbians, like education and health care, and then pretend that you haven't done so. Don't give away the wealth of this province through transfers to corporations and onto British Columbians, like the HST, like the forest land giveaways. Don't mislead British Columbians.

The basic role of government is to protect the people and the province. The B.C. Liberal government has displayed its weakness again. It fails to protect the people from want and harm as it transfers the HST to the shoulders of people. It failed to protect the people from want and harm as it decimated our forest industry and stripped supports from children and families, only to see child poverty and homelessness grow.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

The people are ready and always have been ready to do their part for their province. They stand ready in good faith to invest the effort and sacrifice it takes to build a better B.C. for them and their children. What they need is leadership that lives up to the commitment they make to their province. This side of the House stands ready to join the people of B.C. in building a province that reflects their vision of fairness, empathy, independence and security.

We are all proud of our province. We all know it is essential that we as a people, as embodied in this House, never dishonour the legacy we have inherited by losing sight of our duty to put this province first. The B.C. Liberals, in so many ways, have forgotten this. Perhaps the clearest example of this failure is the HST.

The HST is representative, symbolic, a crystallization of what it means to mislead the voters. It is the symbol of betrayal — the betrayal of B.C. by every B.C. Liberal candidate who knocked on doors and campaigned for election hiding the HST from voters, hiding cuts to education, hiding the true size of the deficit.

Democracy depends on integrity. When we are failed by such a betrayal, democracy has its remedy.

I'd like to take a look now at the other groups who have come out with statements of disbelief over the HST, anger over the HST and the feeling that they have been absolutely betrayed by the people who represent them on that side of the House.

The First Nations. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs opposes the unilateral implementation of the HST. Both the federal and provincial governments failed to consult with First Nations and have refused to meet with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs to discuss the impacts of this tax. Chief Keith Matthew, Simpcw First Nation and member of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs HST committee, stated: "They are brushing us off."

That really summarizes the feeling of every British Columbian — that we have been brushed off, that the commitment a government makes to its people in order to represent democratically has been brushed aside by the HST, by the promises made by this government and then broken.

[1530]

It's a long track record of betrayal — B.C. Rail, HEU contracts, education funding, and on and on. They promised to protect education funding and health care funding before the election, and look what we see — school boards in crisis again.

Year after year this government plunges our public services into crisis, and the HST will do nothing to repair that damage. The HST they've advertised as being revenue-neutral will, in fact, cost this province money to implement. Revenue to government will, in fact, decrease, but the burden to ordinary taxpayers and small businesses will increase dramatically.

Why would this government choose to do this? Why would they choose to do it? If they had the courage of conviction, why weren't they prepared to knock on the voters' doors and tell them their plans? That's the least British Columbians should expect.

If it is not a question of integrity, if those members on the other side honestly didn't know, then it's a question of incompetence, because the Finance Minister has told this province that he wasn't aware that Ontario was considering the HST. The Finance Minister of British Columbia wasn't aware that for months and months Ontario had been saying that they were planning to impose the HST.

In fact, the Ontario government had the decency and integrity to consult with the people affected. The Ontario government went around the province and discussed the impacts, and how to mitigate them, on those affected. Still, there's a majority of Ontarians who oppose it, but at least they didn't have to face this betrayal that British Columbians have had to face.

Let's look at the realtors. We're going to see an additional 2 percent tax on new homes up to $525,000, after the rebate, and then an additional 7 percent tax on the value of a new home above $525,000. The HST will also be charged on the real estate agent's commissions, as well as on services like appraisals and maintenance.

The B.C. Real Estate Association has an anti-HST campaign. My partner is about to write her realtor's exam. Her brother is a realtor. Her father is a very well-known realtor. They were shocked. They came to me and asked me for information about how they could respond to this betrayal. Those are people who were formerly B.C. Liberal supporters and feel absolutely betrayed.

When we look at tourism, the HST will increase the average price of tourism-related products and services by almost 5 percent. It will lower tourism industry revenue by $363 million to $545 million per year. The tourism

[ Page 4124 ]

associations of B.C. say that it will cause jobs to be lost — 3,400 to 5,000 direct jobs or 7,000 to 10,000 direct and indirect jobs. Does this not matter to the members opposite? What will it take to penetrate that thick skin that appears to have been developed over a sensitivity to what happens to the people they represent?

Democracy is offended by such a betrayal, and democracy has remedies. How many B.C. Liberal members were elected by slim margins? I wonder how many sitting in the House right now were elected by the slimmest of margins. If the B.C. Liberals had been truthful with the voters, what would have been the result?

Here's a warning to the B.C. Liberal members. Here's a warning to those who were narrowly elected: democracy has a remedy for such betrayal. The federal Conservative Party, after implementing the GST against the wishes of Canadians, was banished to the hinterlands of politics for 20 years. That would be a prediction from this side of the House for that side of the House.

[1535]

D. Horne: It's with great pleasure that I stand today in debate and speak in favour of Bill 9, the Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act. I'd like to start by stepping back for a moment and examining the facts and how those members opposite and myself have reached the positions that we now find ourselves in.

One of the things — with all of the drama, all of the political theatre, all of the comments from those opposite — that seems to be forgotten is that the reason why this bill is structured the way that it is, is that it repeals the PST. We have a great deal of theatre happening on the other side and a great deal of, you know, "This is what should have happened," and all of that. But the fact of the matter is that I first heard about the HST the same way they did. [Laughter.]

They can laugh all they want, but that's the truth. They can basically create all the theatre they want and all the drama. They can basically go on and on and try to create all this thing, but that is the truth. I personally heard about the implementation of the HST the exact same week that they did.

Since then, we've both had equal and ample opportunity to examine it. The one thing you won't find is any of the members opposite standing and saying: "The reason why I don't support the HST is because the PST is so much better than the HST will be." None of them, not a single member opposite, will stand in their place and say that the PST is a good tax. That's because it's not, and that's because it creates level upon level upon level of taxation on the sales of many goods and services.

There are many, many ways of looking at it, but one of them is to take a look at a piece of lumber. People look at the single pickup truck. A logging company, a forestry company, someone involved in the agricultural sector, buys a pickup truck. The average pickup costs about $50,000. Right now that pickup truck has $3,500 worth of PST embedded in the cost. That $3,500 has to be recouped, and that $3,500…. I can tell you.

You know, the members opposite go on about big business. They go on about the fact that this is a tax shift from business to consumers, but I hate to tell them that businesses that don't recoup their costs are called one thing, and that is bankrupt. So consumers are currently paying that $3,500 charged for that pickup truck in PST. Not only are they paying it, but when that company calculates its cost of goods sold, it takes into account that PST, and then — I know the members opposite will be even more shocked by this — not only do they charge that $3,500 back to consumers, but they charge profit on that $3,500 as well.

They actually attach margin to that $3,500, and they say, "Okay, my goods cost X number of dollars, and that includes the PST I'm paying," and they charge profit on it. I know the members opposite would just be absolutely and utterly horrified by such a possibility, but the fact of the matter is that under the HST they will get this tax back. Surprisingly enough, they will no longer have it as a cost of goods sold, and they won't be charging profit on it.

The interesting thing…. The funny

part is that some of the members opposite now are basically saying: "What? What's he talking about?" Well, it just shows how they know absolutely, utterly nothing about business. Put it this way. When you decide how you're going to make money as a corporation, you have to take into account your input costs. You have to take into account how much it costs you to do business. Right now it costs a business the PST as well. After the HST is implemented, it will not.

[1540]

I think it's funny because the NDP and their strange bedfellow Mr. Vander Zalm…. I was trying to figure it out, and it's just actually come to me now. I've tried to figure out what the connection is and how Bill Vander Zalm and those opposite have come together. It's because they both live in a fantasy world. Coming from that fantasy world, they go on, and they don't understand the basic economics of input costs and the fact that companies charge margin on it. But they go on, and this baseless fearmongering just continues and continues, and it's shameful. It's downright shameful.

You know, I had a call to my office recently. One of the members opposite recently read through a list of those things that would be taxed. I had an older gentleman, and he called me. He's retired, and he's got a fixed income. He doesn't have a lot of money. He basically said to me: "I can't believe that you're doing this and that you are, basically, putting forward the HST."

I said: "Well, let's go into the details. What have you heard?" He says: "Oh, I have this e-mail, and it shows me how I'm going to spend $2,100 more a year." He says:

[ Page 4125 ]

"Well, there are some items on it. So I won't be quite at $2,100 on it, because there are some things…. I don't golf, for example, so I won't be paying the membership fees."

There are a lot of people who are on a fixed income at $40,000 who pay almost 50 or 30 percent of that, according to that calculation, in golf fees, but we won't get into the mathematics of that.

Basically, you go through item after item after item. The first item on the list is groceries, which is just fundamentally wrong. It's just deceitful and wrong. It's sad that the members opposite and Mr. Vander Zalm have to deceive people in order to get their point across. Actually, Mr. Vander Zalm mentioned that the other day, about this deceit, and that this was the only way it was going to work or something. I wasn't quite certain what he was exactly meaning, but the fact of the matter is that you go through that list….

The member read the list. He says telephone and Internet and cablevision. I hate to tell you this, but telephone right now, all but the basic line charge, is already subject to the PST. Everything but the basic line charge will be no increased cost. Oh, I know you wouldn't want to tell people that.

The second thing — cablevision, for example. They use a number. To create this $2,100, they say cablevision. Well, my cablevision costs $80. I hate to tell you this; you're already paying PST on the majority of that $80 and the same as the phone cost as well. You're already paying PST on a majority of that phone cost.

If you take the personal tax measures and other measures that this government has put into place and you take those into account with the HST, for a family earning $30,000, what will that mean for them with the HST? That's this family earning $30,000.

Let me emphasize this for a second. With the harmonized tax credit that they will receive, they will save $552 a year. Then you go and you take a look at a family earning about $60,000. What will this HST cost them? According to Statistics Canada, on average consumption, it's going to cost that family making $60,000 a year about $134 or about $10 a month. Well, that's a long way from the thousands of dollars that Bill Vander Zalm and the members opposite are scaring people and scaring British Columbians into believing that it's going to be.

The biggest difficulty, one of the things that I find most amusing about this whole conversation, is that it's very easy to scare people when they don't know, when they can't go to the store and see, when they can't see what the truth is, when they're sitting in the dark, and they're not exactly certain what will happen in the future, what is really happening around you.

It's like your big brother who comes in and says there's a boogeyman in the closet, and you sit there and you hide. You hide under your covers, and you say, "Oh my gosh. I'm frightened of that boogeyman. I'm worried about that boogeyman," and your big brother keeps saying: "That boogeyman is coming. He's coming. He's going to come and get you. You better hide from the boogeyman."

[1545]

Well, we all know when the lights go on and you open the closet door, there's no boogeyman there. I want to know what happens on July 1 when British Columbians turn on the light and open the closet door and realize that the boogeyman that this opposition and Bill Vander Zalm told them was there isn't there.

What are they going to say then? What are they going to say to the members opposite? What are they going to say to Bill Vander Zalm, who…? You must question what his motives are, because he's a bright guy, and I know for a fact that he knows there's no boogeyman in the closet.

You know, the difficulty is that when it comes to telling people the way it is, when it comes to economic policy, when it comes to how you deal with these issues and how you can convey them, it's the same thing as the carbon tax. This opposition was so opposed to the carbon tax. They stood up. They jumped up and down. They said this was the worst thing that could happen to British Columbia, and then when reality set in, they realized that their own supporters actually supported the carbon tax as well. It was like: "Oh, we better not say anything about that any more."

The difficulty is that you can have all the theatre you want. You can go on and on and on about how it was put forward, but the fact of the matter is that it all comes down to one simple question. Is this the right thing for British Columbia? Is this the right thing for our economy, and will this make British Columbia stronger in the future? Resoundingly, the answer to that question is yes.

The idea of the harmonized sales tax has actually been around for years. One of the members opposite said earlier: "Did we have a study on this? Why would we do this without any studies?" Well, we have a study. It's called 130 countries around the world. It's called 29 of 30 OECD countries in the world who have moved to this form of taxation. And why do they continue to transition? Why do they move to these types of taxation? Because it's the right thing to do. It allows for competitiveness within businesses.

There have been comments even this morning about competitiveness with Alberta. Alberta doesn't have a sales tax. Well, I hate to tell you. If you're a business in British Columbia and you're competing against a business in Alberta and you're paying the sales tax, and they're not, surprisingly enough — and I know the NDP has trouble with math, and they live in this fantasyland — you're at a competitive disadvantage.

Surprisingly, when you institute an HST so that those input tax credits come back to them, the shocking thing

[ Page 4126 ]

that happens is that the playing field becomes level because now both the company in Alberta and the company in British Columbia no longer have to worry about the tax.

You know, when I ran my company, I can tell you that we bid on projects in Alberta. One of the other things that was complex with that is that we had to register in Alberta. We had to register with their equivalent of WorkSafe in Alberta, and we had many, many hoops to jump through. Not only did we have to jump through all of these hoops in order to compete for business in Alberta, but in the design business which I was in, on each one of our computers we had approximately $10,000 worth of software.

Surprisingly enough, the PST that I had paid as a businessman on that $10,000 worth of software on every single one of my computers…. For those that don't do the math well, that's $70 per computer. The difficulty is that I didn't get that back. So that was a cost of my doing business. That was a cost that me, as a company, that my partners, that we simply had to include in our cost of doing business, and it had to be included and recouped. Obviously, in doing business and in being successful, we made sure that that was the case.

[1550]

We can debate this for long, long periods. The other comment that was made this morning was the Tim Hortons doughnut theory. One of the members opposite said that the Tim Hortons on this side of the British Columbia border was going to be in big trouble compared to the one on the other side of the border in Alberta because, of course, that 14 cents was going to compel all of those people to spend $20 on gas to drive and get a doughnut.

It just shows you how utterly silly from an economic standpoint some of these arguments are. Quite frankly, someone who is going to spend $20 to save 14 cents needs an examination of the way they think financially because, obviously, they're doing something completely wrong.

You know, the restaurant sector has spoken a lot about the HST. They've created some signs, and they've created some things. I find it interesting, having been a businessman, because I think that to spend significant amounts of money convincing people that your product is going to be outside of their purchasing power on a certain date because of a certain policy isn't terribly good business and might be, to a certain extent, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don't believe for a moment, for most of them, that this will have a significant impact. In fact, I actually spoke to a local restaurant owner in my riding the other day. He's just built a new restaurant, and he spent over a million dollars on leasehold improvements to build out his new restaurant. He's actually in the process, he and his partners, of building several more restaurants. They've been very, very successful, and they're great guys. You know, they do very, very well in the restaurant business.

Through the conversation I said: "Well, how much GST did you get back when you built out your restaurant?" He said: "It was over $50,000." I said: "Well, how much of the PST did you get back? How much of the PST that you spent on your counters, your flooring, your stoves, your fridges, everything else that went into that restaurant, how much of that did you get back? How much of that came back so that you could basically have it in your business to run your business, to make sure that your business was properly capitalized?"

He looked at me, and he said: "Well, of course I got none of it back."

"None," I said. "Well, the restaurant business has been very, very critical of the HST. You know how much of that you would have got back with the HST if you had an HST and we were in an HST world?"

When you build a restaurant starting in July, how much of that are you going to get back? Well, the answer is: all of it. They're going to get all of it back. I know, for the members opposite, that would be horrible — to have tens of thousands of dollars in their pockets so that they can build the restaurant, build more restaurants, build jobs. I know that's difficult, because when you have extra money and you're in the restaurant business and you have the ability to build another restaurant, surprisingly enough that creates jobs.

They would convince you. They would spend considerable time telling you about all the jobs that'll be lost in the restaurant sector. It's funny, I think, that when time proves eternal, these restaurants will be far further ahead than they've ever been now.

It's not just the restaurant sector. You know, take a look at the employers in British Columbia, the major employers — people like the B.C. Agriculture Council, the B.C. Business Council, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the B.C. Lumber Trade Council, the Canada West Foundation, the Motion Picture Industry Association of B.C. You take a look, association after association, representing many, many workers here in British Columbia, and they're all in favour of the HST. Why is that?

Why is it — if you actually look back and you listen to the Finance Committee and you listen to what's happened over many years — that people would come before the Finance Committee every year and say: "You have to harmonize this tax. You have to make it easier"?

[1555]

I can tell you, as a businessperson for many, many years, that filling out many, many forms that government requires in order to do business — filling out your tax forms, filling out your WorkSafe forms, filling out all of the forms that are required by government in order to comply with their rules and regulations — is a huge task in itself. How much does a company actually get back

[ Page 4127 ]

for filling in all of these forms? The answer is: nothing. They're a cost of doing business.

So when the opportunity comes to streamline things, when the opportunity comes to not duplicate the collection of taxes, when the opportunity comes to make it much, much simpler and have a system that people already understand and is in place and move to it, would we say no? Would we say: "No, that makes no sense. We'd prefer to spend $30 million a year in British Columbia continuing to collect the PST"?

I go back to my original comment, and that is: I challenge the members opposite to actually stand up and talk about the benefits of the PST, talk about how great the PST is, talk about how it's such a better tax, how the PST that we currently have is so much better for business, is so much better for the economy, is so much better for British Columbia in the long run than the HST. I can tell you right now that there won't be a single member opposite that will stand up and make that speech, will stand up and make that argument, because the argument's not there to make.

And that's why their members, when asked…. You know, when my colleague on the Public Accounts Committee, the critic for Finance, says that it's like an appendix — once it's done, it's done — and the Leader of the Opposition says, "We'd serve notice," but it doesn't…. You know, what that actually means is another question.

The reason why they're as vague as they are is because they know that once it's there, it's there. They also know — which is the sad reality of the situation, which is why they won't say anything — that the HST is actually better than the PST. They know that. That's why whenever they all stand up, they always go on about who knew what when, about all of these other theatrics, about basically all and everything about everything.

They will speak to everything but the case in point — that is, the principle of this bill, the principle of eliminating the PST, a tax that is detrimental to business, a tax that costs businesses significant amounts each month and year to manage, a tax that costs businesses considerable amounts to make sure that they're in compliance with, a tax that is quite complex as to how it's dealt with and what it's charged on and how you deal with things.

One of the things that I find funny as well…. I had a meeting. One of the members spoke earlie