2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 39, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Courage to Come Back award recipients

Hon. M. McNeil

Patricia Lee

R. Fleming

Statements

Victoria Day Parade

Hon. I. Chong

Victoria Highland Games and Celtic Festival

Hon. I. Chong

Introductions by Members

Tabling Documents

Office of the Merit Commissioner, interim annual report 2011-2012

Annual Report of the British Columbia Legislative Library 2011

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia

M. Elmore

Child care providers

J. McIntyre

Victoria Foundation Vital Youth program

C. James

Bombing of Air India flight

D. Hayer

Apology by UBC for expulsion of Japanese-Canadian students during WWII

M. Mungall

Local Government Awareness Week

J. Les

Oral Questions

Recommendations from coroner's inquest into farmworker deaths

R. Chouhan

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Access to worker safety information and training

M. Elmore

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

B.C. Hydro energy purchase agreements

J. Horgan

Hon. K. Falcon

Tree poaching in Carmanah Walbran Park and staffing levels in parks

S. Fraser

Hon. T. Lake

Forest management and role of chief forester

B. Simpson

Hon. S. Thomson

TransLink TaxiSaver program for seniors and people with disabilities

H. Bains

Hon. B. Lekstrom

K. Conroy

Organic certification of farmed salmon

M. Sather

Hon. D. McRae

Invasive snakehead fish species

M. Farnworth

Hon. T. Lake

Motions Without Notice

Membership change for Finance Committee

Hon. T. Lake

Tabling Documents

Office of the provincial health officer, Progress on the Action Plan for Safe Drinking Water in British Columbia 2011

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 54 — Provincial Sales Tax Act (continued)

S. Chandra Herbert

J. Brar

D. Routley

R. Chouhan

G. O'Mahony

S. Hammell

K. Conroy

G. Gentner

R. Austin

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 37 — Animal Health Act (continued)

L. Popham

Hon. D. McRae

M. Sather

D. Routley

V. Huntington

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Justice (continued)

M. Mungall

Hon. S. Bond

L. Krog

C. Trevena

K. Corrigan

[ Page 12175 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 17, 2012

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

B. Ralston: It's my pleasure, in my capacity as the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, to welcome to British Columbia and to our House a delegation of visitors from the Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature in the Republic of South Africa.

Joining us in the gallery this afternoon are seven members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: Masiza Maxwell Mhlati, Neo Moerane, Mkhangeli Matomela; Michael Peter, Nomvula Ponco, Nkosinathi Kuluta and Xola Pakati. The staff accompanying the committee members are Tom Brokolo and Ntomboxolo Sylvia Peter and Lwandile Fumba.

This morning the delegation had the opportunity to engage in dialogue with the members of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, observe the Committee of Supply, attend meetings with other key officials and now are here on the floor of the Legislature to observe this afternoon's proceedings. Will the House please make our guests very welcome.

[1335]

Hon. M. Polak: Today I had the privilege of hosting an event to celebrate the signing of an important agreement between the province and the Kaska Dena Council on behalf of three northern First Nations. The agreement is the fifth strategic engagement agreement signed by the government with First Nations in British Columbia.

Among the honoured guests at the event and in the gallery with us today are Deputy Chief Peter Stone of Daylu Dene Council and the Chief Donny Van Somer of Kwadacha First Nation. Chief Carol Ann Johnny of Dease River First Nation had hoped to be with us today, but unfortunately, she was not able to join us.

Also at today's celebration and in the House are Kaska Dena Council chairman George Miller; vice-chair Danny Case; Dave Porter, chief negotiator for Kaska; members of the Kaska Dena drummers and several other Kaska members. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today are two constituents of mine, Kathy Cook and her daughter Emma, who is being homeschooled. After the proceedings here today we're going to go for a bit of a tour. While I was saying hello, I met three new friends from the great state of Oregon who are going to come with me for a tour into the basement to see where all the secrets are buried. Will the House please make my constituents and our friends from Oregon very, very welcome.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Joining us in the House today is my former ministerial assistant, Ms. Corrie Delisle, and also a number of other guests with Corrie. Her first son, William Delisle, joins us; and her newborn son, Noah Delisle, who was born April 2 — six pounds, six ounces — and brother of William joins us as well; as well as Corrie's mother and grandmother to both William and Noah, Jill Allick. Will the House please help me welcome them here today.

C. James: I have two guests in the Legislature today who are visiting us from the Victoria Foundation, which is, as many members know, a community foundation and registered charity that does extraordinary work in our area and around the province.

In fact, it was one of the first charities in Canada to receive accreditation through Imagine Canada standards program.

Today we have Louise MacDonald, who is the director of governance and executive operations, and Maureen Grant, the administrative assistant. Would the House please make them very welcome.

J. Les: In the gallery today we're honoured to have the Dutch consul in Vancouver, Mr. Johannes Vervloed of the Netherlands. The consul general is here today with a delegation that includes Mr. Ralph de Vries, who is a member of the provincial executive for the province of Utrecht in the Netherlands, and Mr. Peter Glas, president of the regional water authorities in the Netherlands.

They are here to participate in a flood management and mitigation seminar in Richmond tomorrow. I was pleased to be able to join them for lunch today at the Empress Hotel, and they will also be hosting a reception this evening at the Hotel Grand Pacific, to which members of the House are invited. I would ask the House to please help me make them very welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: All of us will know that one of the organizations that we deal with closely is the provincial body that oversees our mayors and councils, our regional districts, and that's Union of B.C. Municipalities. They have executive meetings three or four times a year, generally in Vancouver, but one of those times they usually come to Victoria.

[ Page 12176 ]

Last night they had a reception to host many of us who were able to attend. Today I understand that some of the members are here attending question period.

I would like the House to help welcome Mayor Mary Sjostrom from the city of Quesnel; Coun. Harry Kroeker; Mayor Dave Pernarowski from the city of Terrace; Mayor Galina Durant, the district of Stewart; and Marie Crawford, who is a staff member from UBCM. I ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

[1340]

J. Brar: I am very pleased to introduce a family who are visiting Canada, Mr. Ramesh Rai and his wife, Jothi. They are visiting from India. They are here to see their son, Abinav, who graduated from UVic and now lives and works in Victoria.

Mr. Rai is also air vice-marshall in the Indian Air Force and the chief instructor at the Defence Services Staff College in Wellington. I would ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

I also see a friend and famous Burnaby councillor here, Sav Dhaliwal. I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

R. Cantelon: Joining us in the gallery today are John Phillips; his wife, Leslie; and their daughter Emily. John is the past chair of Vancouver Island University, and Emily works for us very diligently in caucus. They're all here to see how events unfold in question period, and I'm sure that we'll entertain them suitably. Let's please make them welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: I see a frequent visitor to the gallery of this chamber, Ryan Clayton, who has moved to Victoria. He's a strong advocate for lesbian, gay, bi and trans rights. Would the House please make him very welcome.

Tributes

COURAGE TO COME BACK

AWARD RECIPIENTS

Hon. M. McNeil: Coast Mental Health has announced recipients of its 2012 Courage to Come Back Awards. I would like to recognize two of this year's recipients.

Rebecka Hill serves as an inspiration for all at-risk youth across this province and is a former foster child. After struggling with drug addiction and being involved in a life of crime, Rebecka turned her life around and is now a mother with a two-year-old daughter. She has drawn on her own life experience to be a mentor, teacher and role model for at-risk youth at the Okanagan Boys and Girls Club.

I'd also like to recognize Margaret Benson. Margaret was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis at 14, and she was given only one year to live. But she never stopped believing, and her belief kept her alive for 30 more years before an organ donor provided the lungs she needed for a new lease on life. Margaret now raises awareness about transplantation and returned to her profession as a schoolteacher, is a public speaker and participates in athletics to prove that organ donation really works.

I also want to recognize that Margaret Benson is the teacher of my grandson Roger, and they are very proud of their teacher for winning the Courage to Come Back Awards.

PATRICIA LEE

R. Fleming: I would like to bring to the attention of the House the passing of a wonderful British Columbian and lifelong public servant who made a difference in the lives of so many in our province. Earlier this year Patricia Lee passed away suddenly and unexpectedly, having only recently received the province's 35-year service pin for recognition of her public service to others.

Pat Lee's career began at the Catholic Children's Aid Society, which then became the Vancouver Resources Board and later the Ministry of Human Resources. She worked across our province, from the east side and greater Vancouver area in youth services as well as many northern and aboriginal communities.

Pat worked in the Ministry of Children and Family Development's After Hours office providing emergency child protection, and for many years with Car 86 alongside Vancouver police department officers on high-risk cases.

She was a highly respected social worker noted for her exceptional, almost instinctive ability to assess the risk of harm to children, and her work was largely unsung. She worked as hard as is humanly possible every day for British Columbians.

Tonight at the Vancouver Heritage Hall there will be a tribute to Pat Lee's life. I would ask the House to join me in sending condolences to her daughter, Jenny, and her family, friends and colleagues in appreciation of her life of service to making British Columbia a better, safer and more socially just province for children and families.

Statements

VICTORIA DAY PARADE

Hon. I. Chong: I have two further introductions I would like to make, and I hope the members of the opposition will indulge me, those from the capital region.

I want to today acknowledge that on Monday we will be celebrating one of our civic holidays, and in Victoria the Island Farms Victoria Day Parade will take place, as

[ Page 12177 ]

it does each and every year. This annual event is the largest parade in the region with 143 floats, vans and other attractions. It is the longest-running consecutive parade in Canada, celebrating its 114th year.

The parade chairman has been a gentleman who has been giving so much to our community. The parade chairman for 21 years is Mr. Ron Butlin. I know he is not in the gallery because he is putting on those last-minute touches on all those floats himself.

[1345]

I hope that members, if they are here this weekend, will avail themselves to watch this parade. This year in particular the parade will have a 150th anniversary theme in honour of the city of Victoria's milestone. I'd ask the House to show our appreciation to Mr. Ron Butlin, who is the parade chairman.

VICTORIA HIGHLAND GAMES

AND CELTIC FESTIVAL

Hon. I. Chong: Secondly, I want to acknowledge, perhaps more for the member for Victoria–Swan Lake — I think it's in his riding — that the headline this morning was "Big Men in Kilts Toss Heavy Objects for Your Pleasure." That is the celebration of the annual event at Topaz Park this weekend for the 149th annual Victoria Highland Games and Celtic Festival.

If you've never seen big men in kilts toss heavy objects for your pleasure, please consider visiting that. I hope members will also give a hearty congratulations to all the participants.

Introductions by Members

M. Karagianis: In the gallery joining us today we have a really exceptional communications team from our offices. I'd like to have the House welcome Mike Lowe, Joni Li, Jen McWilliam and Veeno Dewan. They are here to join us today. For a couple of them, it's their first time here in question period, so I expect we're going to put on a nice, civilized show.

L. Reid: The three Richmond MLAs are pleased to welcome to the gallery today Mr. Ed Montague. Ed has been a lawyer for 25 years this year and 20 years with the fine law firm in Richmond of Campbell Froh May and Rice. I'd ask the House to please make him welcome.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the interim annual report of the Merit Commissioner, 2011-2012, and the Annual Report of the British Columbia Legislative Library 2011 .

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

INTERNATIONAL DAY

AGAINST HOMOPHOBIA AND TRANSPHOBIA

M. Elmore: Today thousands of people around the world in 70 countries are celebrating the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia. Transphobia refers to the disdain for or fear of transgender or transsexual people, and today marks the World Health Organization's decision in 1990 to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders.

Last year the United Nations Human Rights Council passed their first resolution ever on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has also produced a study documenting discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.

Although many important social and legal gains have been made, many lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer members of our community still face the reality of homophobia and transphobia in their daily lives. While Obama's personal support is an important step towards ensuring the rights of LGBTQ adults, we need to take urgent steps and lead on another front, LGBTQ youth.

We're not doing enough to protect our youth. The truth is that LGBTQ youth do not have equal access to a safe and inclusive education. Many are exposed to harassment and bullying on a daily basis at school. Research finds that almost 30 to 50 percent of all gay, lesbian and trans young people experience homophobic harassment at school. Many gay, lesbian and trans kids are afraid to go to school, and for some, they're being pushed to suicide.

A 2005 youth risk behaviour survey found sexual minority students to be 2.5 times more likely to hurt themselves on purpose, three times more likely to have seriously considered suicide and four times more likely to have actually attempted suicide.

We must stamp out homophobia and transphobia in the very places our young people feel so vulnerable, our public schools. That's why the need for an explicit provincewide policy to protect our youth in schools in B.C. is needed. We have a responsibility to provide a safe and inclusive environment for all kids, and we need to adopt discrimination against transgender and transsexual people as prohibited grounds in the B.C. Human Rights Code.

As we mark this day, I ask all members to join the struggle to overcome homophobia, transphobia and heterosexism, and work towards a B.C. where everybody — regardless of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity — is able to achieve their full potential and participate fully in everything that our province has to offer.

[ Page 12178 ]

CHILD CARE PROVIDERS

J. McIntyre: I'm very pleased to rise in the House today to recognize all child care providers and early childhood educators in communities across B.C. on a special day that celebrates their work and dedication to the young children of our province.

[1350]

Today is Child Care Provider Appreciation Day, proclaimed during the month of May, Child Care Month in B.C.

If you're a parent and have your child enrolled in child care, you know firsthand just how important and valuable a role child care providers play. They're helping to teach and guide our children at their earliest stages in life, allowing parents to participate in the labour force or pursue education opportunities. Child care providers are specially trained and bring a high level of skill, care, compassion and dedication to their work.

I'd also like to take this opportunity today to congratulate last week's winners of the Child Care Awards of Excellence. There were ten awards for outstanding work on behalf of B.C. children and families.

There were four regional awards for licensed early childhood educators or licensed family child care providers, as follows: Vancouver Island region, Nancy Dobbs, Saanichton; Interior region, Linda Roth, Kamloops; Coast-Fraser region, Maria Rodrigues, Richmond; Northern region, Elaine Kopetski, Quesnel.

There were two aboriginal awards, one for an aboriginal-descent worker in a licensed child care setting. That was Melanie Chickite from Campbell River. The aboriginal organization winner was the Dakii Yadze Centre, Moberly Lake.

There were also two awards for innovation in child care programming. The winners were Shyrose Nurmohamed in Richmond and the Clubhouse Child Care Centre in Kelowna. Then two final awards for local government, for demonstrating leadership, and those are Burnaby and New Westminster.

I ask that members of the House join me in recognizing and celebrating the outstanding work of thousands of child care professionals right across B.C.

VICTORIA FOUNDATION

VITAL YOUTH PROGRAM

C. James: The Victoria Foundation's vital youth program provides students from seven local high schools with hands-on experience in philanthropy and community development. Earlier this month representatives from the program presented $17,648 in grants to 18 local charities.

This was no ordinary selection process. The recipient organizations were chosen on recommendations by the students themselves. Using the foundation's Vital Signs community report as a tool, they researched potential charities, they conducted interviews, and they completed on-site visits. Then the teams from each school made written recommendations to Victoria Foundation's board of directors for final selection.

The students from Belmont Secondary, Frances Kelsey Secondary, Oak Bay High, Reynolds Secondary, St. Michael's University, Stelly's Secondary and Victoria High participate through youth advisory committees and leadership classes. Each project team is allocated $2,500 by the Victoria Foundation to distribute to registered charities on southern Vancouver Island.

The dollars from Vic High, a school in my constituency, were allocated to the Fernwood Community Association, the Garry Oak Ecosystems Recovery Team, Victoria Cool Aid's youth housing support and the Threshold Housing Society. Threshold offers at-risk youth aged 16 to 21 a safe place to live and work towards their future at their Mitchell and Holly houses.

Each year the Victoria Foundation provides a grant of $500 as a fund for each school that participates. That goes towards an endowment fund for future granting.

The vital youth program is a tremendous way to help young people understand the value of giving and the outstanding work that charitable organizations do in our community every day. So I hope the members will join me in thanking the Victoria Foundation for helping to inspire our youth and encourage tomorrow's leaders by showing them the remarkable difference that just giving back can make.

BOMBING OF AIR INDIA FLIGHT

D. Hayer: On June 23 of this year Canadians mourn once again the loss of 331 people who died as a result of terrorism hatched here in British Columbia. Twenty-seven years ago over the skies of Ireland, Air India flight 182 was blown out of the sky, taking 329 people to their deaths. Within an hour of that tragedy two Japanese baggage handlers were killed at Narita Airport as they were loading a second Air India plane.

Stunningly, despite our country spending more than $130 million trying to bring the criminals to justice, all but one of those who committed this most terrible crime still walk free. The victims and their families, after 27 long years, still have no closure, no justice for their loved ones.

[1355]

Aboard Air India flight 182 were 280 Canadians, 27 British citizens, 22 Americans. Eighty of those murdered were children who were between the ages of one and ten years old. Instead of a wonderful trip ending in India, they became victims of the worst mass murder in Canadian history, as the well as the deadliest air disaster to ever occur over the water.

What makes this terrible, disgraceful tragedy worse is that it was planned here in British Columbia — here on

[ Page 12179 ]

Vancouver Island and here in Vancouver. Terrorists plotted the attack and built the bombs. It was here that someone placed the explosive-laden bags at the Vancouver Airport, and it was here that they were loaded onto planes destined for Air India flights.

I ask everyone in this House and every British Columbian to remember on June 23 this terrible act of terrorism and also to remember that those perpetrators, the people who were involved in planning, financing, organizing and helping with this bombing, still walk free among us.

APOLOGY BY UBC FOR

EXPULSION OF JAPANESE-CANADIAN

STUDENTS DURING WWII

M. Mungall: Seventy years ago marked a dark time in B.C.'s history. British Columbia's involvement with interning Japanese Canadians during the Second World War was unconscionable. This House unanimously supported a formal apology. The Minister of Advanced Education not only initiated the apology, but she shared the powerful story of her family, illustrating how important the apology is in rectifying the past.

Others in B.C. are also seeking to rectify the past, and one of them is the University of British Columbia. In 2008 Mary Kitagawa approached UBC to honour 75 students who were forced from their studies and interned in 1942. She asked UBC to grant them honorary degrees. UBC knew that Ms. Kitagawa had brought forward an initiative that they needed to take on.

Two months ago they announced a new Asian Canadian studies program that will draw from the past to better the future. UBC is also preserving the historical record of that time.

On May 30 all students who were interned in 1942 will receive their degrees. One of those students is 93-year-old Fred Sasaki. The night Pearl Harbour was attacked, two plainclothes RCMP officers took his father away. As Fred says: "It changed our lives forever." Shortly after, Fred's mother and sisters were sent to an internment camp in my area, in Kaslo, on the shores of Kootenay Lake.

Separated from his family, Fred was forced out of UBC. The racism was dehumanizing, and it was cruel. While professors spoke out against the injustice, it took 70 years for them and the students to finally be heard.

I want to congratulate Fred and his classmates. You have overcome incredible injustice, contributed to your communities and made Canada a better place.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AWARENESS WEEK

J. Les: May 20 to 26 has been proclaimed Local Government Awareness Week in British Columbia. The purpose of this week is to generate awareness and educate the public on the important role that our hundreds of locally elected officials play in making decisions through municipal councils, regional district boards and school boards. It's an opportunity for the public to learn more how local governance works and how citizens can participate in creating strong and family-friendly communities.

Communities are celebrating Local Government Awareness Week throughout our province. For example, the district of Squamish is holding a number of activities to get youth engaged in and excited about local government. These include a mayor-for-the-day contest for students in grades 5 to 7. The winner will have an opportunity to co-chair a committee-of-the-whole meeting, speak with downtown merchants and have lunch with council members, amongst other things.

Elementary students will also be able to tour the public works yard, followed by lunch with the mayor. Staff from the district of Squamish are delivering presentations to students in grades 5 through 7 at local elementary schools, upon request, to share information about local government and the important role that citizens play in shaping their community.

I commend Squamish and all of the other communities holding events next week for taking the initiative to engage with residents and to educate them about the local government system.

The timing coincides with National Public Works Week. This year's theme, "Creating a lasting impression," calls attention to the importance of public works in community life. Public Works Week is about acknowledging the efforts of many people who provide and maintain civil infrastructure and services, whether they are in the public or the private sector.

[1400]

I encourage members of the public to call their local government or their school district to see what activities are being planned in their areas. As you know, our government has made it a priority to build livable communities where families can thrive, where businesses can flourish and create jobs, and where the needs of people of all ages and abilities are met. It all starts at the local government level where elected officials make decisions that have a direct impact on the quality of life of their citizens.

Oral Questions

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CORONER'S

INQUEST INTO FARMWORKER DEATHS

R. Chouhan: Mr. Speaker, we now have the recommendations from the B.C. coroner's inquest into the tragic deaths and injuries of mushroom farm workers in 2008. The jury has done its work. We have 15 recommendations, and now the ball is in the government's court.

My question to the Minister of Labour is: will the government now accept all 15 recommendations and ensure

[ Page 12180 ]

that they are fully implemented so that this kind of tragedy does not happen again?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Thank you to the member for the question. The coroner's jury worked hard through a very complex process and delivered their recommendations last evening. The majority of those recommendations are for WorkSafe, although some of them are for the Ministry of Environment and the Ambulance Paramedics.

Before I say anything else, I want to say that this inquest was incredibly difficult for the families of the workers who were injured very seriously and the three who died, as have been the last several years. It's hard for any of us to understand what that would have been like. The family members talk about the hole that it has left in their families. There's nothing we can actually do to make it up to them for that.

What we can do and what we will do is take these recommendations very seriously. I spoke with the CEO of WorkSafe this morning. He had begun work last night on the recommendations, and work is underway. We will work very carefully, and certainly, the recommendations for WorkSafe…. The intention is to implement those recommendations.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Chouhan: This case exemplifies serious negligence on the part of an employer. Where there's real negligence, there should be consequences beyond the fines such as those levied in this case. Most British Columbians believe there should be stronger consequences. Is the government going to strengthen penalties to deter employers from putting workers at risk?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member opposite is speaking of something that wasn't part of the coroner's recommendations. Certainly, we currently have some of the most stringent penalties in the world. They are already in place.

What I would say that I believe is the most important, and what I heard very clearly from the families, is that we endeavour to do our very best, one, to make sure that something like this does not ever happen again on a mushroom farm. Indeed, WorkSafe began work on that immediately after this terrible tragedy. There's been a great deal of work that's been done since 2008.

Secondly, that we look at workers' safety generally. In British Columbia, bearing in mind that this was a terrible tragedy…. Looking overall at what's happened in the province over the last decade, I am very happy to tell the House that the number of injuries is down year over year as well as the number of fatalities. It doesn't mean the work is done. There is still more work to do, and we're absolutely committed to it.

ACCESS TO WORKER SAFETY

INFORMATION AND TRAINING

M. Elmore: One of the recommendations is that spaces in hazardous areas are labelled with appropriate signage in various languages as required. This is a critical recommendation, and it should not have taken this kind of tragedy for such a requirement to be brought in. There is also a recommendation for better training for employers and workers.

Can the minister commit that all safety materials and training sessions will be available in the workers' language?

[1405]

The employment standards branch and WorkSafe have translated materials on their websites as well as printed materials in a number of languages. WorkSafe has translation available in over 170 languages by telephone, so we are paying attention and being mindful to this.

With respect to the contained spaces piece of the recommendations, certainly the CEO of WorkSafe acknowledged that this is important but technically going to be very challenging work, as there are literally hundreds of thousands of spaces like this in workplaces around the province. He has committed to me on the telephone today that work is already underway and that WorkSafe will be working on implementing all of the recommendations, and we will do that.

Again, the key thing that we want to do going forward is to make sure that safety is addressed in the best way possible, that plans are in place. Some of the recommendations that the member opposite has mentioned will require regulatory changes on the part of WorkSafe, and when that happens…. Under the legislation there's a process that has to be undergone, and part of that process includes a consultative process, so it takes them time.

B.C. HYDRO

ENERGY PURCHASE AGREEMENTS

J. Horgan: B.C. Hydro provided information to the B.C. Utilities Commission advising that they were going to buy 3,000 gigawatt hours of energy during the spring freshet between April and June of this year. The average price of that energy was going to be $68 a megawatt hour. The spot market today, the mid-Columbian price for peak power, is $8 — not $68 but $8.

The calculation is that that's going to cost us $180 mil-

[ Page 12181 ]

lion more than it would have if B.C. Hydro had been allowed to play the market, as it has done historically. I know the Minister of Finance is a student of economics and a friend of free enterprise, and maybe I missed the seminar, but my question is to him.

Maybe he can tell me at what economics course does it make sense to buy something at $68 a megawatt hour when the market is selling it for $10.

Hon. K. Falcon: The most important thing you learn is that you don't build an energy plan around the spot market. One of the things that we have done as the government is to make sure that we meet the commitment to create as many green energy opportunities as we can, because we know that's what the public in British Columbia wants to see.

Our investments and encouragement of wind power, of run-of-the-river power and of other green energy investments are delivering exactly the kind of capacity that allows British Columbia to ensure that we will continue to have the overwhelming majority of power generated by clean, green energy sources in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I'm still not sure why it makes sense to buy something at five times the market rate, and again, I'm not a free-enterpriser as avid as the Minister of Finance. I'll put the question, perhaps, in a different way. It might make a bit more sense to those that are watching at home.

If you take the $30 million that we wasted on the Boss Power settlement to expropriate rights for a uranium mine, if you take the $6 million we gave to the B.C. Liberal insiders in the Basi-Virk corruption trial, if you take the $40 million we wasted on the TELUS naming rights and you double that, you still won't come up with the $180 million that the B.C. Liberals are wasting in three short months this year.

Again, if the Minister of Finance could help us on this side of the House. Where in the world does that make sense?

Hon. K. Falcon: I feel like I'm almost having an out-of-body experience here. It sounds like the NDP are trying to give us lessons on how to manage anything, something. I mean this is remarkable.

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: Hold on, now. This always happens. They get too enthusiastic early on, and they haven't heard the rest of the story.

[1410]

I do think it is important to recognize…. I know that the member opposite, the Energy critic, certainly won't take my word on it, so let's not take my word on the comparative economic management skills of the NDP while in power for ten years and our government while in power. Let's look at the people that make a living, in fact, out of measuring performance.

During the decade in which he worked in the government of the NDP — in fact, the opposition leader was the chief of staff to the former Premier, Glen Clark — we saw multiple downgrades of credit rating, a doubling of the debt and one of the worst economic performances at a time of North American economic growth. That was the record.

Now, I will try and be very modest here, but during our decade of government we have seen seven successive credit rating upgrades to where we enjoy the strongest credit rating possible — triple-A.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: Let's look at what Helmut Pastrick at Central 1 Credit Union has said — that economic growth in the 1990s was superior to economic growth in the first decade, to 2010.

Let's look at B.C. Hydro…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat for a second.

Members.

Continue, Member.

J. Horgan: …deferral accounts. At the end of the 1990s, one. At the end of 2010, 27. The cost to B.C. ratepayers, $2.5 million.

Let's just focus on the next three months. Yesterday the spot price at mid-Columbia on off-peak power was negative $1.15. What that means is that while we were buying independent power for up to $68 to $100 — between that range for that power — Bonneville Power authority was giving us money to take the power away.

Again, I am not as steeped in free enterprise as the Minister of Finance. Could he please explain to me in what universe does it make sense to buy power at that much above the market rate? Where?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, on this side of the House over the last 11 years we have seen record levels of investment by B.C. Hydro in capital, billions of dollars invested in British Columbia in expanding and encouraging more generation of good, low-priced power for British Columbians.

Now, the reason they had one deferral account in the 1990s is that they were making no capital investments in hydro. That's why there was no investment necessary to smooth out. The investment they did make was in a Raiwind power project in Pakistan where the promoter disappeared. The money has never been found, and we

[ Page 12182 ]

are still left asking why in the world the NDP were investing millions of dollars in Pakistan when they should have been investing in British Columbia.

TREE POACHING IN

CARMANAH WALBRAN PARK

AND STAFFING LEVELS IN PARKS

S. Fraser: As we roll into what I hope is a lovely long weekend, many British Columbians may be considering a B.C. parks experience. Last year an old-growth cedar was cut illegally by poachers right next to the small parking lot area in the Carmanah Walbran Provincial Park. There are so few people working in B.C. parks that no one noticed them.

This giant old-growth cedar measured nine feet at its base, making it one of the largest cedars in the park. It's one of the reasons that people go to the park.

To the minister, how can he justify critically underfunding the staffing in the B.C. parks system to the extent that there's no one there to ensure that the integrity of the park is protected?

[1415]

Hon. T. Lake: The B.C. parks system is the third-largest park system in North America and the second-largest in Canada. We have over 125,000 square kilometres in our system.

Of that huge 14 percent of the land base, only about 2 percent has a human footprint on it. There are vast areas of this province where there is virtually no human footprint in our parks and protected areas. To suggest that anyone is going to be able to protect all of those areas to the level that the member suggests is, I think, fiscally irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: Fiscally irresponsible? I'll tell you what irresponsible is.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Fraser: Ten years ago there were 194 park rangers in British Columbia. There are under 100 now. Now, that's irresponsible.

This old giant was cut down. The poachers were able to return with heavy equipment. They skidded this cedar out. Then they returned repeatedly and with impunity to buck it up into cedar shakes — this was in a park — and there was no one there to stop them.

I'll give the hon. minister maybe a chance to answer an age-old question. If a tree falls in the forest in B.C. and a piece of heavy equipment drives in and drags it out and breaks it into shakes, are there any rangers left to hear it?

Hon. T. Lake: As we start the unofficial beginning of summer on the long weekend where so many British Columbians are going out to visit our wonderful B.C. parks — reservations up 6 percent this year over last year…. When so many British Columbians have a smile on their face, enjoying the weather and the great outdoors, only the NDP could turn that into a bad-news story.

The biggest challenge that families will have this weekend is finding a spot in B.C. parks, because they are so popular that just about all of the spots are sold out. I want to encourage anyone who wants to come out to our day use areas, and it's absolutely free.

FOREST MANAGEMENT AND

ROLE OF CHIEF FORESTER

B. Simpson: An e-mail from the Deputy Minister of FLNRO went out last week with more news of staff changes and reassignments of responsibilities in that ministry. In the middle of the e-mail is a statement that the assistant deputy minister responsible for land tenures, forest tenures, forest initiatives, competitiveness and innovation, compensation and business analysis, and Crown land opportunities and restoration will now have to add to his workload the responsibilities of being B.C.'s temporary chief forester for the next 18 to 24 months.

At a time when B.C.'s forests have been devastated by the mountain pine beetle and fires, when our inventory system can't be trusted, when we've got a short-term log supply crisis, why is the minister allowing a further downgrading of the responsibilities in the role of the chief forester of B.C.?

Hon. S. Thomson: The role of the chief forester is one that is very, very important. The Forest Act clearly outlines the responsibilities of the chief forester. It's a quasi-independent position that acts in the public interest. I have confidence in the professional capabilities of the individual who has been tasked with that position to represent the interests of the chief forester.

[1420]

Again, as we go through the process with the special legislative committee looking at the mid-term timber supply issue — which we appreciate the cooperation of the members opposite in doing — we've provided the support of the two former chief foresters in that process to ensure that those obligations and those responsibilities are recognized as they consider the options.

The experience that is placed in those two individuals, providing technical support to that legislative committee, will be critical to ensure that that role is recognized and the responsibilities of the chief forester are recognized all the way through the process.

[ Page 12183 ]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: In 1913, B.C.'s first chief forester warned that a comprehensive knowledge of the quality, condition and extent of the forest resources is essential to the efficient administration of public forests. Today the Auditor General, the Forest Practices Board and the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals say that we don't have the inventory to effectively and efficiently manage our forests.

Yet instead of responding appropriately to that, this government, on the 100th anniversary of the B.C. Forest Service, has effectively killed the Forest Service in the name of integration and is now further downgrading the role of the independent chief forester. B.C.'s forests are the province's largest asset, valued at one-quarter of a trillion dollars, but their state of health is in question, and our ability to effectively administer them is as weak as it's ever been.

I ask the minister responsible, who I believe genuinely wants to do the right thing for B.C. forests: would he consider today, rather than downgrading further the role of the chief forester, to create the chief forester function as an independent officer of this Legislature reporting to the Legislature, not to the politicians of the day?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I outlined in my first response, the role of the chief forester is clearly outlined in the Forest Act. It's a quasi-independent position and acts in the public interest. I believe the responsibility is in that role and in the legislation: act in the public interest. I do not see the need for the chief forester to be an independent officer of the Legislature.

TransLink TAXISAVER PROGRAM FOR

SENIORS AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

H. Bains: The TaxiSaver program was designed to work together with the handyDART service to allow people with disabilities to get around. Now TransLink has announced to cut this very vital program, leaving many people with disabilities worried they will have no more means to get around to do their daily deeds.

Jane Dyson, from the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities, said: "The TaxiSaver program allows people to take trips when they need to. I think that it will really mean that some folks are not going to go out as much as they do now."

My question to the Minister of Transportation is this. Will the Minister of Transportation take action to ensure that the people with mobility problems aren't stuck at home because of the loss of the TaxiSaver program?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I share your concerns, Member, as does my colleague the Minister of Social Development. I have expressed our concerns to TransLink. We have a commitment that they will engage the affected parties on this.

Again, I do want to express that what you have raised is a concern not only for the people in this House but the people outside this House as well. I believe TransLink provides a good level of service to the public, but this decision is one that I question as well, and we're in discussions at the present time.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: The minister has to understand that as it is, with both the TaxiSaver program and the handyDART service, people are having to wait longer and extended periods of time after getting treatment. There are some reports that after getting their dialysis treatment, they had to wait so long that their oxygen tank ran out. The service needs to be improved, not cut.

[1425]

Lilo Ljubisic is a Paralympic athlete who has relied on this program to get around. She said she was dumbstruck that the TaxiSaver program was cancelled. "This program being taken away will mean that many of us will decide not to go out."

My question again is to the minister. Why is the minister allowing such a vital program to be scrapped when it means so much to people with disabilities?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: To the member: apparently, you missed my first answer. I share your concern, Member. We actually are in discussions right now. This is the concern expressed not only by yourself but other people out in the public.

The one thing that I do want to reiterate…. You said: "Why are we not doing it?" I think the member is very aware that we don't make the decisions for TransLink. They have an independent board. We're presently in the situation where we are going to discuss a piece of legislation that will allow both the chair and vice-chair of the Mayors Council to sit on that board, to be part of the decision-making process.

Member, as I said earlier in my last answer, we are working on this. I share your concerns, and I'm very hopeful that a proper resolve will be found to this.

K. Conroy: Seniors are relying on this program as well. One senior I talked to called the decision to cut TaxiSaver harebrained. She said: "Vulnerable seniors and disabled people might be excused for feeling picked on by their government."

Seniors are rightly concerned to feel picked on. They have seen numerous cuts from this government. They've seen increased fees and cuts to services for residential care. They've had the whole fiasco with DriveABLE. And now this.

Would the Transportation Minister please do whatever he can — not just engage in discussions but actually do something — to stop this cycle of cuts to seniors? Seniors

[ Page 12184 ]

need the services that they deserve.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: To the member: I know your questions are written before we start question period, but I can't be clearer in my answer. We share your concerns. We are in discussions. We have expressed that concern to TransLink. I do not make decisions on behalf of TransLink. I know the member understands that.

We are going to make sure that the proper procedure is put in place, one that meets the needs of our seniors in this province. We're committed to doing that.

ORGANIC CERTIFICATION

OF FARMED SALMON

M. Sather: Under the new Canadian organic aquaculture standard, farmed salmon can be labelled as organic, even if they are raised with synthetic pesticides. And unlike other certified organic meats, there's no requirement to use organic feed. What's even more baffling is that our world-renowned wild Pacific salmon cannot be labelled organic, while Atlantic salmon raised in open-net pens and treated with chemicals can.

Mary Forstbauer, president of the Certified Organic Associations of B.C., notes that if consumers lose confidence in the organic label because it is applied to fish raised on non-organic feed that are exposed to synthetic pesticides, B.C. farmers who raise organic pork, beef, poultry, vegetables and fruits will suffer.

Why is the minister sitting idle while British Columbia's world-class reputation as a producer of organic food is being put at risk?

Hon. D. McRae: I'm proud to say that Canadian farmed fish can now be certified as organic. This is something that is brand-new in British Columbia and Canada.

Now, like many things, this is the first step, and I look forward to where we will take this path down the road. The standards today are prepared by a committee of the federal government, the Canadian General Standards Board, and were approved by the Standards Council of Canada. They've been working on this for several years now, and they've been working through their draft since about 2010.

The reality is that Stephanie Wells, who represented the Canadian Organic Trade Association on the CGSB committee, said: "Critics should view the new Canadian organic aquaculture as a beginning, to be reviewed within five years." I'm pleased they've made these steps, and I look forward to see where this initiative will go forward into the future.

[1430]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

INVASIVE SNAKEHEAD FISH SPECIES

M. Farnworth: Channa argus is known as the northern snakehead. It is a predatory, aggressive fish that grows up to a metre in length. It's already established in waterways in the eastern United States. It's a highly invasive species. Recently one was spotted….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Member.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

M. Farnworth: Members may think it's funny, but the economic impact of invasive species on our marine and freshwater ecosystems in this country is no laughing matter. One only has to look at the zebra mussel in the Great Lakes, and the spread of the mitten crab and the green crab up the west coast to recognize the damage that can be done here in British Columbia if a species like the northern snakehead becomes established in our fresh waterways.

My question to the Minister of Environment is: will he do everything in his power to ensure that this species is no longer imported into British Columbia? It means talking with Ottawa and using whatever provincial powers are available to him to keep this fish outside of the province of British Columbia and joining every other jurisdiction in North America.

Hon. T. Lake: Yes, we will.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Motions Without Notice

MEMBERSHIP CHANGE FOR

FINANCE COMMITTEE

Hon. T. Lake: By leave, I move:

[That Doug Horne replace Rob Howard as a Member of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. de Jong: I have the report of the provincial health officer pursuant to the Drinking Water Protection

[ Page 12185 ]

Act: Progress on the Action Plan for Safe Drinking Water in British Columbia 2011 .

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Lake: This afternoon in this chamber we will have continued second reading of Bill 54, intituled the Provincial Sales Tax Act, followed by second reading of Bill 51. If that is finished, we will go into second reading of Bill 49, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, followed by the second reading of Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2012.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room we will have continued committee stage of Bill 37, Animal Health Act, followed by committee stage of the Emergency Intervention Disclosure Act, followed by the FNCIDA Implementation Act and, if time, the Pharmaceutical Services Act.

In the Birch Committee Room this afternoon we will continue with the estimates of the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General, followed by the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 54 — PROVINCIAL SALES TAX ACT

(continued)

S. Chandra Herbert: I am resuming my place in the debate on Bill 54. Bill 54, for those at home, is the bill that brings back the provincial sales tax, the bill that extinguishes the HST, the tax known as the hated sales tax.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

It's a bill that was brought in because the people spoke. The people organized. The people got out in their communities.

[1435]

I know that in Vancouver–West End it didn't seem that I could go a day without seeing somebody out on the street corner with their table or in the middle of a block or near a community centre or even knocking on doors, bringing along a petition.

First there was a petition, and then there was, of course, the initiative petition. They worked hard because they felt that the provincial sales tax, which is being brought in with Bill 54, was more beneficial to their future.

Certainly, they wanted Bill 54 brought in much sooner. They'd hoped that we would have had the provincial sales tax back by now. For their own economic self-interests, they felt this was the best thing for them and their families. Constituents in my constituency and in the vast majority of constituencies in B.C. made that decision, which is why we've got back to Bill 54 today.

I was speaking earlier about how disappointed I was that we've had three years of tax chaos. It really seems to be an example for me….

Deputy Speaker: Member, if I might draw you to the contents of Bill 54.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I think Bill 54's contents show us how working methodically, working slowly and listening to the public is how we should do provincial taxes in British Columbia. We should listen to the public rather than trying to sneak one by, as the Liberals did with the HST.

The provincial sales tax was not perfect — far from perfect. Taxes in themselves are never perfect, but they are the price of civilization. We have to pay taxes in order to have health care, education, public safety and many of the other services that our governments provide.

Some people took the vote against the HST and the vote for the PST, which brought us to Bill 54, as a sign that people were just against taxes. I think what I understood it to be, through bringing back the provincial sales tax with this bill, is that indeed what people were saying is that they wanted to be involved.

They wanted the opportunity to have a say about their future. They wanted their public representatives, their MLAs, to be straight with them and tell them the truth, to say what they're going to do and to actually do it.

Those are lessons that I take from the HST. Those are lessons that I take with the reintroduction of the PST. I think it is vital that we understand how this bill got here and why it's before us. That really brings to bear a greater understanding of the province that we live in.

Legislation is not brought here to just be debated because some minister wanted it that way. It should be brought here because the public was interested, or there was a public safety or a public necessity to have it here. Indeed, by law there is a public necessity that this bill be brought here, and that was through the initiative process.

So what do we have here? We have an imperfect tax brought in after three years of debate, huge fights, arguments and millions upon millions of taxpayers' money spent by this government to defend the previous tax. Then it was, of course, defeated by the people of B.C. who would not let themselves be taken advantage of by their government.

It's unfortunate that we had to get to this place. It's unfortunate that the public response was not enough, that this government couldn't see that the PST was the preferred tax of the population. It's unfortunate, but indeed, here we are today bringing back the PST — a more modernized approach to PST, which is what we should have done before. There were business interests, there were community interests, and there were concerns about the provincial sales tax — things that we could work on and indeed governments had worked on improving.

Now, I know the government said the HST was the

[ Page 12186 ]

single biggest thing, the best thing they could do to improve the economy. Of course, they wouldn't say that in the election. They would only say that after the election. They wouldn't take on the PST before the election, only after the election. But the PST is what we have today, and the PST is what is being brought back.

It'll be brought back March 31, is my understanding. The government commits to bringing back all of the exemptions that were part of it. Restaurants will benefit from this — exemptions that will benefit the hospitality sector; exemptions which will benefit the tourism sector, barber shops, coffee shops; exemptions which will help people save some money in tight economic times; exemptions that will help small businesses.

[1440]

There are those, I know, in the film industry and elsewhere who've been saying: "This is it. This is what we're getting back." Now let's work with those industries, because they are concerned around their competitiveness, as they always are. Businesses always are, and that's a good thing.

If we as government are going to be responsible legislators, if we are going to be responsible MLAs, shouldn't it be our job to listen to those folks day in, day out, work with them, debate with the public and come up with solutions that bring us together? That's how I think government should work, not through sneaky, backhanded manoeuvres and millions of dollars to try and convince us the government is right. That's what brings us to Bill 54 today — a government with egg on its face for trying something which failed so disastrously.

The members on the other side have acknowledged that now, and I appreciate that. I appreciate that they have acknowledged that this was a problem. I just wish they would have listened to the people of B.C., who showed them it was a problem much, much earlier.

Now, the provincial sales tax has a long history. I know the Minister of Finance spoke about that in his opening remarks, speaking about how it had been here since 1948. It had made many modifications over its time.

Back in the 1980s, I understand, a Social Credit government decided that exemptions should be expanded to bicycles. Well, bicycles —why bicycles? If we want to encourage people to use alternative modes of transportation that don't harm the climate, that get them fit, the government of the day thought this would be one small way to do that, one small way to help local manufacturers.

I'm happy to support Bill 54.

J. Brar: I'm very pleased to stand up in my place to respond to Bill 54, Provincial Sales Tax Act. Bill 54 will reinstate the provincial sales tax, called PST, on March 31, 2013. That's the final outcome of this bill. In other words, on March 31, 2013, the unfair tax, HST, will die and PST will come back to life.

Bill 54 is a huge, huge victory for the people of British Columbia who came out in big numbers to sign 700,000 petitions to stop the HST. They came out to cast a ballot to defeat the HST in the referendum. British Columbians said, "Enough is enough," to this government, and they said: "We must stop the HST and bring back the PST." That's why we are here debating Bill 54 today in the Legislature. This is actually a huge victory for British Columbians. This is a huge victory for democracy.

There is no doubt that Bill 54 is a bitter pill for B.C. Liberals and their corporate friends. In fact, it is the most painful bill they have ever introduced in this House. This is the first time in the history of this Legislature that the government of the day had to support a tax bill described by their own Finance Minister as a "better stupid" tax. But they don't have a choice, because the people of British Columbia have very clearly spoken on this issue.

There are four key elements of Bill 54 that I'd like to make some comments on. The first one: Bill 54 is one step needed to reinstate the PST on March 31, 2013.

Second, Bill 54 does not provide the complete list of exemptions that were available under the old PST. In that respect, Bill 54 is incomplete until we see the list of all the exemptions yet to come through regulations.

Third, Bill 54 proposes to eliminate time-limited exemptions, mostly for energy-efficient projects.

Fourth, it took 11 months for the B.C. Liberals to bring in the HST, but it will take 19 months after the referendum to see the end of the tax. The people ask: why?

[1445]

This bill has a long, painful history. During the last election the B.C. Liberals promised to the people of British Columbia that they would not impose the HST. They gave that commitment in writing to the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association. They gave that commitment in writing to the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association. But that was before the election and during the election campaign. After the election was over, the B.C. Liberals did just the opposite.

Deputy Speaker: Member, if I could bring your attention to the contents of Bill 54.

J. Brar: Yes, Madam Speaker. We are debating Bill 54. There's a history attached to it, and that history is the HST. Just a few weeks after the election the B.C. Liberals betrayed the people of British Columbia and broke the promise not to impose the HST. That's why we are here today debating Bill 54, which reinstates the PST.

Clearly, the B.C. Liberal government was not honest with the people of British Columbia during the election. That's why we are here. We are here today debating Bill 54 to reinstate the PST, changing that decision made earlier.

Clearly, they did not tell the truth to the people of British Columbia, because the B.C. Liberals knew at that time that telling the truth meant losing the election in 2009. We are here today debating Bill 54 in the

[ Page 12187 ]

Legislature because the B.C. Liberals promised to the people of British Columbia during the election that they would not impose the HST, but in fact, they did that as soon as the election was over.

The people of British Columbia got upset and angry with the B.C. Liberals because they imposed the HST that they said before the election they would never impose. The people of British Columbia said: "Enough is enough. We must stop the HST and bring back the PST." That's why we are here today — out of that bold action of the people of British Columbia to stop the HST and reinstate the PST. That's what we are doing today in this bill, in this Legislature.

They were so upset that the people of British Columbia from all walks of life and all parts of the province came together to stop the HST. Over 700,000 British Columbians signed petitions.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

J. Brar: Yes, Madam Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: I'm not sure how that direction could have been unclear — the contents of Bill 54, Provincial Sales Tax Act.

J. Brar: Madam Speaker, we are debating Bill 54 today to reinstate the PST. As we know, there used to be PST before. The PST was replaced by the HST, and there's a history attached to it. That's what I'm talking about. We are here today debating Bill 54 because that history of the HST is part of Bill 54. That's what I'm making comments about. Those are very relevant comments. That's what I think.

So if you'll allow me to proceed, Madam Speaker, I can continue my speech.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you have clearly heard the direction of the Chair.

J. Brar: The reality is that we are debating this bill today that we call PST. We are going to reinstate the PST in the province of British Columbia.

Under the previous PST, we had a large number of exemptions given to the people of British Columbia. This bill proposed today, Bill 54, is mainly silent about those exemptions which were available under the old PST. Although the government has a clear commitment about that in this House and outside of the House….

[1450]

The government is fully committed to restore all the exemptions which were available under the old PST. When we see this bill, which is a very long, extensive bill, a list of those exemptions which were available under the previous PST is missing from this bill. This bill does state that those exemptions will come later on through the regulations. That's what this bill says, but there are a number of exemptions that were available under the old PST and that people of British Columbia would like to see when we go to the regulations.

That is not part of this legislation today. I would like to read that list — all the exemptions that were available to the people of British Columbia under the old PST. That list included residential electricity and home heating fuel. Prescription drugs, non-prescription drugs, vitamins and certain other health care products and appliances. Children's clothing and footwear. Clothing patterns, fabric and notions. School supplies. Magazines, books and newspapers. Basic telephone and cable service, 1-800 and equivalent telephone services. Specified safety equipment. Labour to repair major household appliances. Clothing and footwear.

Miscellaneous consumer exemptions — for example, used clothing under $100. Bicycles. Livestock for human consumption and feed, seed and fertilizer. Production machinery and equipment. Production machinery and equipment for local government for power production. Equipment to produce energy from ocean currents, tides and waves. Rental of passenger vehicles for eight hours or less. Services to maintain or modify software. Logging machinery and equipment, and also mining and oil and gas and export. The list goes on.

But this Bill 54 only mentions a few of the exemptions which were there under the previous PST and available to the people of British Columbia. So we have to wait and see, basically, until the regulations come out, and we don't know when the regulations are going to come out.

The question is pretty simple. The people of British Columbia would like to ask: how can they trust the B.C. Liberals now to actually restore all the exemptions that were available under the old PST and that the government, the Minister of Finance, subsequently committed to restore as exemptions under the new PST Act? Those exemptions are not part of this. How can people of British Columbia trust the B.C. Liberals now, before the next election, when they've done completely the opposite? They made the promise not to impose the HST, but in fact, after the election they did impose the HST. That's why we are here, Madam Speaker.

The other thing I want to speak about on this bill is that this PST is completely different than the old tax, HST, which we are going to replace with this. The HST was a tax shift. It was almost a $1.9 billion tax shift from the big corporations onto the backs of the people of British Columbia, when we know that we have a huge and growing inequality in the province of British Columbia. That tax, in that respect, was very, very unfair.

I'm very pleased to see this Bill 54 — that we are having debate on this one, because that is now going to change the tide which took place under the HST.

[1455]

It is very hard for me to believe that we have had an

[ Page 12188 ]

HST-like tax which actually shifted $1.8 billion from the rich corporations onto the backs of the people of British Columbia, when we have almost 137,000 children living in poverty in the province of British Columbia, when we have about 70,000 people using food banks every month — and almost one-third of those are children — and when the gap between the rich and the poor has been growing for the last many, many years. Now the top 10 percent of people make way more money than the entire 50 percent of people at the bottom.

A tax we call HST, which was a tax shift from those 10 percent — even less a percentage of those 10 percent — on the backs of the remaining 90 percent of the people was a mistake. That was an unfair tax, in that respect, and that's why I am pleased to see that we are actually debating Bill 54 today in this Legislature that in fact reinstates PST, which is good for the people of British Columbia.

Bill 54 is a victory. It's a final victory of the people of British Columbia, because the people of British Columbia stood up and fought for their rights. They went to the end to basically eliminate the HST and bring back the PST, and that's what we're doing today. We are talking about exactly that — to bring back the PST.

Before, when PST was actually eliminated to bring in the HST, the HST made life very costly for people. It made life costly for middle-class people and for the people who are at the lower end of this society.

The cost of many things went up under that tax, and that's why we are debating today Bill 54, which actually reinstates PST and, hopefully, will reinstate a lot of exemptions which were available under the previous PST. The costs of many things went up under the HST. Restaurant meal costs went up. Many grocery item costs went up. School supply costs went up. Services such as taxi fares went up.

Live theatre, movie tickets, amusement parks, campground fees, museum admissions, whale-watching tours — costs for all of those things went up. Accounting services, tax preparation and mutual fund management fees went up. Veterinary care went up. Other professional services like architects and real estate agents went up.

Classes for yoga, dance, cooking, martial arts went up. Costs for membership for clubs or gyms and player fees for team sports went up. Costs for facility and ice rink rentals went up. Costs for haircuts went up. Costs for vitamins and dietary supplements went up. Costs for magazines, newspapers, newsletters and student books went up. Costs for bicycles, as I said before, went up.

So the costs for many, many items and services used by the people of British Columbia went up because of the HST. That's why people got upset, and that's why people stood up to this, and that's why people defeated the referendum. We are here today in a direct response to the fight the people of British Columbia took on, on the issue of HST. We are back today debating Bill 54 to reinstate the PST, which is a way more fair tax for the people of British Columbia.

The other point I want to raise when we talk today about the PST — this is Bill 54, the PST — is that this is going to be a kind of big relief to much of the small business community.

[1500]

As you know, when the HST was introduced, a lot of small business people were up in arms against the government, because the cost of lots of services provided by the small business community at that time went up because of the new tax added to their services. The restaurant and food services industry was very upset at that time. The construction industry and real estate industry were very upset with the HST. The tourism industry, the taxi industry, the veterinarians and many other small businesses were not happy with that decision. They also came out, basically, to oppose the HST and to support the reinstatement of PST.

That's what we are doing under Bill 54 today. We are here to debate Bill 54 to reinstate the PST. It is because it had a history, and that is related to the HST.

The only group under the previous tax, when we talk about HST and PST, which we are debating in this House today…. The only one difference between these two taxes is this. There was only one group of winners under the HST, and that is a group of big corporations and friends of the B.C. Liberal Party. The HST was a tax shift from big corporations to the people of British Columbia.

The PST does include a number of exemptions, as I said many times earlier, that make life more affordable for the people of British Columbia.

The other thing I want to speak about is that the B.C. Liberal government did not have the mandate to impose the HST on the people of British Columbia. They did not have the mandate. That's why we are here today debating Bill 54.

The B.C. Liberal government did not have what you call support from the people of British Columbia. This was not part of their election platform. If the B.C. Liberal government really believed that the HST was good for the economy, they should have put that choice before the people of British Columbia during the election.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you have been cautioned to debate the contents of Bill 54.

J. Brar: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

So we are here today talking about Bill 54, Provincial Sales Tax Act. I will try my best to limit my comments to just Bill 54. But, as I said, there are so many things happening in this House that sometimes we get confused about different things. We are on Bill 54, Provincial Sales Tax Act.

I'm very pleased today to stand up in this House and speak for the people of Surrey-Fleetwood, who actually stood up during that time and asked the B.C. Liberal

[ Page 12189 ]

government to reinstate the PST tax. Finally, we see that we have this piece of legislation, although it took a longer time than I expected, but it is here. People wanted the HST to go away sooner than this and the PST to come back. But we are here today after a long time, and we are talking about it.

This Bill 54 proposes to eliminate time-limited exemptions, mostly for energy-efficient products. I can read from the list. I'm a little surprised to see that Bill 54 will actually eliminate a number of good green initiatives that were there under the previous PST.

[1505]

For example, under the previous PST, for hybrid passenger vehicles, there was 100 percent PST exemption up to $2,000. I think that was a good policy, but that will not be available under this new PST legislation we have, Bill 54.

I'm a little surprised to see…. There was a lot of love for the environment that we saw by the B.C. Liberals a few years ago. But that is gone, as is indicated from Bill 54, because all these items, green initiatives, were there under the exemptions of the previous PST bill, but not anymore.

In that respect, there was a time when the government said they were very excited, actually, to reduce greenhouse emissions, and they wanted to become leaders in the country on that issue. These exemptions, which were mainly focusing on the green initiatives, were in line with those commitments made by the government.

They are gone under the new PST, and that will not be available to the people in British Columbia. That's a huge change. That's a huge departure from the past, if we look at what kinds of promises and what kinds of commitments were made by the B.C. Liberal government.

The other thing I want to speak about Bill 54 is that it took 11 months for the B.C. Liberals to bring in their HST, but it will take 19 months after the referendum to see the end of the tax. Why? The people of British Columbia are asking why — why it is taking so long now; why it was so easy and it was so quick to implement the HST; why it is so hard to bring back the tax policy that was there for many, many years in the past.

Until we have the PST implemented, the PST reinstated as the commitment made by the government, the small business industry is going to suffer. The people of British Columbia are going to suffer, because they continue to pay for those services which they will not pay under the new PST tax.

Now the date given by the government is, I think, March 31, 2013. That means this whole issue of HST took almost four years — the whole term. What it means is that until the PST comes back, the people will continue to pay those higher taxes.

What it means is that big business will continue to benefit from the current tax known as HST and the people of British Columbia will continue to suffer. Small businesses will continue to suffer until that transition is made, which is almost now about a year away from today. That's the big question the people of British Columbia are asking.

I don't know how much time I have. I would like to probably summarize what I said. We are here today debating Bill 54. And this is a huge, huge victory for the people of British Columbia. This is a victory of democracy.

[1510]

This gives people a reason to be part of the democratic process, because people now know that they can come out and stop a policy introduced by any government, a policy which people don't like.

That's what happened here. People came out in big numbers. People signed petitions. People came out to defeat the HST and bring back the PST in the referendum.

It's good for the people of British Columbia, it's good for the small business, and it's good for the economy that we are going to bring back the PST. It will certainly make life for many people, particularly people at the lower end of society…. It will make their life way more affordable as compared to the HST, because that made people's lives very, very difficult.

In my riding of Surrey-Fleetwood a lot of people came out. They were very excited to participate in the democratic process. About 11,370 people came out to cast their ballot, basically, to bring back the PST.

I appreciate all the volunteers and all the people who came out, basically, to kill the HST and bring back the PST.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

J. Brar: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I tried my best to stay on Bill 54. Thanks for the opportunity.

D. Routley: Before I begin to speak to Bill 54, which I will be supporting, I'd just like to express my appreciation to my partner, Leanne, and my daughter, Madeline. There are certain days when you feel even more distant than others when we're down here in Victoria and would like to be with our families, and this is one of them for me. I'd just like them to know how much I appreciate their support and love and how much I return that to them.

Bill 54, like other bills in this House, is an exercise in trust. In fact, governance is an exercise in trust. Bill 54 represents an attempt to patch up a broken trust.

It's a broken trust between the people of B.C. and their government. Their government betrayed them during the 2009 election. That betrayal has dominated the public affairs of this province for the past four years. Now, we see Bill 54 as an attempt to put right some of what was put wrong as a result of that broken trust and the deceptions and betrayals which occurred in 2008 and 2009.

Bill 54 is something that the people of B.C. have been waiting a long time

[ Page 12190 ]

for. We've been waiting a long time for the B.C. Liberal government to address that betrayal. Having waited so long for Bill 54 to appear on the legislative calendar of this House, it's disappointing to see that, yet again, we are asked to engage in a massive leap of trust when it comes to the content of the bill.

Many of the promises that were made by the B.C. Liberal government, in addressing their failure to defend their decision to implement an HST, aren't really met by this bill.

Now, we're going to support the bill in an effort to bring back the PST, but again, we're asked to trust that the exemptions that existed before the HST will be implemented through regulation at a later date.

Since we're being asked to exercise trust when we consider Bill 54, it seems appropriate to examine the record of trust of the B.C. Liberal government, even when it pertains to the issue of the HST versus the PST.

Trust has been a challenging concept for the B.C. Liberal government. Whether you go back to the time of the sale of B.C. Rail, which was a promise that was broken, or the tearing up of the HEU contracts, which was a promise that was broken, or the HST itself, a promise that was broken, it challenges a person's capacity for trust. The record challenges the people of British Columbia and their capacity for trust in this government.

[1515]

Governance indeed is an exercise in trust — the promises made during the elections, the promises made on the impacts and effects of bills, the devil that resides in the details of every bill, particularly bills brought forward in the recent past by the B.C. Liberal government.

I could refer back to Bill 3, which amended the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act. The Information and Privacy Commissioner of the province referred to that as another bill that lacked detail, that so much of the impact of the bill would be determined by its regulations — just as Bill 54 is. The Information and Privacy Commissioner even used the phrase the devil is in the details.

This bill, Bill 54, like other bills brought forward by the B.C. Liberals, is indeed an exercise in trust, a request by the Liberal government for trust from the people of B.C. and from the opposition.

Now, we got to this place, we got to Bill 54, through a broken trust. We got to Bill 54 through a three-year chaos brought on by a deception over the deficit which preceded the 2009 election.

The same government that asks us to trust the details that are yet to be included in Bill 54 was the same government that stood in this House repeatedly, dozens of times, promising that the deficit in 2009 would be no greater than $495 million. Well, the people of B.C. found out after the election that the deficit indeed was projected to be $2.8 billion.

That original deception has set in motion a chain of events that has dominated public life in the province. Now, by the time the HST is removed in 2013, it will have dominated the agenda of this province and this government for four years — a period of crisis that has put us in a place where the government must introduce a bill to reintroduce a tax which it removed without the permission of the voters, essentially.

Yet even in the act of introducing a bill to put right that deception, we are asked to exercise trust. This is a problem.

This betrayal of public trust led to something that had never been seen before in this province: a response from the public, in anger against this deception, that led to 700,000 British Columbians signing a petition against the HST. The campaign that ensued on both sides was long and drawn-out, and on the part of the government involved huge amounts of public spending to defend the tax that we are here with Bill 54 to remove.

Everyone remembers the Stickman ads. Everyone remembers the millions upon millions of dollars.

Deputy Speaker: Member, to caution you on the contents, to bring your comments in line with the contents of Bill 54.

D. Routley: Yes, absolutely.

The history of what got us to Bill 54 was indeed a campaign that led to a referendum which the government had to acknowledge. The government made promises during that referendum campaign, and one of the promises of this sitting Premier was that if the HST failed, the Premier would reintroduce the PST as it existed before the HST.

Now we are offered another opportunity to examine whether our trust is warranted, whether our trust is warranted for this government and for Bill 54.

Since the Premier did promise to reinstitute the PST with all of the existing exemptions, as it was before the HST, one of the first questions we would ask, if we are examining whether or not to trust the government, would be: did they meet that test?

Unfortunately, even though all of the exemptions aren't spelled out yet, and won't be until the regulations are in place for this bill — and that won't happen for many months yet — we do have an indication, and the indication is rather negative.

[1520]

We've been told that permanent exemptions will be reintroduced, and the permanent exemptions are important — residential electricity, prescription drugs, children's clothing and footwear, school supplies. There are very many permanent exemptions that will be reintroduced by Bill 54, which are exactly the kinds of things that drove people to sign the petition to defeat the HST and turn back the betrayal of the B.C. Liberal government during the 2009 election campaign.

What we see in Bill 54 is a failure to meet that promise

[ Page 12191 ]

by the Premier to return the PST as it existed before the HST, and the failure is that the time-limited exemptions will not be returning. They are exemptions that were persuasive in people's purchasing patterns, which attempted to encourage people to purchase energy-efficient appliances. Energy Star residential heating equipment, for example, will not receive its exemption through Bill 54.

One of the reasons people voted to defeat the HST, voted to turn back that B.C. Liberal betrayal of 2009, was the fact that the HST essentially surrendered our tax autonomy. Under the HST we would no longer be able to set exemptions for things such as Energy Star refrigerators, Energy Star windows and doors, Energy Star residential heating equipment, energy-efficient residential gas-fired water heaters. These are important things as we attempt to meet the climate change goals of the very same government that now is failing to include these exemptions in Bill 54.

That autonomy to set tax policy for the betterment of the public interest of B.C. was one of the more thoughtful reasons that people went to those tables at malls throughout the province and signed that referendum to defeat this unfair HST. Yet Bill 54 fails to reintroduce some of those autonomous decisions that were made by this government and previous governments to set tax policy in this province that would encourage people to make purchasing decisions that were in the interests of the province.

It does restore the exemption on bicycles. As an avid cyclist, I can tell you I'm very happy about that. I can tell you that the bicycle store I was in this morning was happy about that. It was the subject of conversation at the bicycle shop this morning.

But those who are deciding whether or not to purchase hybrid passenger vehicles and will fail to receive an exemption through Bill 54, an exemption that existed in the PST before the HST, won't be as happy. They won't be inclined to trust the government, having been told that those exemptions would be reintroduced.

This is important. This is important not simply for the $8 million to $10 million that was going to be added to the cost of bicycle purchases annually in the province or the people who are making decisions about whether or not to buy an energy-efficient appliance or heating unit or car. Those are important decisions. But it's important for a much higher reason.

It's important because of something that is an absolutely booming commodity in this province, that being cynicism. Cynicism is the most booming commodity in British Columbia. It's absolutely everywhere to be had.

Madam Speaker, one of my favourite functions as an MLA is having grade 5 students visit the Legislature. They come studying parliamentary democracy, and I ask them every time whether they understand what the word "cynicism" means. Rarely do they, until I explain that it's a failure or a loss of faith based on experience.

The cynicism that the HST betrayal created in this province is augmented and added to by the failure of Bill 54 to meet the promises of the Premier. That is a very important matter, important to democracy.

[1525]

One of the most reassuring things about this whole experience of the past three years — the chaos and crisis that has ensued since the original budget deficit deception of 2008 — was the response of the people of B.C. The people of B.C. didn't simply resign themselves to this outcome. In fact, the people of B.C. responded, became politically engaged and active, turned back that betrayal and caused the circumstances that allow us to be here debating Bill 54 and the reintroduction of the PST.

One might ask oneself how we could ever end up in such a place, where a government would promise in writing during an election campaign not to do something — we will not introduce the HST — and then do it. One might ask oneself how we could end up in a place where the government felt it could so directly and obviously betray the trust of the people and simply walk away from that.

Bill 54, in a sense, is a reaffirmation of the notion that government needs to serve the people and be responsible to the people. That's the good side of what we are doing here. The downside is that it fails to really, truly meet that test.

It is, I think, out of arrogance that a government could, in the first place, feel that it had the latitude to betray its own constituency. It is, again, arrogance that would allow a Finance Minister to refer to the PST as a dumb tax and his new PST as a little bit less dumb tax.

The people who are being asked to trust that Bill 54 answers their call to turn back that betrayal in the very introduction of Bill 54 take another slap on the cheek — an arrogant slap from their own Finance Minister, who would call their choice about taxation dumb. That is a measure of arrogance that I cannot really comprehend.

The Speaker has offered some latitude in referring back in history and the chronological context of how we got to Bill 54. But if you want to examine the chronological context of the arrogance that brought the government to this, perhaps we could go all the way back to a 77-to-2 result in an election in 2001. The government felt that it had no check, that it could do exactly as it pleased, no matter what.

Arrogance, I believe, politically is the most toxic element to any politician or any government. Arrogance is also the most difficult stain to wash away from a government. Even through the bitter experience of having been exposed for the betrayal of the HST through the referendum campaign and being forced to bring legislation to turn back its own betrayal, this government apparently learned little if its own Finance Minister can utter such arrogance as to tell the people of B.C., essentially, that they're dumb.

[ Page 12192 ]

Bill 54 is the choice, essentially, of British Columbians. Bill 54 is answering a demand from British Columbians that they be heard. Bill 54 was an attempt by the government to answer a berating by the people of B.C., and although I will be voting to support it, I am being asked to trust that same government.

[1530]

So much of what they have promised to the people of British Columbia is not represented in this bill. So much of what they promised in terms of returning the PST to what it was before the HST is not achieved by this bill. So much of what will affect people's lives and indeed their faith in this process, in this House generally and that government specifically, is not answered in Bill 54.

You have a government that betrayed the people of B.C. with the HST, with B.C. Rail, with HEU. The betrayals mount. Again it stands in the House and offers paper that says: "Trust us. We've heard you. We think you're dumb, but trust us." That is, frankly, unfortunate. The people who paid the price for the decision in 2009 — the homebuilders of the province, the realtors….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I'm listening carefully to your remarks. I need to hear some reference to the content of Bill 54.

D. Routley: Absolutely. The content of Bill 54 unfortunately, dismally and utterly fails to answer some of the promises made by this government.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Those promises that still remain unbroken are simply repromised. Well, I know the Premier says: "We will reintroduce the PST as it existed before the HST." Should we trust the Premier? Well, the Premier did say a few other things about this matter. She said that she thought it was sneaky that the government introduced the HST. She used those words. She used the word "sneaky."

She said: "It's an insult to British Columbians for the government to, first of all, have brought in this tax in what most of us regard as a very, very sneaky way and then refuse to bother explaining why they did it. They can't even be bothered to mount a defence, and I think that's an insult."

Well, I agree with the Premier. I think it was an insult, and I think it remains an insult with Bill 54. I think the words of the Finance Minister, in saying that it's a slightly less dumb tax, are an insult to the people of B.C. — a continued insult.

The Premier also said, when she was referring to whether or not the tax could have been implemented after the election without having been considered before the election — as was the claim by the government — that she thought it was impossible that it wasn't contemplated before the election. She said: "I just don't think it's possible that that could be the case."

The Premier, who said that it wasn't possible that the government had not betrayed the people, in essence, is now, after having flipped and defended that tax with hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, standing before us with Bill 54 and saying: "Well, I said it was sneaky, I spent hundreds of millions of dollars defending it, I then promised to reintroduce the tax that the people had chosen without alteration, and now I offer you a bill that offers alterations to that tax. But please support me and please trust me."

It's rather sad, really, that people can look at what's happening in this House and what has happened that has led us to this place and resist becoming even more cynical. That booming commodity, cynicism, and the refreshing response from the public in reaction to the HST, where we saw that people had not indeed become so cynical that they wouldn't respond to such an insult, as the Premier put it…. In fact, the people felt rightly angered and responded and became politically engaged, politically involved, and forced this government to the point where we now see Bill 54.

[1535]

But each time the people win a victory over deceit, they are served another helping, and that is difficult to resist becoming cynical about. This bill will earn support, but a measured support. This bill needs to be examined in the context of those pieces that are missing. The description of what will be exempted, the description of how the tax will be implemented — all of that is missing, and again, we're asked to trust.

I've talked a little bit about some of the components of this bill, some of the exemptions that will be reintroduced, which will save British Columbians money and reintroduce some fairness to the retail tax regime. For instance, bicycle purchases will again be exempt from taxes. There will be a number of other things such as school supplies and clothing for children, all spelled out in this bill, and that is good.

Unfortunately, other exemptions that existed before the HST clearly will not exist in the new PST. Those were important considerations. Those were pocketbook, dollar-and-cents considerations that drove people to sign the referendum. They knew that their haircut was going to cost them more. They knew that their children's dance classes were going to cost them more, and their hockey registration. There were so many particular, specific increases in costs to average British Columbians represented by the HST and now corrected by Bill 54.

There was the enormous betrayal of trust represented by the HST — an unprecedented level of broken trust, of misleading the public. There's a three-letter word that I'm not allowed to use, Mr. Speaker, but no one can avoid coming to that conclusion.

Deputy Speaker: You're coming close to using it right

[ Page 12193 ]

now, Member, so I'd caution you.

D. Routley: I am. I am very close to using it, and I accept the Speaker's advice very willingly.

That was an enormous betrayal of trust — unprecedented. No one could have ever seen it coming because they had never seen anything like it.

On the other hand, there is another reason that drove people to sign that petition, which is partially answered by Bill 54. That was the enormous tax shift from the largest corporations onto small business and consumers — a $2 billion increase to consumers and small businesses, a $2 billion tax holiday to the largest corporations in the province.

One of the things that need to be considered when we think about that tax shift is obviously fairness. Is it fair? Is it in the public interest? Which corporations benefited from that enormous tax shift?

Well, I feel very thankful and hopeful for the forest industry of British Columbia. We need the forest industry, and we need to see it thrive. But the forest industry has, in recent past, engaged in practices that 70 percent of British Columbians find to be wrong, and that is the increased exporting of raw logs. They find the forest practices to be insufficient and not sustainable environmentally. Those are the corporations that benefited.

The small businesses, which create the bulk of employment in this province — the bicycle shops, the hairdressers, the homebuilders, the home renovators, those businesses that we need to encourage, support and nurture — were the ones who paid the price. The middle class of this province — who struggle under increased costs brought on by the B.C. Liberal government, struggle under hydro cost increases, B.C. Ferries — are the ones who paid for that tax shift.

So some of that unfairness of that tax shift, which drove 700,000 British Columbians to sign that petition to defeat the HST, is answered by Bill 54, but only some.

[1540]

The reasons that people responded as they did to the betrayal of the B.C. Liberals when it came to the HST were multiple. There were many reasons. Some are answered by Bill 54. But the key and probably the number one reason that people responded with such anger was the sense of having been betrayed. Bill 54 may answer that and may put some of that right.

The problem we have is that Bill 54 continues a path of the B.C. Liberal government putting forward policies and legislation that are poorly defined and in many cases poorly thought out, and simply asking people: "Trust us. We know what's best. Trust us. We'll do what we said we'd do." Bill 54, again: "Trust us. We'll put the PST back the way it was before the HST — even better."

Now, if better means without some of the exemptions that people counted on, without some of the exemptions that in fact drove them to those tables sprinkled throughout this province at malls and city halls, if it fails to do what this Premier has promised, then I think it will only contribute to the continued loss of faith in the B.C. Liberals by the people of B.C.

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to stand up and speak about Bill 54, as it has impacted and will be impacting all of us — all of our constituents, our family members and everybody who lives in British Columbia.

Now, the question we need to ask is: why are we debating Bill 54? What gave rise to this need? So in order to debate Bill 54 and have second reading, it is important for us to put this into context. We can only do so if we understand the background of it. By putting this whole thing into context, one must make sure that we know the history of Bill 54, why we are discussing it here in the House at this late time at the end of session.

This Bill 54 we should have been debating a long time ago, rather than in the dying days of this spring session of 2012. People were told in 2009 that we will not have HST, that we can trust this government. As a result, what we saw was that people trusted, and shortly after the 2009 election, people had this tax imposed, the HST. That's why we're discussing Bill 54 today. If the government had not done that, if the government had been truthful, if the government had been forthright….

Deputy Speaker: I'd remind the member to watch his language.

R. Chouhan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm discussing Bill 54 in the context — why we are doing it now and why we hadn't done it many, many months ago. The only way, in second reading, that people who are watching us can understand is when they see the history of it.

[1545]

I know that when my constituents in Burnaby-Edmonds…. We went through it, where people were asked to sign petitions, and people were signing. Thousands and thousands of people were doing it. Had the government listened to that, had the government learned a lesson, if they had accepted the verdict not only of the petition but later on of the referendum, we could have done this a long time ago. Now still, even under this Bill 54,

part 14 of this bill is telling us that the regulations will be drafted later on, and those regulations provide a huge amount of power to the cabinet.

And we are told again: "Don't worry about it. You can trust us. We will do everything right." But I tell you, Mr. Speaker, it's not easy to trust this government anymore. I have lived through that betrayal myself. The example of that is when the HEU, the Hospital Employees Union, was told: "No, don't worry about it. Your collective agreement will not be touched." Later on we saw the B.C. Rail thing that happened, the deficit and now the HST.

[ Page 12194 ]

Now we have Bill 54, and we have

part 14 of that basically asking us to give the government a blank cheque. The people of British Columbia have seen through this. They understand that this government has lost their trust. This government cannot simply now pull a fast one on them anymore.

I am pleased that Bill 54 is finally here and that we will get rid of that tax — the HST. By doing it, the government has shifted that tax burden onto the consumer from the big corporations — billions of dollars which was supposed to be paid by those corporations and suddenly now had to be carried by the consumer. Why? Why did we have to do it?

When that was introduced, we were told not to worry about it. It's going to be revenue-neutral. Not to worry about it — all that money raised will be spent on health care. Not to worry about it — it will be all taken care of. Now we have seen a $1.8 billion tax shift. That's what it is. Now Bill 54, hopefully, will correct it.

That's where we are, yet it's not done immediately. People still have to wait till April of next year before this HST is removed, and then we have the PST system. But under the old system that we had, the PST tax system, we had a lot more exemptions. Now, people have told this government that when you get rid of HST, when you bring back the PST — that's what Bill 54 is trying to do — we want the same exemptions. We are not seeing that. There are some items on the list that are going to be left out.

Even the former Minister of Finance, Carole Taylor, recognized and said publicly that it was a tax shift. It was a burden put onto the consumer, and that means more money in the pockets of the rich corporations. It was disrespectful. It was arrogant, what the government did, and now the government is trying to correct it through Bill 54.

Again, they are leaving a huge gap in there by asking us…. Under

part 14 of the bill, they are saying: "Don't worry. We will take care of it. Yes, we are nice people." But the experience people have seen…. It's not going to be easy for this government to win back that trust of British Columbians.

Had they done it right after the petition or at least after the referendum, maybe the outcome would have been different. Maybe we didn't need to go through this, the huge amount of debate and discussion under Bill 54, but now we have to do it. We have to make sure that all the steps are taken care of, and we will be debating Bill 54 clause by clause at the next stage, the committee stage.

[1550]

In the meantime, in second reading it's important for us, for my constituents, for people in Burnaby to understand what brought us here. What was the cause? What was the reason behind it? As we have discussed many times in our city, in our constituency, people have been calling me and telling me that that was the most ridiculous step. The tax actually introduced through HST was a bad tax that people had to live with. Families are already struggling with whatever little money they have, and the HST didn't make it easier for them. It really made it even harder for them to make a living.

I want to close by saying that I hope the government does not repeat the same mistake.

Part 14 of Bill 54 is going to be drafting and introducing the regulations. I hope the government will really understand the anger, the frustration that people have gone through, that they would be careful and would be drafting those regulations which are truly representative of workers, seniors and individuals — their concerns — rather than telling us and asking us to give them a blank cheque, which we are not going to do…. If the government tries to make that same mistake, the government will hear that very clearly.

Again, I just want to say this. I appreciate the opportunity to stand up and say a few words about it, and I hope that never in our history any government will again betray British Columbians. I hope the government of British Columbia will always be very truthful and straightforward and respect the people's views and, when they stand up and say something and tell the government, accept it and move on. That's the only way.

I take my place, and my colleague will continue debating this bill, Bill 54.

G. O'Mahony: I'm pleased to be here to speak to Bill 54, the Provincial Sales Tax Act. As this is my official speech, I'd like to take a moment to send greetings to members of my constituency, community members from Spuzzum, Harrison, Hope, Agassiz, Cultus, Chilliwack, Chilliwack River Valley and Columbia Valley. I am pleased to stand here and speak to Bill 54 on behalf of my community members.

I'd also like to take a moment to briefly express my gratitude to everyone here in the Legislature for warmly welcoming me. As a newcomer, I wanted to state my opinion over the last few weeks. With witnessing the introduction of 16 new bills over, I think, about a 12-day period, thus prompting extended hours and the use of a third House, I will say that my orientation to the Legislature has surely been a baptism by fire. That brings us to the current debate of Bill 54, the Provincial Sales Tax Act.

As I mentioned, I have some concerns about the amount of time that we can dedicate to debating the bills. I agree with my colleague who mentioned that it would have been nice if this bill had been presented earlier and that much more time could have been put into the debate had it been started earlier, as this has been a pressing concern for some time certainly for members of my community and members of the province.

Time to consult with local business owners, non-profit societies, seniors advocacy groups, consumer protection groups — the list goes on. In other words, important stakeholders that have a vested interest in Bill 54. I will

[ Page 12195 ]

do my best today to put forward their concerns upon my reading of the bill and my understanding of it.

First, I'd like to say that we cannot discuss Bill 54 without putting it into context — the reasons why we must be concerned by what is not present in this bill.

[1555]

The bill does not include the following exemptions that were formerly under the PST. I am going to read them out now, if you could just give me a moment. From my understanding, they are not going to be part of the legislation, but they will be dealt with, as promised, in coming regulations.

I'll read them out really quickly: residential electricity and home heating fuel; prescription drugs, non-prescription drugs, vitamins; children's clothing and footwear; clothing patterns, fabrics, notions; school supplies; magazines, books, newspapers; basic telephone and cable service; 1-800 and equivalent telephone services; specified safety equipment; labour to repair major household appliances; clothing and footwear. You can see the list is quite exhaustive.

Miscellaneous consumer exemptions — i.e., used clothing under $100; bicycles; livestock for human consumption and feed, seed, fertilizer, production machinery and equipment; insulation to prevent heat or cold loss from hot water tanks, water pipes and ductwork.

I'm reading this off because I want to make sure we really do mention exactly what was exempt before to ensure that it will be exempt in the future.

Production machinery and equipment for local government for power production and co-generation; aerodynamic devices; equipment to produce energy from ocean current, tides and waves; rental of passenger vehicles for eight hours or less; biodiesel fuel used for heating; services to maintain or modify software; logging machinery and equipment; also mining and oil and gas M&E and exports. There's quite an exhaustive list that is not included in this legislation.

In order to put my concerns into perspective, I do have to draw upon history leading up to Bill 54, the bill that is now being discussed to reinstate PST. It speaks to the most integral issue regarding this bill, and this is the issue of broken trust. I have to speak to broken trust because this is what my constituents would want me to do.

I was a candidate in 2009. I was aware of the Liberal platform at that time, and the Liberal platform did not mention HST. It was just a matter of weeks after that election that we came to realize two truths that were not mentioned ahead of time. One truth had to do with the current state of our deficit, which was grossly understated, and the other, of course, was the introduction of the HST.

I feel we wouldn't be here today — we wouldn't have had the referendum, and we wouldn't have had the chaos that occurred — if that HST had been put in the 2009 Liberal platform. We could have dealt with it with public debate and in accordance to a vote then, and we wouldn't be here now.

This is essential to understand the current climate of extreme distrust that should be expected in light of the decision to use regulation rather than legislation in Bill 54 for the aforementioned exemptions that I read out — quite the lengthy list. As we know, the public outrage was unprecedented, setting off the first-ever historic referendum. Let's remember that is why we are here now debating Bill 54.

I recall clearly attending public meetings and hearing the disappointment from concerned business owners, seniors, people on fixed incomes. The response from government at that time in history…. Again, let me say I speak to the history of the HST because it is inextricably linked to the debate on Bill 54 and speaks to trust.

The response from government was to issue statistics and the following reasons for the HST. So there was an attempt to clarify the situation. That was the following: that HST would provide an incentive to hire, invest or expand. British Columbians were promised 100,000 new jobs by the year 2020, price reductions and that it would be revenue-neutral.

I speak to these promises because they are essential in speaking to broken trust and the fact that once again members are being asked to trust government that all the aforementioned exemptions will be granted, which are not in Bill 54. History has shown us that perhaps that is a bad idea. In relation to the HST, we were told that inflation would not be a concern.

[1600]

Finally, the government issued the Jim Dinning report that cast a very different light on the proposed benefits of HST. Indeed, the differences were stark: 24,000 jobs by 2020; cost to B.C.'ers in extra tax, $1.4 billion by 2020. That is what is amounting to an estimation of 2,400 jobs per year at a cost of $1.4 billion — so roughly $600,000 per job.

Again, this led to the climate of distrust that I'm speaking to now and the discussion surrounding Bill 54 and my concerns about using regulations.

What the vote from the referendum clearly stated was that the people of British Columbia would like to see the PST return to its absolute original state. So we have to go back one more time, if you don't mind, to history. There was another promise that was made, that the HST would be revenue-neutral, and then we learned from that report, as I mentioned, that roughly $600 million per year in new tax was being garnered.

So as I said before, I'm concerned about having appropriate time to consult with stakeholders, but I did take time over the last few hours to consult the local Retail B.C. website to get feedback from an important aspect of the business community that will be affected by Bill 54 and the changeover. I'd like to share some of the information from that group, some of the feedback and the discus-

[ Page 12196 ]

sions that are going on.

I also think, for clarity's sake, that I should probably explain that one of the groups that I'm citing that is on the site is called Shelfspace. It is the Association for Retail Entrepreneurs, established in 1917. "Shelfspace, the Association for Retail Entrepreneurs, is a non-profit organization that represents the retail communities of B.C. and Alberta. Governed by a dedicated group of retail leaders, Shelfspace exists to serve the retail community through advocacy, cost savings, education and community engagement and by sharing the passion for retail."

This is a western non-profit society that has been keeping a careful watch on this new piece of legislation, Bill 54. So it's good to kind of sum up some of their concerns and then some of their ideas, which I think are really interesting in light of the fact that I mentioned that the following exemptions are not in the legislation but will be dealt with later in regulations.

First of all, their site basically sums up that they like some of the changes that have come into place with Bill 54, and I agree with most of what they're saying on their site. But they're also calling for the regulations to be simplified. There's a great deal of concern about the cost of transition. As I was running in this by-election, speaking to business owners, what I felt time and time again was the anger and the uncertainty. Some businesses supported HST; others absolutely hated it. But together, they all agreed that uncertainty was the most dangerous position that their businesses had found themselves in.

There have been business owners — for example, a florist company which HST was negatively impacting — who have already paid the money to buy new sales tills and set everything in place for the HST and now are worrying about that cost of transitioning back to the PST.

They were also concerned on this website about rules around exemptions that were less burdensome for retailers. The question of exemptions really came up in the website.

I think what concerned me most was this group, Shelfspace, that had suggested they call on government — and this is a quote from their site — "to maintain the existing HST youth exemption…based on size of clothing" rather than age. In other words, there is a thought out there in the business community that the exemptions that are supposed to be covered under regulations have some fluidity and perhaps can be influenced.

I would suggest right now, as much as I respect this non-profit organization, that I'm absolutely against doing anything to change the PST exemption for children's clothing. That would be a further insult to the voters.

[1605]

As I mentioned, going through the extensive history leading up to Bill 54, it would cause further agitation and anger. I know that. I'm speaking as not only the representative for the communities that make up Chilliwack-Hope but also as a parent with two children. I just want to speak for one moment about this particular exemption.

When the HST came into effect, it virtually cost parents quite a bit more money. As you're probably aware — I'm not sure if you've spent some time shopping — most children purchase their clothing from adult retail stores. In most of those stores, the clothing is adult sized, although I would argue because it's quite small. Taxes were being issued on this clothing, which had not been there before.

In regards to this idea of lobbying government because these exemptions aren't in the actual legislation, I'm very concerned. It makes me wonder if there are any other areas where perhaps the government is being pressured to maintain the HST-like scenario on some of the aforementioned items that I listed, which were quite expensive. In that case I'm absolutely opposed to any suggestion of that. Members in my community are expecting me to stand up here today and state very clearly, unequivocally, that we must return to the PST exemptions that existed in the former legislation.

As a newcomer I want to provide a bit of hope as well as — areas where perhaps we can restore the trust with the public. I want to speak to some of the name-calling that has gone on with the tax. I think it is quite an insult that ministers of the government have referred to the PST as the stupid tax. Now they're returning to the so-called stupid tax. I support the stupid tax, by the way, if that is indeed what it's being name-called.

In doing so, by calling the PST a stupid tax — and I know this might be a silly point to make — you're also calling the people who voted for that tax stupid. I think we need to just stay away from that altogether. It's derogatory, and it really shouldn't be something that occurs.

In conclusion, again, I need to state really clearly that I am concerned about the exemptions not being listed in the legislation. But I do support Bill 54, and I think it is well overdue that it has been introduced. The time period it's going to take to actually bring it into effect is quite drawn out, and that's unfortunate.

Again, it's a pleasure to be here and to speak to this issue, the first issue ever that I've raised in the House — if I can be taken very seriously in terms of my concern over the exemptions and also care in how we discuss this tax and care in how we respond to some of the pressures that might be launched now that people realize the exemptions are not actually in legislation and are going to be coming in future regulations.

This is a promise, so my final little bit of advice to the government is that they have to stick by this promise. This time they've got to. They can't stray at all, not from one item that I mentioned on that list. They must stick to this promise. I just can't imagine if they decided to change even one little bit of the PST exemptions that existed before or tried to be sneaky or manipulative. There is just no more room to do that. There is absolutely none.

[ Page 12197 ]

[1610]

S. Hammell: I rise to speak in support of Bill 54, the Provincial Sales Tax Act. I rise enthusiastically in support of this bill, Bill 54. What I'm doing through supporting it is giving voice to my constituents. During the period of time that they had to participate in the debate around whether to eliminate the HST or to continue with it, they participated very enthusiastically, and their position was very, very clear.

In the final analysis, the constituents in Surrey–Green Timbers voted 75.51 percent in favour of scrapping the HST. By scrapping the HST, it would lead them directly to Bill 54, the Provincial Sales Tax Act. So it is with delight that I stand up to validate that position of the people of my constituency. They not only participated, but they participated enthusiastically.

If we step back from this act as it is presented today, Bill 54 in the House, we know that this bill has had a long and tortuous history. Actually, Bill 54's genesis was prior to the election of 2009. In fact, it was embedded in the presentation in February of 2009 of a budget that suggested that despite the economic forecast and the turmoil that was around the world, we would have a $495 million deficit.

Bill 54. The genesis started when that deficit was posted and campaigned on through an election. Then after the election the deficit ballooned to $2.8 billion. As a conse