2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, April 26, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 7

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Gunshot and Stab Wound Disclosure Act

Hon. M. de Jong

Bill 13 — Forests and Range (First Nations Woodland Licence) Statutes Amendment Act, 2010

Hon. P. Bell

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Trade between B.C. and Asia

R. Lee

Kootenay Youth Parliament

N. Macdonald

Tourist attractions in Cariboo-Chilcotin area

D. Barnett

Literacy project in Kyuquot

C. Trevena

Cambridge Elementary School running club

S. Cadieux

Minerals North conference in Prince George

D. Donaldson

Oral Questions

Surgical services in Fraser Health Authority

A. Dix

Hon. K. Falcon

Staffing of sterilization units in Fraser Health Authority

S. Hammell

Hon. K. Falcon

Acute care beds at St. Joseph's Hospital

S. Fraser

Hon. K. Falcon

Comments by former Finance Minister on harmonized sales tax

J. Horgan

Hon. C. Hansen

D. Donaldson

Funding for school band programs

R. Austin

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Meeting between school trustees and Education Minister

D. Thorne

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Petitions

M. Sather

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

On the amendment (continued)

R. Chouhan

S. Cadieux

V. Huntington

Hon. M. Polak

M. Sather

D. Horne

H. Bains

J. Rustad

M. Mungall

Hon. G. Abbott

Standing Order 81.1

Schedule for debate on Bill 9

Hon. M. de Jong

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests and Range (continued)

N. Macdonald

Hon. P. Bell

B. Routley

N. Simons

S. Fraser

[ Page 4803 ]

MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2010

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

N. Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to introduce my belle-mère , which is a very nice French term for describing Betty Hoogendoorn. She's joining us here as well as my belle-soeur , Jean Persson. With them are my daughter Danielle and my wife, Karen.

If I am not heckling as loud as usual during QP, it's because…. I'm no less outraged by government answers. It's just that I want to be on my best behaviour today. That's what I'm aiming for. Please join me in welcoming them.

[1335]

R. Howard: With us in the House today is a good friend, a good supporter and a tireless worker, Mr. Amwar Sandhu. He's here with his entire family. I'm sorry I don't have all their names, or I'd introduce them as well, but would the House please join me in welcoming them here.

D. Hayer: We have a very special guest today, Russ Burtnick. He is a community leader. He is a past treasurer of Surrey Board of Trade, Surrey Chamber of Commerce, and he has served as a director on many community organizations. He's always helping anybody who needs his help in Surrey. He's a good friend, and he is one of the top Surrey residents. Would the House please make him very welcome.

D. Routley: I'd like to welcome to the House a friend of many on this side of the House, Darcy Olson, and her wonderful son, Alexander Morell. Darcy Olson's family have been involved with the NDP for a very long time. I think she refers to Ian Waddell as Uncle Ian.

They've come from Nanaimo — they're constituents from Nanaimo — to see how the House operates. Alexander isn't skipping school. He's on a pro-D day. He's here for his professional development, because everybody has every intention that one day he'll be walking these halls in one form or another. So please help us make them welcome.

L. Reid: I have three lovely guests in the gallery today. My mentee is here: Britney Allen. Many of you will have heard me speak in the past about Equal Voice, an organization that supports young women to seek public office or to be involved in campaigns. She has joined us, and I ask the House to please make her welcome.

And my dear friend Margaret McColm is with us. She's joined by Michael Lee, who is a family member visiting from Edinburgh, Scotland. It's that glorious gap year that might become a gap decade. We wish him well, and thank you very much for coming.

H. Bains: I think they might be able to make it to the vicinity or be in the House here — 40 students and ten of their parents, led by Louise Hazemi, from North Surrey Learning Centre. Those students are here to learn the working of this House. If they are around here, please give them a warm welcome.

C. Trevena: Mr. Speaker, I'd first like to make an introduction on your behalf. We have visiting a Clerk from another jurisdiction, on attachment to our House this week. Mr. Tim Mercer is the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories. This is one of a continuing series of attachments whereby our Legislative Assembly hosts Clerks from other jurisdictions. On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to make Mr. Mercer very welcome to British Columbia and to our House.

They've been on a tour of this place to learn about the workings of our Legislative Assembly and now will see democracy in action with question period. They have been warned that there is a reason why these aisles are two sword-lengths apart, but I hope that the House will make them most welcome and show them our best behaviour.

N. Simons: My partner, Scott, and I are thrilled to announce the arrival of a new niece, and I'd like to congratulate my brother-in-law Blair and his beautiful wife Kara on the arrival of Mackayla last week. Would the House make her welcome to this place.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — gunshot and stab wound

disclosure act

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Gunshot and Stab Wound Disclosure Act.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

[ Page 4804 ]

Motion approved.

[1340]

Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 12 mandates health facilities to report the treatment of any patients who are suffering from either a gunshot or most stab wounds. The legislation relates to one of the commitments that the government made last year in its plan to combat gang and gun violence. The proposed legislation will, we believe, enhance public safety by increasing the consistency of reporting these violent injuries and thereby enabling police more timely responses to potentially high-risk incidents involving firearms or knives.

The proposed legislation would establish that every health care facility, and that is defined in the legislation, that treats a person with a gunshot and most stab wounds would be required to verbally report the following information to the police of local jurisdiction: the person's name, if it's known; the fact that the person is being treated or has been treated for a gunshot or a stab wound; the name and location of the health care facility; and any other information required by the legislation.

It would, as I've indicated, encompass all gunshot wounds, and stab wounds that are believed to be intentional. Stab wounds that are self-inflicted or accidental would not be required to be reported. I'm happy to say that police and health representatives have expressed their general support for the introduction of this mandatory gunshot and stab wound reporting system.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for consideration by the House at the next sitting after today.

Bill 12, Gunshot and Stab Wound Disclosure Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 13 — fORESTS AND RANGE

(FIRST NATIONS WOODLAND LICENCE)

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2010

Hon. P. Bell presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Forests and Range (First Nations Woodland Licence) Statutes Amendment Act, 2010.

Hon. P. Bell: I move that Bill 13 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Bell: Today I introduce Bill 13, which proposes a new long-term, area-based First Nations woodland licence. In March of 2009 the Working Round Table on Forestry made five recommendations specific to encourage First Nations to become full partners in forestry. Today this new woodland licence directly responds to recommendation No. 25, which reads: "…create more long-term, area-based forest tenures that are of an economically viable size and create legislation for a First Nations forest tenure."

This tenure is unique and provides additional values that are important to First Nations. The woodland licence will provide exclusive rights to harvest timber on Crown land and the right to harvest, manage and charge fees, also, for botanical forest products and practise aboriginal stewardship and protect traditional use values.

Forestry is a long-term business, as we know. So introduction of a long-term, area-based tenure that can also include private or reserve land will improve the economic viability for First Nations' tenures.

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

Bill 13, Forests and Range (First Nations Woodland Licence) Statutes Amendment Act, 2010, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

trade between b.c. and asia

R. Lee: Today I would like to speak about the relationship between our province and China. Last month I welcomed the Shanghai Light Music Troupe concert to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Canadian-Chinese diplomacy. It has become evident that we are quickly moving ahead to foster this relationship and create new opportunities for our two countries.

The implementation of our Asia-Pacific initiative has led to an opening of the Asia-Pacific business centre in Robson Square and three investment representative officers in Shanghai, Beijing and Guangzhou. Of course we are aware of the recent news that Air China will be increasing the amount of daily flights to YVR. Last month I was invited to travel to China to participate in the Boao International Tourism Forum in Hainan, where I stressed the importance of a timely implementation of the approved destination status, ADS, for Canada to the Chinese leaders.

I was also in Nanning, city of Guangxi, to enhance the education and business relationships at the Canadian Western Economic Partnership forum on the B.C. promotion day. I was more than impressed with the feedback I received whenever the topic of B.C.'s Asia-Pacific initiative was discussed.

[1345]

[ Page 4805 ]

Asia accounts for a higher percentage of British Columbia's total exports today than it did ten years ago. Almost 37 percent of B.C.'s total exports went to Asia in 2009 compared with just 23 percent in 2000. In fact, British Columbia exports the highest percentage of its goods to Asia than any other province in Canada.

We need to continue to build on these types of relationships and ensure that they receive the attention they deserve. I would like to congratulate those who have made these partnerships possible and ask that the House recognize their efforts to help build a stronger province.

KOOTENAY YOUTH PARLIAMENT

N. Macdonald: On May 7 to 9 the community of Invermere will be hosting the Kootenay Youth Parliament, and I'm looking forward to being part of this most important leadership-building opportunity for the region's youth.

Youth from across the Kootenays will meet at David Thompson Secondary School, where they will learn more about parliamentary debate and how to become a leader in their own community. This year's Kootenay youth Premier will be Tonie Minhas, and the Leader of the Opposition will be Ali Perdue. The event is put on with the assistance of Werner Kopp, a dedicated teacher who has mentored many aspiring leaders during his career.

The Kootenay Youth Parliament is also being strongly supported by Invermere's mayor, Gerry Taft. Mayor Taft participated in the British Columbia Youth Parliament during his time in high school. In fact, Gerry was the student organizer of the 2001 Kootenay Youth Parliament in Creston. Mayor Taft credits the program with helping him develop the skills he needed to succeed in his own political career. At the age of 20, he was elected to Invermere town council, and at 26 he was elected mayor. Other young area politicians who were involved in youth parliament programs include Carmen Gustafson, who served on Golden's town council while in her 20s.

The interest in youth parliament amongst our young people proves that democracy is alive and well throughout British Columbia. It proves that high school students in classrooms across the province care about responsible government and understand their role in protecting our democratic institutions.

Before coming here I was a social studies teacher and always used to enjoy our MP, Jim Abbott, taking the time to visit our classrooms and talk to students. I think it's something that all MLAs do in their own communities. So I'm looking forward to participating and to encouraging youth to be interested in this parliamentary system.

TOURIST ATTRACTIONS IN

CARIBOO-CHILCOTIN AREA

D. Barnett: The Cariboo-Chilcotin coast includes approximately 9,350 miles of coastline, 8,000 lakes and 11,000 miles of rivers and streams. The climate features warm, dry summers averaging between 21 and 28 Celsius and beautiful, cool, fresh air and crisp, cool winters. As you travel along Highway 97 from the south or the north, Highway 24 from Highway 5, the beauty of the landscape will bring awe to all.

The history of the Cariboo-Chilcotin is an amazing story. Throughout the Cariboo-Chilcotin, the wagon road from the gold rush to Barkerville can be found in many areas. Local visitor information centres with well-trained local staff can provide you with information of the history or information on any of the other great attributes of the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

Services to the tourist are available throughout the vast region. Major communities throughout the region provide hospitals, dentists, shopping centres and all other necessary services — whether you are a fisherperson, a birdwatcher, a boater, canoeist, horseback rider, biker, hiker, snowmobiler, skier or just want to relax in one of the many first-class resorts throughout the Cariboo-Chilcotin. Spas, fine dining, entertainment and special events — from January to December your vacation will be everlasting.

Cariboo hospitality is the best in the country, your home away from home. Come bring your family, your friends, and see the greatest place with the greatest people, the greatest food and the greatest hospitality on earth — the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

LITERACY PROJECT IN KYUQUOT

C. Trevena: Imagine a world without the written word. In our culture we're surrounded by words. Billboards harangue us to buy products or to go places. Headlines are blaring. Magazines are at the checkout. The written word is an integral part of our lives, our work and often our leisure. Knowing how to read is elemental for our survival, which is why the Kyuquot literacy project is so important.

[1350]

Kyuquot is a remote community on the west coast of Vancouver Island, home to the Ka:'yu:'k't'h'-Che:k:tles7et'h' First Nation. There, trees tower, not billboards. Travel is by boat or by foot, and as Susan Plensky discovered when she first moved there, there are no magazines or papers in the store.

She saw the books in the K-to-12 school library. Many were out of date or deteriorating, and the stock was slim, with an average of 55 books per school year. Children need hundreds of books and the written word to become fully literate, and while Kyuquot is served by the

[ Page 4806 ]

splendid Books by Mail service, that didn't work out for many of the families.

This, in addition to the very high poverty levels there, pushed Susan into being a zealot for literacy and for fundraising. She started the Kyuquot literacy project, raising money for books for the community.

It's hard work. The logging companies, Interfor and others, have said they can't afford to donate. Some of the resorts allocate money depending on the number of guests they have staying, and any grant moneys available for literacy can't be spent on library collections.

But she's not giving up. The literacy team has put out a new brochure and is circulating it among businesses in Kyuquot, Nootka Sound and Campbell River. The target is $60,000 investment in new books for the school.

In the big picture, it's not much, but it will make a huge difference for the children and their families in Kyuquot village. Their newsletter reads: "Literacy will end the poverty that exists in Kyuquot village by creating new opportunities for the students as they grow." It's a great hope, and I urge all members to join their campaign.

CAMBRIDGE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

RUNNING CLUB

S. Cadieux: We all know that a healthy lifestyle includes physical activity, and getting an early start on incorporating fitness into your lifestyle is important. Setting goals and making exercise fun improves the odds of success. So how about a 12,000-kilometre running goal for a start?

Cambridge Elementary in my riding is home to a running club that gets their students moving. Each year for the month of April, the school hosts this club to help get the school community active. The program was started by Cambridge principal Bob Winton with the help of dedicated teachers Kristy Sveinson and Ivana Smith, parent Kristan Ash and PAC president Laura Ramsbottom.

I asked: why a running club? They gave me three really great reasons: to encourage kids to be active and exercise, to lead to participation in sports like track and field in the future, and, lastly, to build community.

Well, it's certainly working. After school every day this month, the crowds gather to get moving. Over 400 of Cambridge's 600 students are participating in the program, and it has the highest volunteer turnout of any program the school puts on each year. Some of the parents and teachers run alongside, and some of the kids' younger siblings also get in on the fun.

Last year the Cambridge running club ran a total of 12,000 kilometres, and this year they're well on their way to surpassing that goal. On Friday when I attended to assist in delivering the ribbons for the individual running goals, more than one young athlete had already accumulated 80 kilometres.

So I'd like to say congratulations to Cambridge Elementary for their enthusiastic, energetic and engaging fitness quest. I wouldn't be surprised to see one or two of these young athletes run a marathon or two in the future.

MINERALS NORTH CONFERENCE

IN PRINCE GEORGE

D. Donaldson: The Minerals North annual conference took place last week in Prince George. This year's theme, "Opportunity Rocks," was reflected in the upbeat atmosphere at the forum and also in the incredible number of exhibitors. More than 100 booths and displays could be found inside and outside the Prince George convention centre.

Communities were well represented. From my area, Smithers and Stewart had booths as well as the regional district of Bulkley-Nechako. Educational institutions like Northwest Community College with its award-winning school of exploration and mining were prominent, and sector associations like the Smithers exploration group had a high profile in the trade show.

The presentations at the forum provided some key insights. In addition to the various mining proposal updates, there was an entertaining but thought-provoking presentation from Byng Giraud, vice-president of corporate affairs for Imperial Metals. One of his salient points was the need to properly resource First Nations when it comes to development proposals, as a way to create more certainty in the application process.

This view was echoed by another presenter, Tahltan Band Chief Rick McLean. He described a situation from a couple of years ago where the Tahltan faced more than a dozen major development proposals on their traditional territories and were expected to quickly respond in detail to the environmental and social implications of each.

We need another mine to be part of the economic mix of our economy in the northwest. In fact, no new metal mine has opened in our region since before 2001. But as Chief McLean pointed out, it is the pace of development that needs to be looked at.

[1355]

Even former Alberta Premier Ralph Klein said after he left office that the tar sands development, for instance, was too much too fast. That advice is well worth listening to from a popular right-wing politician who no longer has an axe to grind.

Congratulations to the Prince George organizers of Minerals North, and I look forward to attending in Stewart next year.

[ Page 4807 ]

Oral Questions

SURGICAL SERVICES IN

FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY

A. Dix: In an internal document to staff last Thursday, the Fraser Health Authority admitted that it will be reducing its medically necessary scheduled surgery budget by 14 percent in 2010-2011. This comes on the heels of thousands of surgeries in the Fraser Health Authority that were cut last year.

Will the minister tell this House and the residents of the fastest-growing health authority in the province what surgeries will be cancelled, which hospitals will be affected and what operating rooms will be closed?

Hon. K. Falcon: First of all, Member, that's over two years, so that's last year's and this year's budget. But I think the member would be interested in what the actual numbers say in terms of total surgical volumes. They will be affected by about 1 percent to 2 percent. That is the actual difference.

The fact of the matter, as we've said on many occasions, is that even with a 15 percent budget increase in the Ministry of Health — over $2 billion more over the next three years — there are still pressures. The good news is that they are managing their pressures at Fraser Health in a way that has minimal impact on surgical volumes in spite of the fact that they are managing their budget, as we would expect them to do with taxpayer dollars.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: The minister will know that last year, the Fraser Health Authority cut 5 percent of its operating room hours. So 1 percent to 2 percent, 5 percent — these seem all small numbers to the minister. They're big numbers when you're waiting for surgery in Fraser Health.

These are all medically necessary surgeries that are going to be cut in a health authority that's gaining population every single year. We're talking about everything from neurosurgery to vascular surgery to orthopedic surgery.

Can the minister be specific? Which operating rooms will be closed? That seems like a reasonable question. What hospitals will be affected, and what types of surgeries will be cut?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll be very specific in the sense that one thing the members opposite never get is that the only thing they measure in our health system is what goes in, not what we get out. I'll remind the member — another uncomfortable NDP fact moment — that the only organization that is universally respected across Canada, the Canadian Institute for Health Information, says that the one province that has the record number one in the country for delivering on elective surgical procedures is right here in British Columbia.

You know, Mr. Speaker, that is an outcome. You know, the member talks about how much is going into budgets, and if budgets get reduced at all, that must be the end of the world as we know it. The fact of the matter is I told the member that surgical volumes overall, staff advise me, have been affected by about 1 percent to 2 percent of total surgical volumes.

The fact of the matter is that even with asking the health authorities to manage within a 15 percent budget increase over the next three years, they still…. To their credit — and I want to say that on the record to the staff and the doctors and the nurses — British Columbia leads the entire country in wait times for surgical procedures.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a further supplemental.

A. Dix: Tenth in the country. Tenth in diagnostic procedures. Tenth in the country on MRIs. Wait times for MRIs, the longest in the country. That's the record of the government. What did the minister do last year? He cut thousands — indeed, tens of thousands — of MRIs in the health care system. That's what he did last year.

[1400]

Long wait times in the Fraser Health Authority. Every single hospital in the Fraser Health Authority felt the cuts last year, and the patients in Fraser Health have the right to know what the minister plans to do this year.

The minister is already laying off staff in Fraser Health that protect sterilization, that protect the public, that protect the public safety. Can he tell us — if it's 1 percent to 2 percent, if that's what he says — why the minister is laying off sterilization staff right now and why people in Fraser Health should expect longer wait times when their own minister from their own region is not protecting their interests?

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, just for once it would be nice to hear the member opposite actually get some facts right. When the member talks about cuts of tens of thousands of MRIs, that is just completely false. The fact of the matter is that the number of MRI machines has gone from nine when we first got elected in 2001 to 23 today, and the number of MRIs performed is up 156 percent.

I note that the member is careful not to talk about the Canadian Institute for Health Information outcomes. I find that fascinating — the organization respected right across the country. Joined by the Wait Time Alliance made up of doctors from one end of the country to the

[ Page 4808 ]

other, what did they say about British Columbia? British Columbia is No. 1 in hip surgery wait times, knee surgery wait times, cardiac, cataract, cancer — all here in British Columbia, No. 1 in the country. We never hear that from the critic, but that is a fact.

STAFFING OF STERILIZATION UNITS

IN FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY

S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, it is very troubling that sterilization staff are being laid off in Fraser Valley hospitals, which are the busiest in this province. Front-line staff are warning that already they are struggling to ensure patient safety. Furthermore, in these past days and weeks British Columbians have been troubled by cases of contaminated medical equipment.

These incidents have highlighted the need to bolster, not reduce, the capacity of sterilization departments in our hospitals. Will the minister reconsider these cuts to sterilization departments?

Hon. K. Falcon: First of all, I think it's important for the member to get the facts. That always helps in a discussion like this. Out of 230 individuals in Fraser Health, we're talking about seven positions — seven individuals that would be impacted. One is a part-time clerk at Royal Columbian Hospital, and another is a patient transport aide. A couple are empty positions that aren't being filled. I can share that information with the member opposite.

But I'll tell you this, Mr. Speaker. What you will find if you listen to the experts in this like Dr. Michael Gardam, who's an infectious disease specialist from Ontario, or Dr. Doug Cochrane, who's the chair of our patient quality office, is that the issue of clean surgical equipment is an issue where you will never, ever eliminate that risk altogether. What you must do is focus continuously on continuous improvement.

That is exactly what we do in British Columbia. Unlike the members opposite that had no auditing procedures whatsoever, we actually do audit performance, and we make sure that we continue to invest, as we're doing in Fraser Health.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Hammell: Why, if it doesn't matter, are other health authorities now moving to improve their sterilization departments to prevent more cases of contaminated equipment?

Vancouver Island Health Authority is increasing its weekend staff after notifying 500 patients about potential exposure to a contaminated medical endoscope. The Interior Health Authority is finally making Royal Inland Hospital's sterilization department a capital priority. Plans to upgrade the unit have been delayed since 2008, and this February the hospital was forced to cancel and postpone hundreds of surgeries because of unclean surgical tools.

[1405]

Will the minister apply the lessons from these recent incidents and reject cuts to sterilization departments in the Fraser Valley?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the first thing the member should be comforted by is that Fraser Health actually operates according to ISO 9000, which is the highest quality management standard in the world, in their sterilization department. That's what they do today.

I think the member should also be careful not to try and mix and match different situations that took place at different hospitals that have no relationship whatsoever to Fraser Health. The member should know that in Royal Inland Hospital, there's an RCMP investigation underway with respect to what is alleged to be some criminal tampering that was taking place. That is, of course, of great concern.

In the case of Vancouver Island Health Authority, the member will know….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm trying to point out that the member should get the facts on these situations before she tries to mix them all up and confuse the public. That is not appropriate.

The fact of the matter is Fraser Health has the highest possible standards in its sterilization unit. The positions that are being impacted — seven individuals, I am advised out, of 230. One is a part-time reception clerk, as I mentioned, at Royal Columbian. The other is a transport aide. The fact of the matter is they continue to have exceptional levels of sterilization procedures in Fraser Health, and they will continue to in the future.

ACUTE CARE BEDS AT

ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

S. Fraser: It was a packed meeting in Courtenay on Saturday. The absence of the Minister of Health and the member for Comox Valley was duly noted by over 400 residents that attended. They are fighting against this government-backed proposal to shut down acute care beds at St. Joseph's Hospital.

Residents and the hospital staff are unified in their opposition to this plan, in part because it overlooks viable alternatives like utilizing residential care beds that are sitting idle in the community as we speak. Doctors have

[ Page 4809 ]

also issued a resolution declaring they are unanimously against reducing this hospital's acute care facilities.

Will the minister finally agree to meet with the Comox Valley residents and physicians and hospital staff to consult with them about how to keep these essential acute care beds open?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I mentioned when we canvassed this last week, the fact of the matter is today there are 109 acute care beds at St. Joseph's Hospital. That is the same number as there was when we were elected in 2001.

The only unfortunate cut in acute care beds at St. Joseph's Hospital took place in the 1990s, when the NDP cut them from 125 to 109. So let's just make sure we get that point straight.

The second thing I would say is that what they are doing is actually creating a transition unit within the hospital made up primarily, though not exclusively, of seniors who are waiting to transition into residential care hospitals. They do not require the same level of care as acute care patients, so they are getting the appropriate level of care. It is being done in other hospitals throughout the province. It's the right way to deal with this issue, and no, I won't be interfering with that decision.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: That explains why the minister didn't show up at the meeting. He wouldn't have got away with those vacuous pieces….

Interjections.

S. Fraser: The Comox Valley and the surrounding areas cannot absorb another blow to this region's health care. It's not good to be bragging about doing nothing.

Dr. Stefan Schovanek summarized that this cut to acute care capacity undermines the hospital's ability to provide care. He said: "It's the bale that breaks the camel's back." Dr. Schovanek said that he's never seen physicians turn out against an issue with such force, and that is reflected throughout all of the support staff and the community at large.

[1410]

To the minister again: will he halt these dangerous cuts and agree to meet with the front-line workers, the health care professionals, at St. Joseph's before he makes a big mistake that could seriously undermine the health care delivery in the Comox Valley and across Vancouver Island?

Hon. K. Falcon: In an era when the budget is going up by over $2 billion over the next three years — that's just operating dollars and doesn't include $3 billion in capital — and in an era where that is still not enough in the health care system, not once have we ever heard the opposition put forward a new idea, a different way of doing things — perhaps trying something different to make existing dollars go further.

The only thing we ever hear from the NDP is: "Do not make any changes, and throw more money into it." They never talk about where the money is going to come from. They never talk about who they're going to tax more. They never talk about adding more debt to our children.

The difference is that we are saying to the health authority: "Manage your budgets within the 15 percent increase." They are doing that. This is the right decision they are taking. It is not surprising that the NDP would line up and say: "Any change is a bad change. Please just throw more money at the system." That's what they always say.

COMMENTS BY FORMER FINANCE MINISTER

ON HARMONIZED SALES TAX

J. Horgan: My question is to the Minister of Finance. We've heard over the past couple of days his assertions that there's misinformation with respect to the HST.

Now, everyone on this side of the House recognizes that the misinformation started prior to the election campaign. It's not just members on this side of the House. I think members will be familiar with one Carole Taylor, who said publicly on television last week the following. I'll quote if you don't mind.

I'm sure the members might have picked this up from the public affairs bureau, but in the interests of certainty, it went like this: "But I think the bigger issue is that just before the election he promised that he would not, they would not, do the harmonization of the sales taxes and then right after the election decided to do it."

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Will he agree with his former colleague Carole Taylor, the former Finance Minister, that this government was elected based on misinformation?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's interesting when you actually start to go back and look at what was said before the election. I've got a great reference here. We've been trying to figure out the position of the NDP on harmonized sales tax.

We know that the Finance critic says that if they ever get elected — God help us — it would be here to stay. But we know the Energy critic, the member for Juan de Fuca, has said that they would get rid of it but jack up a bunch of other taxes, which is interesting.

I have a quote from the member for Juan de Fuca in the Hansard from the Finance and Government Services Committee of this Legislature from — and you might want to write down the date — September 25, 2006. The member says: "I want to go to the GST-PST harmonization." He goes on to say this, and it's in Hansard : "I know my spouse is a small business person, and she has to deal

[ Page 4810 ]

with both sets of bureaucrats. That's the motivation for her for harmonization."

Not only do we have conflicting policy statements by various members of the opposition, but now we've got conflicting statements by the member for Juan de Fuca himself.

[1415]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat, Member. We're not continuing for a second.

The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I will say that my wife….

Interjections.

J. Horgan: Enjoy it now.

I will say that my wife will be surprised that she had that much influence over the Minister of Finance. I'll also say that her business was called Young at Art, and she provided arts and crafts supplies to children. Under your tax she'll have to pay tax on crayons. But enough about me and my all-powerful wife.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: Let's move to another powerful person, the former Minister of Finance, who said that not only did the government mislead the public during the election. She said the following: "This particular tax takes the tax off businesses. It takes $1.8 billion off of businesses and puts it onto consumers." She went a little bit further and said: "So that shift is a shift that is ideological as well as factual."

My question again to the Minister of Finance: does he agree with his predecessor, the Minister of Finance, that this tax was misinformation and deception before the election and a tax shift from business to consumers after the election?

Hon. C. Hansen: Well, I think the member might want to explain to the House why his position has changed over the last number of years. Maybe even more importantly, what is his position on the harmonized sales tax today in terms of what they would do?

We know that small business owners around the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: Small business owners have been advocating for the abolition of the provincial sales tax and the adoption of the harmonized sales tax for many years now. In fact, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce has been proposing this, going back to the mid-1990s.

In fact, it's also one of the reasons why you wind up with the certified general accountants supporting harmonized sales tax. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia are supporting the harmonized sales tax. The reason for that is because it's good for small business, including the member's wife's company, and it's also good for job creation in British Columbia. That's why we are for it.

D. Donaldson: Well, the minister likes to talk about the past, but here's a lesson in current politics. The entire province is clear on the HST. People know they'll pay more if it's implemented, and they don't want it. That government's former Finance Minister recently said: "The HST takes tax off big business" — and this is her quote — "and puts it on consumers. So that shift is a shift that is ideological as well as factual."

Does the current minister agree with the former Finance Minister, Carole Taylor, that hard-working B.C. families unfairly shoulder the burden of this government's HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: I note that the member for Stikine is one of the canvassers for Bill Vander Zalm. Perhaps the member can share with us whether or not he actually supports his leader Bill Vander Zalm…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1420]

Hon. C. Hansen: …when in a letter to the editor in the Vancouver Sun this morning, Bill Vander Zalm says that British Columbia could easily make the provincial sales tax work the same way as a value-added tax. You know how he would do that? He says: "It could apply to all goods and services. Reduce it to 3 or 4 percent, and provide input tax credits."

Perhaps the deputy Finance critic for the opposition could tell us whether he agrees with his leader, Bill Vander Zalm, that we should actually be adding a 3 percent or 4 percent consumption tax to all groceries, to all home heating costs, to gasoline, to prescription drugs. The question is: is he in fact on side with his leader, Bill Vander Zalm?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat, Member.

Members.

The member has a supplemental.

[ Page 4811 ]

D. Donaldson: Well, with that kind of answer, we can understand why the former Finance Minister got out while the getting was good.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Continue, Member.

D. Donaldson: The members on that side of the House are repeatedly trying to convince British Columbians that the HST will be good for them. Those attempts have failed. This government's own former Finance Minister said: "Right now the B.C. Liberals are sure on the losing end of this." Perhaps if the government withdrew the bill, then people might be less angry.

To the Finance Minister: does the Finance Minister agree with his predecessor, and will he withdraw the ill-conceived HST legislation?

Hon. C. Hansen: I agree with the leading economists in Canada who actually say that the elimination of the provincial sales tax and adoption of the HST is the single biggest thing we can do as a government to create jobs and stimulate the economy.

I agree with some of the leading economists like Jon Kesselman, who writes that the way we have structured the transition from the PST to the HST is going to make sure that low-income British Columbians, in fact, come out better off as a result of the income tax credit.

I agree with those leaders in the economy who say that this is actually going to be a big benefit for British Columbia. It's going to mean tens and tens of thousands of new jobs and billions of dollars of new investment that will come to British Columbia and drive this economy so that families can enjoy good-paying jobs in this province as a direct result of the harmonized sales tax.

FUNDING FOR SCHOOL BAND PROGRAMS

R. Austin: The Vancouver school board orchestral strings program at Annie B. Jamieson Elementary School, the biggest school string orchestra in Canada, will have to close because of this government's failure to provide enough money. Parents and students are on the streets today to try and save their program.

I hope the Minister of Education pays attention and starts listening to them. The math is simple. Increased costs plus underfunding from this government equals the cancellation of programs for students in British Columbia.

Can the Minister of Education tell this House why she's forcing the closure of band and string programs in Vancouver and taking apart the quality education system that this province has enjoyed?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Certainly, on this side of the House we know how important programs like music and the arts are. That's why in 2005 this government made the largest single investment ever for these kinds of programs — $150 million.

[1425]

The members opposite are well aware that we have increased education funding every single year for the last ten years. This fall will be the tenth year in a row. There will be an additional $1.3 billion going to classrooms around this province.

MEETING BETWEEN SCHOOL TRUSTEES

AND EDUCATION MINISTER

D. Thorne: What it boils down to is this. The Education Minister is not doing her job, which is supposed to be supporting students in this province. All this minister wants school boards to do is cut, cut, cut. But there is nothing left to cut except programs for students.

The school trustees tried to have a conversation…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Thorne: …with this minister on Friday but found an unwilling partner who packed up and got out of the room to avoid the tough questions.

My question to the minister is this. How is she going to fix the crisis in B.C. schools when she won't talk to parents, she won't talk to students and now she won't talk to school boards?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member opposite is really quite mistaken in her assertion. I have been travelling the province. I've spoken with school boards, I've spoken with parents, and I was available to speak with the trustees last week.

I think it's time for what my colleague the Minister of Health refers to as one of the NDP uncomfortable facts. Let's look at the NDP platform from this most recent election. Where they were going to plan to spend $50 million last year, we increased our investment in education by $84 million. This year their platform had a planned investment of $75 million, where we actually invested $112 million. We have invested 60 percent more than their platform stated they would invest.

[End of question period.]

Hon. K. Falcon: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

[ Page 4812 ]

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Falcon: I rise to introduce two visitors who are in the House today, joining us all the way from the community of Summerland. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you may be familiar with one of them. The first is Carla Wright, who is the mother of my very capable executive assistant Jennifer. We are also joined by Marie-Isabel Guibe. She is visiting Canada all the way from Reiffelbach, Germany. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

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

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

M. Sather: I have before me another 500 signatures from people in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows calling on the government to scrap the HST.

Orders of the Day

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

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Consumption Tax Rebate

and Transition Act

(continued)

On the amendment (continued) .

R. Chouhan: I rise today to speak about the amendment motion to refer Bill 9 to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and to empower the committee to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberations.

[1430]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

As we all know, before the last provincial election British Columbians were told that there would be no HST in British Columbia, and we now know that British Columbians were betrayed by the B.C. Liberals. Right after the election was over, without any consultation with anyone, the B.C. Liberals said: "Oh well, the election is over. Let's have the HST." There was absolutely no consultation. No wonder 82 percent of British Columbians are against the HST. That's why it is important that we should all support the referral motion.

I'm sure that all government MLAs have read the latest Angus Reid poll. Some of them may still be reading and wondering what went wrong and why the B.C. Liberals are so low in the polls. They must be wondering why British Columbians do not trust the B.C. Liberals, why British Columbians think the B.C. Liberals are so arrogant. It's all in the polls.

Well, the answer is simple. The B.C. Liberals deliberately kept the citizens in the dark before the election. The B.C. Liberals had a plan to win the election by deceit, and after the election they just came right out and imposed the HST without any consultation with anybody in British Columbia.

This is not the first time the B.C. Liberals have broken their promises. I remember one very important promise they made before 2001, even. That promise was made to the Hospital Employees Union, my union. They promised that they would not introduce Bill 21. They promised that they would not break the collective agreement. It was on record.

But when they won the election, they did that. No consultation; no nothing. That's why it is important that we refer this motion to the select standing committee, so people will have the opportunity to provide their feedback and provide their input.

The B.C. Liberals have also failed to perform due diligence prior to their decision to adopt the HST. For example, the Finance Committee recommended in the fall of 2008 that a cost-benefit analysis needed to be conducted to determine whether a harmonized sales tax may be worth considering. No such analysis was performed.

It was only in March 2010, eight months after the HST was announced, that a biased and government-commissioned study was released. No public consultation. Many stakeholders have spoken out about the HST, but no comprehensive cost-benefit analysis has been done.

All of this can be done now if we refer, successfully, this motion back to the select standing committee so that they can invite all British Columbians to have their input. This is part of a pattern by the B.C. Liberals to make cuts without any analysis or a follow-up study as to their effect. They should therefore take a second look at this decision. They should therefore support our motion to refer Bill 9 to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and empower the committee in its deliberations so that they can invite witnesses to appear before it.

Without a proper consultation, the B.C. Liberals do not have the mandate to impose this bad tax upon British Columbians. During the election they said they were not contemplating adopting the HST.

Before the election they had turned it down numerous times on the grounds that it would hurt consumers because this gives tax credits for business inputs, generally helping big businesses. Government says that accord-

[ Page 4813 ]

ing to its own calculation, it would be by the amount of $1.9 billion. Especially the capital-intensive-goods producers and exporters — they are the ones who are going to benefit the most. It will hurt the service sector, who will have to charge HST where they were previously PST-exempt.

[1435]

There are several estimates of the costs of the HST to British Columbians and to consumers. The government claims that the HST will save businesses $1.9 billion but be revenue-neutral to government. Based on this, it must be the case that consumers in B.C. will collectively pay $1.9 billion more in sales tax. Based on a population of 4.4 million people, that amounts to roughly $432 extra per person on average.

The TD Bank did an analysis of the effect of the HST on consumers in British Columbia and Ontario. Their report concluded that in B.C., 21.4 percent of the goods and services that British Columbians buy will be newly subject to the HST — that is, will have a new 7 percent tax — and that, on average, prices will rise by 1.5 percent.

All these people are now telling the facts of what's going to happen when the HST is implemented. That's why it's important we have a second look at this Bill 9 so that people can at least have the opportunity to participate and tell the government what they feel about it.

The B.C. Restaurant and Foodservices Association, the Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia, the B.C. Care Providers Association, the Federation of Community Social Services of B.C., the Rental Owners and Managers Society of B.C., some municipal governments and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs are all against the HST for good reason, because they know that this is a $1.9 billion tax shift from business to consumers.

Now, for a moment let's look at the B.C. Liberals' phony claim of how good a fiscal manager they are. The federal government is kicking in $1.6 billion in transitional funding. B.C. could take this money all upfront. The Finance Minister has decided to take the money over three years, which is estimated to cost B.C. about $74 million in interest payments that we otherwise wouldn't have needed to pay. This is what it's about — their being good fiscal management. They're losing money, even, by taking this action.

The B.C. Liberals are becoming more and more desperate. They want to sell this bad tax to British Columbians by hook or by crook. At first, the B.C. government was saying that the HST would be revenue-neutral to the government, but newly announced rebates will mean that the HST will reduce revenues by at least $330 million per year — approximately $100 million for increasing the threshold for the partial rebate for new housing purchases and approximately $230 million for partial rebates for school boards, health authorities and universities.

Once input tax credits for large businesses are phased in, approximately within five years, it will cost the government approximately $155 million more. But British Columbians know that the HST is a tax increase for consumers, a tax cut for business and will increase the deficit and further threaten essential services like health care and education.

When the so-called revenue-neutral gimmick did not work, the government then moved on and tried another gimmick — that the money raised through the HST would be earmarked for health care. Again, British Columbians didn't buy this because they know better, and they can see how much more they would be paying for items and services which were exempt from the PST for reasons of public policy.

[1440]

People will now pay 7 percent more for restaurant meals and catered foods; many groceries such as snack foods and other prepared foods like salads, sandwiches; heated food or beverages like a muffin or a coffee; school supplies; services such as taxi fares; recreational services like live theatre, movie tickets, amusement parks, campground fees, museum admissions, whale-watching tours; accounting services, which includes tax preparations, mutual fund management fees; veterinary care and other professional services like architects, real estate agents and appraisers.

That's not the whole list. It continues: classes for yoga, dance, cooking, martial arts; membership fees for clubs and gyms; player fees for team sports; facility and ice rink rentals; massage therapy, acupuncture and alternative medicine. The list goes on and on. I continue because we can't…. You know, the government is not giving this information on its website. The information we have found out is important that the public knows about it.

If we refer this motion to the select standing committee, I'm sure more detail will come out and the public will be more knowledgable. Then they can decide, based on true information, if they support or if they would be against the HST.

Haircuts and other personal care services like beauty salons and spas will be hit with the HST. So will vitamins, dietary supplements and other non-prescription medicinal products, magazines, periodicals, newspapers, newsletters, student yearbooks, bicycles, bike repairs and parts, wedding planners and caterers. And if people have not heard so far, even funerals will not be spared.

Repairs to home appliances, energy-efficient home appliances, laundry and dry cleaning, carpet and upholstery cleaning, car washes, basic residential telephone service, basic cable TV service, residential smoke and fire alarms, work-related safety equipment, energy-saving building materials, devices for vehicles, automobile towing and emergency roadside service.

[ Page 4814 ]

Again, this is a partial list we are talking about. There are many more services that were exempt from the PST and now will be hit with the HST. That's why it is important that we refer Bill 9 to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

During the 2009 election the B.C. Restaurant and Foodservices Association sent a questionnaire to all parties. One of the questions was whether they would implement the HST. The B.C. Liberals responded with detailed reasoning on why they would not harmonize the PST with the GST. Here's what they said: "It would extend the PST tax base to a broader range of goods and services that are presently exempt from provincial sales tax. This is a major concern." That's what the B.C. Liberals said.

I'm again continuing with the quote. It says: "The B.C. Liberals are also mindful that a harmonized GST would reduce the provincial government's ability to unilaterally adjust sales tax rates. In short, a harmonized GST is not something that is contemplated in the B.C. Liberal platform." That is very clear.

That's what the B.C. Liberal Party, the government before the election, told British Columbians — that they will not do it. After the election they changed their minds, and they imposed the HST.

For that reason alone, it's important that we provide a second opportunity for all British Columbians to participate and let the government know how they feel about it. The only opportunity they can get is if we are able to refer this bill to the select standing committee.

After the HST was announced on July 23, 2009, the BCRFA was understandably outraged. President Ian Tostenson wrote an open letter to his members saying that the HST was a complete surprise to him, because restaurant meals will now be charged an additional 7 percent tax.

[1445]

The BCFRA and the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association president, Garth Whyte, and the vice-president for western Canada, Mark von Schellwitz, began a campaign, No Meal Tax, to oppose the HST and get their members involved. They encouraged people to write to the government and to put campaign materials in their restaurants so as to build opposition among the public. As of January 6, 2010, they claim to have over 100,000 signatures on the petition in different restaurants where they had it.

When you add it up, an additional 7 percent tax on meals will cost the industry $750 million each year in lost sales, according to CRFA's economic model that they presented. That is an annual loss of 7.5 percent or nearly $50,000 for an average restaurant in the province, which is more than the average annual pre-tax profit of $29,000 per establishment. Among the members of the restaurant association, of the B.C. restaurant owners, 91 percent believe it will have a negative impact on the food service industry, and 85 percent said a significantly negative impact.

Now, let's see who else is against this horrible sales tax other than the restaurant industry. The homebuilders and the real estate industry are also against the HST. This will effectively mean an additional 2 percent tax on new homes — not used — up to $525,000 after the rebate and an additional 7 percent tax on the value of a new home above $525,000. HST will also be charged on the real estate agent's commission as well as services like appraisal, maintenance, etc.

Today we have had a newsletter issued by the B.C. Real Estate Association, if I can find it. Anyway, I'll come back to it in a minute. They said that the average price in the Lower Mainland last year was over $900,000. Based on the new tax imposed, it will cost the new home owners, when they buy a house, in the range of up to $56,000 additional, a cost that could be added for homeowners who want to buy a house.

In addition to the B.C. Real Estate Association, the Council of Tourism Associations of B.C. is also against the HST. The council did a detailed impact analysis and found that the HST will increase the average price of tourism-related products and services by 4.6 percent. It will lower tourism industry revenue by $363 million to $545 million per year. It will cause jobs to be lost. The estimate done was that 3,446 to 5,176 direct jobs or 6,997 to 10,505 direct and indirect jobs would be lost in the tourism industry as the result of imposing the HST on British Columbians.

It will also reduce government tax revenues by $104 million to $157 million for all three levels of government. The provincial government goal of increasing tourism revenue to $18 billion by 2015 will be jeopardized by introducing this tax without any consultation with British Columbians.

[1450]

I urge all members of the government to pay very careful attention to the motion that we have made to refer Bill 9 to the select standing committee, because I'm sure your constituents are also calling the constituency offices, the government MLAs. All of them are hearing from their constituents how angry these British Columbians are.

So this is the time. Either the government should just completely back off and withdraw Bill 9 — that will make lots of people happy and make you the heroes — or at least just agree to refer this Bill 9 to the select standing committee. Then we can all argue if it's good or bad. At least we would have the opportunity to discuss and debate openly and clearly with each other, not like what we have now.

The Federation of Community Social Services Society of B.C. is also against this tax shift. The harmonized sales tax could increase costs for social service agencies according to a December 2009 analysis prepared by

[ Page 4815 ]

the federation that represents their interests. The federation's executive director, Jennifer Charlesworth, said her group is lobbying the province to increase the rebate level for those agencies from 57 percent to at least 75 percent.

You know, it shows how concerned people are. They just want to have something to hang on to, because this decision is going to really hurt their association, their organizations. It's not only the organizations who are speaking against the HST. There are so many individuals out in British Columbia who are also raising their concerns. I'll quote some.

For example, there was a letter in one of the Burnaby newspapers written by somebody by the name of Murray Martin. It says: "It is true that they are against welfare for the poor citizens of B.C. But corporate welfare is a different matter. The HST is a multi-billion dollar tax break to corporations with the burden shifted to the citizens of B.C. Essentially, the MLA for Burnaby North and his Liberal Party are promoting the welfare of the ones who need it least while ignoring the long-term welfare of B.C. citizens."

Then we have…. Somebody wrote this letter from Salmon Arm. I think these are comments by Ed Murdoch. "It is my belief, well enforced by hundreds of thousands of constituents across this province, that the HST is a very bad move by the Liberal Party of B.C. It certainly is not helpful for senior citizens, a proud group of which I'm a member, and I'm unable to endorse its benefits for small businesses, a group to which I also belong, a group which is struggling for survival in our provincial economy."

Another person. It's from Saanich North by Tracy Lawrence. Lawrence and her husband both work on the Saanich Peninsula and have two young children. They are worried about how the HST will affect their family's bottom line, and in one of the letters, she said: "We don't go to restaurants a lot, but we do like to go for coffee. That will cost more…. It will hit every facet of our lives, from groceries to activities for the kids."

These people are crying for input and consultation. These are the people who are saying: "Please give us an opportunity so we can talk to the government." That's why it's important that we refer this Bill 9 to the select standing committee — for that opportunity that British Columbians can have. They can at least talk about….

[1455]

The government members, some of them, are saying that they have talked to some of their supporters and that they are saying it's good for British Columbia. So let's have that opportunity. Let's have that open debate, where people can come and talk about it. If they support it…. They will let the public know if they support it or don't support it.

Many people that we have talked to, that we have seen writing letters to various community newspapers and sending letters and making phone calls to constituency offices, to all MLAs, are against the HST, the way it was brought down.

Before the election, as we all know, these people were saying — and they remember — that the HST will not be brought in and introduced in British Columbia, but right after the election people now know that they were betrayed. That's why it's so important for us to support this motion to refer Bill 9 to the select standing committee.

Another person wrote this. It's from White Rock, actually — the mayor, Catherine Ferguson. It says: "The combination of the HST and the TransLink tax, which is going from 7 to 21 percent, would mean an estimated shortfall in city revenues of $250,000…. The majority of the money raised through the increase will go to the hard costs of parking…but the impact on the end users of the parking spaces and parking lots remains to be seen." And the HST is not the answer.

I have about ten pages of these comments from people who are calling and asking the government to stop the HST being imposed on them arbitrarily. Last week I received this letter from one of my constituents. After I talked to her, she asked me to write this letter to the Minister of Finance, which I did.

What she was saying…. Her name is — I have permission to quote — Trudy Laneclyn. She e-mailed my office regarding the June 30 termination of the PST relief grant program for owners of homes with completed building envelope repairs.

According to the program's criteria, application for a rebate can only be submitted on completion of the project. In her e-mail she explains that her building envelope project will only be 65 percent complete by June 30. Therefore, they will be ineligible for the PST relief grant, and in addition, they will be saddled with additional costs due to the implementation of the HST.

All these people are concerned about it. I hope the Minister of Finance will look into this issue seriously and provide some relief to these people.

Thousands of people in British Columbia who rent will be hit with higher costs as well. The Rental Owners and Managers Society of B.C. has said that the 12 percent HST planned to come into effect July 1, 2010, will increase costs for most B.C. landlords by up to 3 percent above normal inflationary cost increases, even with the rebates on electricity and gas.

The Canadian Federation of Apartment Associations supports this call to action and will be doing its part to attempt to prevent the HST implementation. They're also mobilizing their members.

S. Cadieux: I am pleased to take my place here today in the debate to speak against this motion. I've already had the opportunity to speak on the benefits of the HST,

[ Page 4816 ]

and I welcome the opportunity to highlight some of those again.

[1500]

There's been a lot said in this House about a lack of mandate for the HST, and in fact, the mandate was given in electing a government that was committed to economic prosperity and jobs for British Columbians.

I hear clearly from the last speaker that the NDP is stuck in the past. While the world keeps turning and changing, they would like us to stay behind and do things as we've always done them — for the sake of a little confusion.

You know, to say that people have not had any opportunity to tell government or MLAs how they feel about this change — it's confusing. I guess that would be the softest language. Citizens have every opportunity to speak to their MLAs. That's why we have constituency offices. Certainly, I know that I've been speaking with people about this issue over the past year.

In fact, today we are debating the repeal of the PST and, in simpler terms, the removal of the provincial sales tax. It is confusing to me as to why we are sitting here debating a motion to send this whole thing back to the Finance Committee. Questions were posed last week in the Vancouver Sun by Jon Kesselman. Why on earth would we want to keep the PST? It's antiquated; it's unfair; it's confusing; it's complicated to administer and has embedded, hidden, charged-on-itself aspects of it. Why are the NDP in favour of keeping it?

Jon Kesselman said that the PST imposes a heavier burden on the poor and near-poor than the HST, that B.C.'s PST is seriously flawed and economically damaging and that whatever its potential shortcomings, the HST will be superior in almost every respect.

Still, today we're debating a motion to delay the elimination of a "decrepit and crumbling structure," as Kesselman described the PST, that will hold up the economic well-being of this province by impeding British Columbia's economic competitiveness in Canada, preventing future potential investments in industry and in the creation of thousands of new jobs.

No, I cannot agree to this motion. I have heard from my constituents that what we need to do is what we need to do to keep B.C. strong. That equates to moving forward, as I've said — not to sitting in a holding pattern, not the status quo for the sake of being comfortable or popular.

I don't believe that any taxation is ever popular. When a government raises taxes, they are bad. When a government lowers taxes, they're not low enough. I pay taxes; I don't like them. I don't look forward to them, but they are necessary so that we can have hospitals and PharmaCare, schools and universities, roads and bridges, sports and arts; and have support for those less fortunate or in need, for research and innovation, for a strong public service; and have a province and economy that is the envy almost the world over.

We have almost 4.5 million people in this province that need or want something from their government in terms of service. It adds up to a wish list well in excess of $40 billion, and you and I and the rest of British Columbia have to come up with that $40 billion year after year after year.

I ran for office because I want to help ensure that my money and yours is used in the most efficient, equitable way possible. The HST helps us to be more efficient. It helps us to be more transparent. Best of all, it will encourage the economy to grow, which will help us to meet that ever-growing wish list of British Columbians in years to come. It would not be efficient or prudent to delay the repeal of the PST, and that's why I'm against this motion to send Bill 9 to the Finance Committee.

A few days ago my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson eloquently described the challenges of the PST system. He noted that the cascading, job-killing PST is recognized by study after study as being a detriment or a barrier to investment. He noted that this cascading tax is built into every stage of the production process and should be replaced by the harmonization of sales taxes, which will increase our productivity in Canada.

He backed up those statements, recalling that one of Canada's foremost fiscal policy experts, former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge, has explained that without productivity improvements, we will condemn ourselves to a standard of living which is in decline relative to the rest of the world.

[1505]

Why do I bring this up, hon. Speaker? Because it's why I'm very opposed to this motion that asks us to refer the bill to the Finance Committee. It will only delay further the repeal of the cascading PST, hindering potential investments in B.C. and the creation of thousands of new jobs even longer.

We were elected by our constituents to do whatever it takes to keep us from falling behind, to keep standards of living improving, not to bury our heads in the sand and shirk our responsibilities by committing ourselves to more investigation and another committee while we watch our standards of living decline. We know what we need to do to protect ourselves from this. The economists are united in an understanding of this, and we were elected to do what is needed — tough decisions politically but necessary all the same.

The NDP will stand here speaker after speaker, as they are doing, saying that there hasn't been enough analysis, that the Finance Committee should, essentially, do a tour of B.C. to find out what has already been established as fact.

Fact: they are against the HST and against the PST. What is notable is that they do not want to remove the PST and won't remove the HST.

Fact: very few people in the province would ever elect to pay more taxes. We know that very few under-

[ Page 4817 ]

stand that this debate is about stalling the removal of a PST.

Fact: the employers of British Columbia are in favour of this. We have paper after paper after paper that analyzes and concludes that the HST is the right thing for B.C.

Fact: 130 countries have done the analysis and decided it was the right way to go for their economy.

Fact: Ontario, the largest province in Canada, has done the analysis and found that it's the right way to go for Ontario's economy.

Fact: B.C. does not want to be at a competitive disadvantage with Ontario, our biggest trading partner and, internally, our biggest competitor.

Fact: as Canada's Pacific gateway province we have enormous opportunity. We've been spending a great deal of time and effort on promoting and cementing that opportunity. To fully realize that opportunity, we have to be competitive internationally. Investors are savvy, not gullible. Investors look for the best opportunities, not the most expensive.

We know there's a lot of misinformation floating about, Madam Speaker, but the fact is that this is the right move for British Columbia and for British Columbians. The analysis has been done. The HST gets a big thumbs-up.

I know that the opposition would like us to put B.C. in limbo, but I'm not prepared to do that. That's why I am against this motion to refer Bill 9 back to the Finance Committee.

During this debate one member of the opposition spent no time at all on facts, but in an attempt at humour…. Even in that attempt at humour, he was factually incorrect. I think that it's a shame that in an entire speech in this debate, all the time was wasted on storytelling and no facts — no alternative proposition, just a meagre attempt at humour.

Using a couple of further examples, I'd like to remind the members opposite of a few more facts.

Fact: a senior couple on a $30,000 income might pay about $1,000 per year in HST. That's compared to the current tax regime, where they would pay about $756. But when you consider that they will receive the HST tax credits, you realize, in fact, that it will make no real difference to them at all.

Fact: under the HST, B.C. businesses will no longer pay tax on input costs, resulting in a savings of $1.9 billion — savings they can use to grow their businesses, to pay higher wages or to reduce prices, whichever will keep their business competitive.

It is clear — it is crystal-clear, in fact — that the benefits of the HST have been demonstrated time and time again. We don't need to send this to another committee. We are debating it here in this House, which is what we were tasked to do as legislators on behalf of our constituents. We have had the opportunity, and it is time to move on.

V. Huntington: I rise today to address the amendment and to express what my head is telling is me, what my heart is telling me and, most importantly, what my constituency is telling me about the HST.

[1510]

The fact that I'm here at all reflects what happens when a government breaks its bond with the people. Last May the people of Delta South sent a message. They are tired of the same old top-down edicts, the same old failure to listen, the same old manipulation, the same old focus on partisan politics instead of the people's interests.

With the introduction of the HST, this government demonstrates that it still doesn't get that message, and I've concluded that it never will. It is wilfully blind to a deep and growing dissatisfaction among British Columbians. People are angry about the HST, angry enough to publicly demonstrate their complete lack of confidence in this government, and that anger is crossing a threshold of tolerance. People are no longer just disengaged. They are ready to bring their government to account through unprecedented action.

With the opportunity to move this debate into committee, we can take a deep, collective breath, examine the full impact of this tax shift in detail, and allow the public to have an active and effective role. If it is as good for us as the Finance Minister maintains, surely allowing oxygen into the discussion would be a good thing — something to be encouraged, not feared.

I do not intend to repeat all of the critical points made in this chamber about this massive tax shift, but I will state for the record what the hobbled members of the government's side know but are not free to say: people hate this tax. They hate being played for fools by a paternalistic government that assumes everyone would eventually accept this radical shift. They hate being insulted by the attitude that government knows best and: "If only you understood it better, you would agree with us."

The people of Delta South are telling me that this tax, in its present form, is wrong. It is a colossal transfer, a financial burden from the industrial sector to the consumers of this province. It was announced seemingly overnight and presented in its final form to the people without study and without discussion. Scariest of all, it was built on economic pixie dust.

The immediate effect on taxpayers is tangible and negative. The vague, long-term promise of trickle-down prosperity is based on the principle known as wishing and hoping. In other words, eventually our happy and prosperous industries will gleefully share their future largesse with consumers. Well, as the old saying goes, rub a lamp.

My colleague from Delta North spoke of the fundamentals of democracy as discussed by John Dewey. Dewey was a man who believed, as I do, that human beings are capable of intelligent judgment when they are

[ Page 4818 ]

faced with facts, consulted openly and respectfully and are confident that their common sense will be reflected in government policy.

These fundamentals have been ignored by this government, which is on a determined march to change our process from one of consulting with and representing the people, to one of listening to and representing large business. This government is in the process of changing our system from one of representative democracy to one of government by corporate oligarchy.

If this government truly believed in the people, it would have told them the truth about bringing in the HST. It would have said: "We have an unconscionably large deficit, and we need the transition money from the federal government." Or it could have said: "The financial state of the province is such that we need to provide every single competitive opportunity we can to the large corporations, corporations that used to provide the all-important resource revenues to this province."

It could have argued that small business overhead will also benefit to some small degree by the administrative efficiencies of a single tax. And it could have — should have — said it before they stole the last election, not immediately afterward.

But it didn't tell the truth; it hid the truth. It unexpectedly and unbelievably shafted its own people with a tax grab that has shifted the tax burden of this province onto the backs of consumers. It really should be called the shaft-and-grab tax — shafts the people by grabbing their money and gifting it to the industrial sector.

A forestry spokesman said in the Globe and Mail last Friday that the HST is critical for the future of our industry. But if it's so critical, where have they been in the nine years that this government has been in power? By what strange coincidence did the HST suddenly become the single most important thing the government can do for the corporate sector? I thought that their big problem was the municipal property tax.

[1515]

What is this government really doing? Why is it causing the population of this province to experience agony and even hate? Why has it shifted the tax burden when there is not even a pretence that the HST will be a net benefit to the treasury?

As political commentator Vaughn Palmer has pointed out, the HST will actually be a net loss to the government — not just revenue-neutral, but an actual loss. So why? Well, there are 1.6 billion reasons, and even the corporate demand for lower taxes was secondary to lowering a deficit that had somehow magically quadrupled during the election.

The truth is that the HST is here in return for a one-time, $1.6 billion bribe from the federal government, which I guess is the modern equivalent of 30 pieces of silver. So on top of hydro increases, MSP increases, TransLink increases, ferry increases, property tax increases, permit increases, camping increases, carbon tax increases…. On top of it all, the people have….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Delta South, please take your seat for a moment.

Please continue.

V. Huntington: On top of it all, now the people have to absorb a 7 percent higher cost on every service and every good not specifically exempted from the HST.

Hon. Speaker, my constituents want to be heard. In fact, I have been approached by people from other ridings who despair that their MLAs are not listening to them, and what I'm hearing from our constituents is scaring me. I hear anger, I hear despair, and worse yet, I hear people planning on breaking the law.

I was shocked two weeks ago when a woman came into my office — a senior, a solid citizen who lives on a fixed income. She told me that she had done her homework and that the HST "is going to do her under." She told me that her only option is to cheat, to stop declaring her income. She said, when I asked: "I'm not giving you my name because I'm going underground. I'm going underground, and I want you to pass that on to the government." At least she had the courage to tell the truth, and I can tell that you this lovely lady will not be alone.

She will be joined by cleaning ladies, hairdressers, tree cutters, painters, carpenters, gardeners, plumbers, electricians, piano tuners, carpet cleaners, music teachers, locksmiths, bookkeepers, house sitters, delivery companies — all the self-employed men and women who work hard to make ends meet and who are reaching a breaking point, the point at which disposable income is becoming a thing of the past. This burgeoning underground economy will be a huge unintended consequence of the HST and a huge unintended loss of revenue to both senior levels of government.

Jared Diamond, in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel , points out that throughout human history, all leaders steal from those they lead. The citizens know this, and so long as they feel they're getting a fair deal, they'll accept the taxes they are forced to pay. But when the balance of payments tips too far, the citizens get rid of their leaders.

The enthusiasm people across British Columbia are showing for the initiative process is a testament to this principle. Simply, the citizens no longer think they are getting a fair deal, and therein lies the rub.

The government has deserted the voter. Nothing it says can be believed, and nothing it does will be believed. The voters, the people, are now deserting their government, the most dangerous of situations democracy can endure.

[ Page 4819 ]

Allowing this bill to be sent to committee in order to hold a fair, productive, and thorough review might help allay the current temptation of British Columbians to abandon their government. It's not too late.

[1520]

To quote from a letter in the Vancouver Sun from Peter Light of Roberts Creek:

"The harmonized sales tax makes me resolve to spend less and make do with less, to simplify, to revel in "small is beautiful," to get it from Mother Earth instead of the store, to delight in making and growing it myself, to be willing to trade and to barter, to commit myself more deeply to the informal and underground economy, to practise survival skills I'm going to need in the future anyway, to work harder at becoming downwardly immobile, to divorce myself as far as possible from everything official, to rejoice as I become freer and freer from the system."

Surely, this poignant yet frightening statement is not what the government had in mind when it foisted this tax shift onto British Columbians.

The Premier said that before the election the HST was not on their radar. Well, it is now, and if this government continues to defy the wishes and the common sense of the people, it does so at their peril.

Hon. M. Polak: I rise today to speak in opposition to the motion that has been proposed to refer Bill 9 to a committee, specifically the Finance and Government Services Committee of the Legislature.

I'm going to take a little bit of a different tactic than most of our speakers, because I want to actually talk about the motion itself, the bill itself, what the bill actually says and what the potential outcome of sending this bill to a committee might be. To do that, I thought I would begin by talking about the arguably poor logic of the opposition in suggesting that somehow taking this bill to committee would afford government the opportunity to change its mind based on some new facts.

Now, I find that quite remarkable because of course, as we've heard from the independent member opposite and as we've heard from members of the opposition, the very thing that they are most opposed to is that this government chose at a certain point in time to change its mind based on new facts. So it is wholly inconsistent for them to proceed to suggest that a motion to send this bill to committee would result in a positive outcome, given that they are opposed to government changing its mind based on facts. But I'll give them that for a moment.

Let's consider, if we might, what new facts the opposition may want government to consider. Well, we don't actually have to look very far because speaker after speaker after speaker on the opposing benches has told us what those new facts are. They are the polls — the polls.

I have listened as I've sat in this House, and as I've watched on the television, to the debate taking place in this chamber. To date, the only new fact that the opposition has presented that would suggest that government ought to change its position with respect to the HST is the lack of popularity that the tax enjoys or does not enjoy, as the case may be. I can only conclude that if the opposition were to form government, they would make their tax policy decisions not based on the facts, not based on what's good for British Columbians but based on polls.

I can imagine that they would probably take a poll and take the results and make all their decisions based on that. In fact, we already have some examples of that, in the case of the carbon tax. We heard just about as much opposition from that side of the House about the carbon tax as we're hearing now about the HST. We certainly heard it out on the campaign trail, and yet as poll results changed, voila. Voila — the opposition had an epiphany.

They suddenly decided that because the poll results were different, they would change their principles with respect to the carbon tax. Now, that's fine. I'm happy that they've come around to seeing the benefit of the carbon tax and supporting the view that government proposed initially. Nevertheless, it was clearly a case of changing their view based on the poll results, not based on what their fundamental beliefs were.

The Port Mann bridge is another good example. In fact, I don't think the opposition has yet landed on a position, because every time the Leader of the Opposition wishes to speak about the Port Mann bridge, what the Leader of the Opposition does is decide: "Well, gee, which region of the province am I in today? I better tailor my comments based on that." She wouldn't dare go to Surrey or Langley and say she opposes the Port Mann bridge, but she'll say it in downtown Vancouver.

Again, another example of how this opposition government would perhaps choose to make decisions — not based on what's in the best interests of British Columbians, not based on what the real facts are. Certainly, they would not have the courage to change their view when it became apparent that there were new facts in play, if they knew that their decision was going to be unpopular.

[1525]

That's what representative democracy is all about. We've heard many of our speakers talk about how this is undemocratic. What I can say to them is they clearly do not understand what their role is in a representative democracy, because in a representative democracy, you are elected to make decisions based on the best information you have and how that relates to the best interests of the public you serve. It does not mean that you go out and take a poll every time you make a decision.

It also means there are times when you are going to have to face the very uncomfortable position of having to support something because you know in your conscience it's the right thing to do, in spite of the fact that your friends, your neighbours or your supporters are not going to understand and are not going to like you

[ Page 4820 ]

for it, and they're going to let you know. If it's the right thing to do, then it's the right thing to do whether it's popular or not.

I wonder: if it isn't a matter of them wanting government to change its mind, because that's inconsistent with their other positions, then why else would they want to refer this matter to a committee? In thinking about this, I thought perhaps the answer is in the substance of the bill. I have a feeling that just might be it, because by referring this to a committee, they would be successful in taking away the vote that they are going to have to cast as we come to the end of debate on this bill.

Of course, what they have neglected to talk about as we've debated this in the House is that the bill is essentially about two things. It's about repealing the PST, getting rid of the PST, and it's about making sure that the various rebates and exemptions and tax credits are in place to ensure that we protect low-income British Columbians and make sure that this transition to HST is successful. Those are the two things — getting rid of the PST and making sure there are sufficient tax credits and rebates in place.

Well, that gives us an indication right there. That makes a lot of sense. They don't want to have to vote on that. Can you imagine having to go to your constituent and say: "Well, actually, I voted against getting rid of the PST." Can you imagine what reaction you'd get from that? I know what I'd get in my riding. It would be pretty bad. But maybe that's their position.

Maybe they want to keep the PST. I don't think so. I think, quite frankly, the reason that they want to refer this to a committee is because they are absolutely petrified of having to get into a debate about what's really in this bill. They're much happier to tell the newspapers and the television that this is about a bill that would implement the HST. They know that's not true. Nevertheless, they're happy to say it. They don't want to talk about getting rid of the PST because they don't want to have to tell people they're going to vote against that.

Who knows? Maybe they'll even change their minds and vote in favour of getting rid of the PST. Right now they don't want to talk about the various tax credits and other features that are going to offset the costs for low-income householders, because they don't want to tell British Columbians that they're going to vote against that.

I would suggest that they ought to really consider whether or not that strategy would have the kind of impact that they are perhaps expecting, in that they'd be able to avoid voting on this very tricky issue for them. I got to thinking that since that's what the bill is really about, then I wonder what would happen if we started to talk about that in a committee. What would happen if we started asking British Columbians if they wanted to get rid of the PST?

Given what has happened at the Finance and Government Services Committee over the many, many years that the PST has been pilloried by small businesses, big businesses, individuals coming time and time again to that committee to talk about how destructive the provincial sales tax is, how costly it is for business and how much it impedes our productivity in British Columbia, one can only draw the conclusion that if this Finance and Government Services Committee was to discuss the potential repeal of the PST, there would be a resounding recommendation to continue on and to get rid of it.

And if one was to talk at a committee about what would happen if we didn't have in place rebates, if we didn't have in place exemptions, if we didn't have in place credits for those who are low and middle income, they would of course recommend that those things need to be passed.

[1530]

I can only suggest that the members opposite may wish to be the ones who change their minds based on new facts, because this bill is about repealing the PST and it is about providing for those very important tax credits and rebates and those things that are going to ease the transition, especially for low- and middle-income people.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

I hope that the opposition members have a very good reason by which they're going to explain to their constituents why they would vote not to repeal the PST. But I suspect not. I suspect…. And I'm sure the next member after me will continue in this same vein. I expect that they will stay along the same lines that they have. They cannot afford for the public to know that this is a vote to get rid of the PST, and they cannot afford for the public to know that this is a vote to implement rebates and exemptions and credits for those who are low- and middle-income.

As a result of that, they want to send this to a committee so they can avoid that very difficult vote. I'll be interested if there are any of their members who rise subsequent to this and explain why it is they cannot debate the repeal of the PST and they cannot debate the implementation of the very many credits and rebates that we will be putting into place. I know. I'm quite certain that they will not, and that precisely proves my point that it is….

So I will conclude my remarks by simply challenging the opposition to debate the substance not only of this motion but, subsequent to dealing with this motion, with the bill itself, with the subject matter contained therein, and not to continue on this rather deceptive debate course of debating whether or not this is the implementation of the HST and whether it's appropriate. As the members across the way who are smiling very well know, that's not what this bill is about. So I chal-

[ Page 4821 ]

lenge them, and I hope that some of them will rise to that challenge.

M. Sather: Well, I'm very pleased to rise to speak to the amendment, which says: "Be it resolved that Bill 9 not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be forwarded to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and further that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberation."

It's getting curiouser and curiouser to listen to the members opposite, to the government side. It's like they're in some kind of alternate reality where they think now that this discussion is no longer — I guess maybe they thought it never was — about the HST. In fact, listening to the members opposite, and the Minister of Children and Family Development for one, they think that this discussion is simply about getting rid of the PST. It's all about getting rid of the PST. If the people of British Columbia…. In fact, they would suggest, and they do suggest, that we daren't go and tell the people of British Columbia this fact.

Now, I really think that the members opposite ought to get out more, because the fact is that the people of British Columbia are very aware of what this bill is about. They're not fooled by any nonsense about this being about the PST. They know, in fact, very well. And the members opposite…. I don't know if the members opposite know any more.

I think they've gotten extremely confused, probably distraught. I mean, I can imagine if I was on their side of the House, I might feel a tad distraught about the goings on in this province right now, including the goings on in their own caucus. It must be disturbing.

[1535]

Nonetheless, it doesn't really advance the discussion, and the minister said she wanted to advance the discussion. It doesn't serve to advance the discussion at all to pretend that the whole subject matter here is about the HST, which, of course, it is.

Interjection.

M. Sather: The member opposite says: "Read the bill." Well, you know, Madam Speaker, I would suggest to the member opposite that she go out and talk to her constituents. They will tell her, one after the other, what this is all about.

I've been collecting signatures from folks, and I'll tell you that they come from all walks of life, all political stripes, and they're adamant. And they're not confused. The members opposite, the minister, said…. "Oh well, they're basically confused," is what she is saying. "The people of British Columbia are misled." Well, they have been misled, but certainly not by our side. I don't think, actually, notwithstanding the ham-fisted attempts by the government members…. They're not misled. The people of British Columbia aren't misled by them either.

It would behoove the members opposite, the government members, to just recognize and accept that the people of British Columbia reject this tax. They reject it thoroughly. But I don't see any indication, now that we've been going over this for a bit…. This is my second speech, and other members have made second speeches — the member for Surrey-Panorama and others. There's no indication that the government is getting it. I can only suggest to them that they get out and go talk to their constituents if they want to find out what's going on.

I know the member for Maple Ridge–Mission was talking to some of his constituents at the rally that Bill Vander Zalm hosted in Maple Ridge a while back. You know, I don't think he was getting a very receptive ear. He wasn't getting a receptive ear. Well, at least he was out there. I'll give that for him, although I haven't seen much of him since.

The other members have talked about this business about us not being in favour of reducing the provincial sales tax. The member for West Vancouver–Capilano mentioned that last week. In fact, he said that this is a subject that shouldn't even be brought up in this House, that we shouldn't even be discussing this. I'm sure the members opposite, including the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, would prefer that we weren't discussing this issue. I imagine they would like to wave a magic wand and make all the bad things go away, but it isn't about to happen, so they'll have to grin and bear it.

I know some of the members opposite, the member for Kelowna–Lake Country, are a bit touchy about the subject and the discussions that take place in this House. I guess that's what you can expect when you're on the wrong side of 82 percent of British Columbians. You would get a little bit touchy. You would get a bit concerned about the debate that you're hearing, not only in this House but particularly out there in the community.

The other curious thing that I heard last week…. It was the end of the week, and the member might be forgiven for that. He is a learned member, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, a sincere individual, but he was saying that there's been a flip-flop in the media over whether or not the Liberals told the truth about the HST. I thought that was a curious

interpretation. He said that there had been a lot of briefings just after the election, and we've all heard about the discussions that took place.

We found out through freedom-of-information requests that there were discussions that took place with bureaucrats and government officials some three days after the election. The member was, in effect, suggesting that the Premier had said during the debate, during the election, that $495 million was going to be the maximum deficit that this province was going to face.

[ Page 4822 ]

This is a good opportunity for the government to take the suggestion of the opposition. I know the minister was very disparaging about the suggestion to refer this to committee and is suggesting that we're trying to avoid a vote, which I thought was one of the more curious

interpretations. But I think it's a very good opportunity for the government.

[1540]

They're always going on about how the NDP never has any positive suggestions. Well, here's a positive suggestion for the government. We're trying to help you; we really are. But what can you do for a government that's beyond help? It's very difficult. It's very difficult for us to lend a helping hand for a government that's so mired in the mess, so mired in the mud, that they can't even recognize help when they see it.

Interjection.

M. Sather: Well, yeah, I know that the member has some problems with some of the issues that are discussed, but that's his prerogative, and I'm sure that he will continue to express his opinion.

The line goes about this apparent flip-flop — in the media, if nowhere else — that an official says: "You know what? It appears that we have a problem. But we have a solution. Don't worry." The member for West Vancouver–Capilano said: "That's the thing about bureaucrats. They never want to give you bad news without a solution, so they came forward with a solution saying, 'Aha, you can sign up for the HST, and that can take care of this little deficit issue we've got going here.'"

That would assume, then, that that member thinks the decision on the HST was made three days after the election. Okay. Perhaps not very believable in the minds of a lot of British Columbians. I know that the government doesn't want to talk to them, but of course, we are. I have been, and that's one of the things that really upsets them about this tax.

They do not believe the line that they've been given by this government about what took place preceding the election, during the election or after the election, and that's going to hang around for a long, long time. This government is going to feel the effects of what took place at that time.

Following along, again, the storyline regarding the flip-flop, there's a presumption that the Premier and, presumably, the Finance Minister had no idea that the deficit was going to be, like, three and a half times — whatever it is, or around there — from what they said it was going to be. I mean, it's the Finance Minister's job to tell the Premier about the state of the province's finances. I know that he's the Deputy Premier and that he's, I guess, even quite close to the Premier. One can assume that they have had some discussions both at that time and, of course, now.

Again, getting back to the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, the member said that the argument is reduced to, "They made the decision too soon after the election," and to that part he agrees. I've heard some of his colleagues express that same opinion that this rush decision was made too soon after the election, and that's the problem.

The fact is this. The issue is that it's not credible that the Liberals really believed that the deficit would be $495 million max, as the Premier said. That's where the unbelievability factor comes in, and that's the problem — one of the major problems that this government is facing. You know, they should at least stick to the matter of discussing the HST instead of kind of wishing — this wishing and hoping — that it's going to go away.

What did the Premier and the Finance Minister say to those officials during the election, in the pre-election period? What did they tell them? "If you know there's going to be a higher deficit, if it's going up, don't tell us." Is that what they were told to do? Or did they just suddenly discover this magically out of the air, and it was a huge surprise to everyone?

Madam Speaker, there are sins of commission, and there are sins of omission, but they're all sins. One's as bad as the other. You know, it's time…. Well, it's like the members could think of this referral and the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services as a kind of truth and reconciliation committee. This would be the opportunity to come clean.

[1545]

It's not like the Premier has never repented in his life. I mean, there was a little matter one time of a holiday he had in another country. He was able to do that at that time, so it's not inconceivable, one would think, that he could do so again — maybe at the end of this week or during this week, as the government has clearly indicated that they're not going to talk about this uncomfortable issue any longer than this week.

There are a number of days left. It's only Monday. Perhaps the Premier will become contrite, or maybe it'll have to be the Finance Minister on his behalf that will do some of the apologizing, I would suggest humbly that it would be wise for the government to do.

It's interesting to hear what the former Finance Minister had to say — some very discouraging words about what this government knew and what they've done. I wouldn't doubt, now, that some of the members on the government side had, at least — I'm not sure about currently; maybe even currently — a pretty good opinion of Carole Taylor when she was Finance Minister.

You would think perhaps that her words might have some effect on the members opposite, particularly the Premier and the Finance Minister. But it would look bad for the Finance Minister, I guess, if he were to do that.

The committee is a good idea. The referral to the committee is a good idea. Witnesses can be called. It would

[ Page 4823 ]

be in order, certainly, to have the Premier come and be a witness. I mean, if he wanted to plead no contest, that's okay. Whatever he prefers to do, it's all right on our side, and I'm sure the people of British Columbia would find that better than the nothing at all that we've been getting so far, that they've been getting so far.

It's not really a problem for us if the government annoys us or ignores us or anything like that, but it's really a problem for them when they start bothering the people of British Columbia to such considerable extent that….

The thing that they're saying to me, as I collect those hundreds and hundreds of signatures of people that are upset with the government, is, "You know, I voted Liberal, but you aren't going to see that happen next time for sure," and a lot of things that are much less kind and not repeatable, nor would I want to. Nonetheless, there's a large degree of discontent with this government.

The government and some of the larger businesses say that the PST is getting passed on to consumers by being built into the price of the goods they produce. Another member, the member for Surrey-Panorama, mentioned Jon Kesselman, the economist who recently wrote that "40 percent of the $5 billion in annual PST revenues falls directly on business rather than consumers."

It seems to me that any reasonable person would say that he's saying, in effect, that if it's being passed on to consumers…. He wouldn't make that statement. He said that it falls directly on business rather than consumers, but he goes on to say that the $1.9 billion in PST currently paid by business gets built into the prices they charge consumers. In other words, he now seems to be saying it gets passed on to consumers.

Which is it? Does the PST get passed on to consumers or not? I think this is one of the cruxes of the discussion, if the minister wanted to talk about the issues, because if it's not falling on business, it is falling on consumers.

It seems to me that business has two choices here. They can pass the PST cost on to the consumer, they can take the hit themselves in terms of their own revenue, or they can do some combination of the two. But if business is passing all its current PST costs on to the consumer, the argument that the PST is a big impediment to business is weak, because if they're not taking the hit, what's the problem?

[1550]

My guess is that business is not currently passing on all their PST costs to the consumer, and therefore, they like the HST because the HST tax credits will allow them to get reimbursed for all their PST costs.

It's a net benefit to them certainly, and it's very kind of the government towards, you know, those mining and forestry companies. But when is the government going to extend that kind of kindness to the average taxpayer in British Columbia? That's what people in my constituency want to know. Why aren't we getting all this love and kindness that mining companies and forestry companies are getting? They don't see it. They're worried about it.

One of the groups of people that I've talked to a fair bit in my constituency that are concerned about it is realtors. The government moved up the exemption on new houses to $525,000, but there are lots of houses in the newer areas in Maple Ridge, up in Silver Valley and north Maple Ridge — which incidentally, has considerably more Liberal supporters or, I should say, did have considerably more Liberal supporters than NDP supporters.

Houses up there run around 600 grand easily. So they are going to be paying a new tax, around five grand. That makes a difference to people, even though the Minister for Mining, who told the House that he was a realtor at one time, said: "Ha, it's no big deal — $20,000, $30,000. Prices go up and down. You make deals. Realtors are all flexible. It's not going to have an impact on people paying their realtors."

I don't know how the Minister for Mining, the former realtor, did business. But it seems it must be a little bit different than the way the realtors in my community that are talking to me are doing business, because they are concerned about the HST and what effect it's going to have on their customers and on them as a result. We know that people are….

There's a bit of a bump right now because people are rushing out to make their deals for new houses before the July 1 deadline hits. They're very worried. Sure, they're glad for the uptick in business right now, but they're very worried what's going to happen in the weeks and months and beyond, after July 1.

People do look at the tax they're paying — the transfer tax, additional tax — and the government will know that people are very upset about that all the time. So this is going to be a real concern. A lot of the realtors in my community are banding together to sign the initiative petition to try to bring this government to their senses and to stop this, what they consider, insanity.

You know, a lot of them, quite frankly, are not traditional NDP supporters. It's fun and interesting to work with them. They have a lot of information and a lot of knowledge about the community. Again, I don't know who, if anybody, the government members are talking to when it comes to the HST. It doesn't seem like they're talking to realtors, certainly not in my community, and then there's a whole host of other people that have been talked about before that this government surely also cannot be communicating with.

As one realtor said to me, it's not just the HST they pay on a higher-priced home in Maple Ridge. It's not a higher-priced home in Vancouver. You couldn't get a home in Vancouver for 600 grand or probably not a new home in the highlands in Coquitlam either. I'm sure you couldn't.

[1555]

[ Page 4824 ]

He says that they have to borrow that money as well. Very few people come with all the cash, money in hand. They've got a mortgage, and they're going to have to pay interest on that. It's not just the upfront tax that they're going to have to pay, but they're going to have to pay the interest on the money they borrow to pay that tax.

You know, of course, there's the realtor's commission tax that they're going to have to pay and on and on — home inspectors, appraisers, notaries public, conveyances. All this stuff adds up, and it's a real disincentive.

Why the government…. I understand that they felt desperate after the election to come to some kind of…. There wasn't going to be an explanation that it wasn't $495 million max in terms of the deficit, but they needed something to try to ease the pain. It's sadly ironic, on their side of the House, that the thing they chose to alleviate the pain is causing them maximum pain.

So you make some choices. It's nothing to do…. Well, maybe it is to do with the polls, but I don't know. The Minister of Children and Family Development said that everything that is done on this side of the House has to do with polling. I guess that members opposite, the government, don't look at those things. Maybe they don't have to look at the polls. As I said, they just have to go out and talk to their constituents.

I think a referral of this bill to the select standing committee is a really good idea, and it's too bad that the government doesn't share my enthusiasm for it. So they will continue in that vein as well, I guess.

One of my constituents actually…. I want to read what he had to say. He writes not infrequently to the local papers, and I see him from time to time walking the dikes. He's a learned individual. He said:

"Then comes the HST. The HST on the registered massage therapy that I use to control my fibromyalgia will come to a whopping $875 more for just that one item of my health care next year. So the government can not only claim how much more health care has gone up but justify even more cuts with a straight face.

"So next year I am looking at a personal increase in taxes on my small, fixed pension of between $2,000 and $3,000, and the government can claim what great financial wizards they are."

That's from one of my constituents who does rely a great deal on massage therapy. The minister opposite will know that for some strange reason this government chose not to give any break to registered massage therapists.

I understand the situation for those folks because it just so happens that I have a family member who is a registered massage therapist, and it's tough for her. She's just starting out in her business, and they're not getting the same breaks that some other people have gotten, for some reason. The government has certainly cherry-picked on what they're going to give exemptions for and what they're not.

I think during question period today it might have come up about small businesses. Maybe it was the minister for whatever he is. I forgot what he is minister for over there, but the minister from North Thompson. He or someone was talking about all these businesses and how they're in favour. We hear this refrain on and on.

Of course, if you're a restaurant owner, there's a good reason. Not only is it a new tax for you and your customers that you didn't have to face before, but restaurant owners' costs primarily are buying food and paying their staff. Neither of those…. You're not going to get any input tax credit for those. It's a dead loss for them.

[1600]

I was talking to one of them about the petition the other day, and he's livid. He's absolutely livid. I was talking to him on Friday. He's got a good business going there. It's been open a couple of years now. You know, he's just expanded it. He's worried. He's worried about what's going to happen, and the people that are working for a living doing the serving are worried too.

They tell me they're concerned about…. They depend on their tips. Of course the wage is not that high, so they depend on their tips. They're very concerned that people are…. People do look at the bottom line. Looking at the gas prices, people check them very carefully.

People are very price-sensitive. They are. They look at every penny when the gas price goes up. They're going to look at that HST on their restaurant bill over and over and over, and they're likely to be less generous on their tips. That hurts. That's going to hurt the people that are working very hard to serve us in those restaurants, to serve the people of British Columbia, who need those tips. So they're also very concerned about what effect this is going to have on them — this tax, which is really nothing if you listen to the government.

If the people only understood it more carefully and if the opposition wasn't so obtuse, it could easily be explained away as being the most wonderful thing. But it's unfortunate for them, as they see it, that the people of British Columbia just don't get it. They just don't get it about the HST. They should be embracing it, according to the members opposite, but they're not. They're not about to.

I don't know how much money — millions maybe — the Minister of Finance is going to spend to try to convince them that, in fact, they're misled, which I think is only going to tick them off more and more. "Now the government is wasting more of my money. First they're going to take it away with one hand. Then they're taking it away with the other hand. No give-and-take. All take."

It's not going to be an effective tool. I don't even know if it's legal. I guess the government has checked that out, perhaps, or not. They go ahead and do these things, have done it in the past, and then they wait and see what the courts rule, because by that time they figure…. They've done pre-election manoeuvres like this before. By the time the courts get around to it, it will be too late. But it's not going to be too late.

D. Horne: I'm always amused as to some of the theories of those opposite. Obviously, in speaking to the

[ Page 4825 ]

amendment today…. Obviously, I am opposed to the amendment.

One must ask why it would be appropriate to refer the bill to the Finance Committee. What actually would be gained by referring the bill to the Finance Committee? I spent quite a bit of time thinking about this and why the members opposite would think this was such a good idea.

One of the things that seemed to always come back to the possibility of why they'd want to do this is that their leader, Mr. Vander Zalm, has no standing in this place. By referring it to the Finance Committee, their leader, Mr. Vander Zalm, would then be able to come before the committee as a witness, and he would be able to explain to us all why this is such an absolutely horrible tax. Obviously, with all of the debate that we've had in this place and that continues to go on, no one on the other side seems to be able to articulate in any real sense other than a procedural basis why, from a substantive base, the PST is so much better than the HST.

We go on, and we have speaker after speaker after speaker who talks about the procedure, how we got to where we are today. But the fact of the matter is that this bill has to do with removing the PST. This bill has to do with making way and removing the PST that's been in existence for many, many years and, obviously, moving to an HST.

[1605]

From a substantive standpoint, one would think that if you were in favour of the PST and didn't want to move to the HST, you'd have some substantive arguments as to why the PST was so much better than the HST. Speaker after speaker after speaker on the other side talks about all of the procedural issues, but nothing of substance — nothing of substance whatsoever.

The fact of the matter is that when it comes to studying the HST and why it's good and why it's better for British Columbians, we look to the 130 OECD countries that currently have a value-added tax. We sort of say to ourselves: "Is that not study? Is that not some indication that moving to a