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)

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 3

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2010

Hon. M. de Jong

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Burnaby Volunteer Festival and Burnaby Firefighters Ball

H. Bloy

Sports and recreation in Juan de Fuca area

J. Horgan

Mission Healthcare Auxiliary

M. Dalton

Armenian genocide

A. Dix

Wildfire prevention

N. Letnick

Canadian navy centennial

B. Simpson

Oral Questions

Acute care beds at St. Joseph's Hospital

C. James

Hon. K. Falcon

A. Dix

School district costs and funding

R. Austin

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

L. Popham

D. Thorne

D. Routley

H. Lali

Civilian oversight of police complaint process

M. Farnworth

Hon. M. de Jong

Youth suicide awareness program

M. Karagianis

Hon. M. Polak

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

On the amendment (continued)

Hon. N. Yamamoto

C. Trevena

J. van Dongen

M. Karagianis

E. Foster

B. Simpson

Hon. K. Falcon

D. Donaldson

J. Thornthwaite

N. Simons

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued)

H. Bains

G. Coons

Hon. S. Bond

V. Huntington

K. Corrigan

D. Donaldson

H. Lali

N. Simons

J. Brar

M. Sather

B. Routley

[ Page 4619 ]

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2010

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

A. Dix: It's my honour to introduce today members of B.C.'s Armenian community, who have hosted members of the Legislature today at an event commemorating the Armenian genocide.

[1335]

I would like to introduce, and I have a bit of a list here, Agop Agopian, Steve Agopian, Vahe Andonian, Matilda Aslizadeh, Haig Basmadjian, Varoujan Basmadjian, Ara Bedrossian, Jack Deragopian, Joseph Egoyan, Keghart Garabedian, Liza Glynn, Narine Grigoryan, Ovsanna Kadian, Araxie Kassardjian, Parsekh Kassardjian, Sonia Kawsabian, Annie Moradian, Chelsey Papazian, Eddie Papazian, Karin Saghdejian, George Shahnazarian, Victoria Sogomonaian, Arthur Tachdjian, Lucine Tachdjian, Anna Teghararian, Astra Yaghdjian and Greg Yaghdjian.

Thank you, and I hope everyone in the House will bid them all welcome.

Hon. K. Krueger: In the House today are three gentlemen who together play a large role in keeping British Columbia's Hollywood North and our economy robust. With us is Peter Leitch, the chair of the Motion Picture Production Industry Association of B.C., MPPIA. Peter is the president of North Shore Studios.

Also, with Peter are two executives of post-production companies that are active here in British Columbia: William Baldwin, the vice-president and general manager at Deluxe Vancouver; and Scot Evans, vice-president of Technicolour Creative Services Canada — as I said, both post-production companies.

Yesterday the Premier and I were at the announcement of Pixar, together with Mayor Robertson in Vancouver — going to be another great boost to our economy. This industry, the film and television production industry in B.C., in 2009 hit $1.3 billion of economic activity, an increase of more than $100 million over the previous year.

Some examples of film, television and animation productions shot in B.C. last year include the Twilight Saga : New Moon and Eclipse; A-Team; TRON Legacy; Percy Jackson and the Olympians; Stargate Universe; Caprica ; Fringe ; Hiccups ; 1001 Nights ; and Thomas and Friends . I ask the House to please make Peter, William and Scot very welcome.

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce my granddaughter Chloe, with her parents Amrita and Jamie Sanford. Please make them welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I would like to welcome my friend and past colleague through the BCSTA, Silas White. He is a school board chair from the Sunshine Coast. Welcome, Silas.

M. Mungall: Well, all the way back from Haiti is my wonderful partner, Zak Matieschyn. He's joining us here today in the precinct, right up there. If everyone can please make him welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: Joining us in the gallery today are some very, very dedicated members of the First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council and staff for them. Among the folks gathered today are Tracey Herbert, who is the executive director for the council; Tamara Davidson, who is a board member from the Haida Nation on the council. Also, staff members from the council are here today: Peter Brand, Susan De Stephanis, Alex Wadsworth, Cathi Charles Wherry and Ian Batey.

Also, I would note that from the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, Mariann Burka is here, as well as Stephanie Gabel. I also want to say that they're here looking forward to, I think, introduction of legislation.

But I wanted to acknowledge the efforts of Dr. Lorna Williams, who is the chair of the council. She has done wonderful work in ensuring that we can preserve for the future our very rich heritage of aboriginal languages in the province of British Columbia. I wanted to thank Dr. Williams for her work, even though, regrettably, she could not be here today.

M. Elmore: I would like to welcome a number of classes from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School that are here. They're from the grade 11 social studies class. They're accompanied by the teachers Autumn Lum and Bonnie Burnell, as well as teacher Leanna Conkie, who is doing her practicum from UBC, and student support workers Heather Paris and Katherine Olsen. I would ask the House to please make them very welcome.

[1340]

Hon. C. Hansen: I would like to welcome Mike Klassen to the Legislature. Mike is one of the founders of a very popular website called CityCaucus.com. For those of you that were looking for all of the exciting free things to do during the Olympics, that was the place to go. I know it was tremendously popular with my friends and family to find out all of the various pavilions that everybody — families — could enjoy for absolutely no cost at all. So will the House please make Mike very welcome.

[ Page 4620 ]

E. Foster: In the House today is a friend and former colleague of mine, Paul Boyd, one of the great teachers from Charles Bloom Secondary School in Lumby. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

L. Reid: In the House today I'm pleased to welcome 17 teachers from across British Columbia who have been selected to participate in the tenth British Columbia Institute on Parliamentary Democracy. They'll be with us for the remainder of this week, expanding their knowledge of our parliamentary and political systems.

They are joined by three of their peers, who are alumni and returning in the role of facilitator: Ms. Gail Scott, Mr. Paul Boyd and Ms. Lisa Read. Accompanying this distinguished group of teachers are three observers: Mr. Alain Lachapelle from the Library of Parliament in Ottawa, Ms. Tina Storer from Western Washington University and Ms. Carol Hyland from Muze Creative in Victoria.

I hope you will have the opportunity to meet with them during the institute and, specifically, the luncheon hosted by the hon. Minister of Education tomorrow. Would the House please make very welcome the tenth annual Teachers Institute on Parliamentary Democracy.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2010

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2010.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 11 amends the following statutes: the Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act; the Community Care and Assisted Living Act; Emergency and Health Services Act; Environmental Management Act; Hospital District Act; First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act; Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act; Health Authorities Act; Health Professions Act; Hospital Act; Hospital District Act; Land Act; Land Title Act; Local Government Act; Ministry of Health Act; Motor Vehicle Act; Passenger Transportation Act; Transportation Act; and the Vancouver Charter. It also makes consequential housekeeping-type amendments to other statutes.

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

Bill 11, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (N o . 2), 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)

BURNABY VOLUNTEER FESTIVAL AND

BURNABY FIREFIGHTERS BALL

H. Bloy: This weekend I will be busy attending the Burnaby Volunteer Festival taking place at Lougheed Town Centre. Lougheed Town Centre is a great sponsor for many volunteer events in our city of Burnaby. They're led by Beverly and Clara. This is a chance for people to learn about community groups and local organizations.

A few of the organizations that will be attending and where people can sign up to volunteer are JDRF, Juvenile Diabetes Research; Purpose Society; SUCCESS; Variety Club; Community Centred College for the Retired in Burnaby; and hundreds of other organizations.

Later on Saturday my wife and I will be busy attending the 18th annual Burnaby Firefighters Ball hosted by the Burnaby Firefighters Charitable Society. The cause for this year is the nutritional snack program at two elementary schools and a community centre in Burnaby. The firefighters are involved in purchasing the products and delivering them to these schools on a regular basis. The teachers at these schools are very appreciative of this program, as students display more focus and attention for the remainder of the day.

The Burnaby Firefighters Charitable Society is hoping to expand this program to more schools in the future. The Burnaby Firefighters Society is primarily funded through the efforts of their own members, where over half the members do payroll deduction.

I want to recognize the four organizers of the ball: Jeff Clarke, Miles Ritchie, Rob Lamoureux and Randy Delmonico. But what I really want to recognize is all the volunteers we have in this great province, for without these volunteers, we wouldn't have the communities that we have here in British Columbia and across Canada.

[1345]

SPORTS AND RECREATION

IN JUAN DE FUCA AREA

J. Horgan: This will come as no surprise to members of this House. I'm very proud to live in the riding of Juan de Fuca. And why wouldn't I be? For one of the reasons that I live there and many other people come there is the number of sporting and recreation activities that are available to the people just west of Victoria.

[ Page 4621 ]

Just this past weekend, for example, the Langford Eagle Ridge Centre played host to the 2010 Golden Gloves boxing championships. This is the first time since 1939 that the event has been held outside of Vancouver. If boxing isn't your thing, you can drop into any arena or visit any field in my community over the weekend and find soccer, football, lawn bowling, baseball, softball, hockey, roller hockey, rugby and yes, even the great game of cricket. You can take a ride out to Sooke and try the zip line.

You don't have to go to Robson Square to do that, Mr. Premier.

You can buy a ticket to cheer on the Eves of Destruction, Langford's very own women's roller derby team. I know the member for Nelson-Creston has already done that once this year. If you want a slower pace, there are multiple golf courses, numerous beaches, numerous trails to walk on.

For cyclists, the Galloping Goose is second to none, and if we can find some funds to repair our very own velodrome, a legacy from the Commonwealth Games, we'll even have that to do as well. If active sports aren't your thing, come to our recreation centre and learn about yoga, martial arts, dance courses and, even as I do, meditation. So whether you decide to participate or just spectate, come out to the west.

If these activities don't get your heart racing, I want all members to mark their calendar. May 14 will be the 60th anniversary of the Victoria Shamrocks. So come on out west. The fastest game on two feet. The member for New Westminster and her pathetic Salmonbellies are going to get a kicking.

MISSION HEALTHCARE AUXILIARY

M. Dalton: Two years following World War I, after hundreds of thousands of veterans had returned from Europe, a group of women banded together to organize what is now the Mission Healthcare Auxiliary to help support injured troops. Just a few years later they helped start the only hospital in the valley between Mission and New Westminster.

For generations, volunteers from the auxiliary have dedicated themselves to serving the sick in the community and seeking ways to bring improvements to the hospital. Nearly 150 auxiliary volunteers help with patient care in the extended care facility or elsewhere in the hospital, such as the reception desk. Others serve in the Cottage, a popular thrift store in Mission, or at a gift store located in the hospital.

Over the years the Mission Healthcare Auxiliary has raised more than $2 million, dollars which have been used to improve patient services or purchase valuable medical equipment.

Dorothy Pohoda joined in the 1960s as a young mom. She began helping by bringing a cart around to patients who wanted to buy some snacks or get a book. Doris Jacobs is in her 90s and has been a member for nearly 30 years. She made some of the auxiliary's first highly visible pink uniforms. Dozens of volunteers — such as the president, Gertrud Rummel, and others like Lillian Dudfield, Valerie Hundert and Helen Strohmaier — have been involved for years because they are compassionate people who want to help others in their time of physical and emotional need.

The work that they do is important for the people of Mission. Would the Legislature please join me in applauding the significant contribution that they make day in and day out.

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

A. Dix: Today in the B.C. Legislature members of B.C.'s Armenian community held an event commemorating the Armenian genocide, the first genocide of the 20th century. Ninety-five years ago on April 24, 1915, some 2,300 Armenian community leaders were rounded up, in what was then the Ottoman Empire, and killed. In the eight years that followed, 1.5 million Armenians were killed because of who they were.

In April 2006 members on both sides of this House unanimously passed a motion recognizing the Armenian genocide as a crime against humanity and designating April 24 as a day of remembrance. Since then the Armenian community has joined with other groups to promote understanding of the Armenian genocide and to educate the community, in particular young people, of the ongoing need to actively oppose crimes against humanity.

Last spring the Armenian National Congress and the Vancouver Holocaust Education Centre hosted a photographic exhibit of the work of Armin Wegner entitled The Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust: One Man Takes a Stand. Wegner took photographs of Armenian deportation camps while serving as a German soldier in World War I and became an active defender of the human rights of Armenians. He was later imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps for his opposition to Hitler's racist policies against Jews in the 1930s, policies that directly led to the Holocaust.

[1350]

The exhibition inspired the many school groups who saw it last year, and Wegner's legacy is a message to all of us of the need for action against hate, whatever its origins. While the Armenian genocide was the first genocide of the 20th century, it was not the last. We need to restate on this April 24 that there is no room for dissembling or inaction in the fight against genocide and crimes against humanity.

WILDFIRE PREVENTION

N. Letnick: I rise today to recognize that the 2010 wildfire season is upon us and that we all share respon-

[ Page 4622 ]

sibility in wildfire protection, to help and protect the property and people of British Columbia.

We all remember the 2003 Okanagan Mountain fire that consumed over 25,000 hectares of forests and parkland, forcing the evacuation of 27,000 people and destroying 239 homes. Over 1,000 firefighters and 1,400 members of the armed forces risked their safety to fight the inferno.

I remember one night standing on the beach with my family and some friends, the Appleby family. We watched from a safe distance as the fire moved through their neighbourhood. You can imagine the wonder and horror of home after home igniting just like the head of a matchstick explodes when struck against an abrasive surface. They were wondering if their home would still be there after the fire was over. They were part of the lucky few in their neighbourhood.

Of the over 3,400 wildfires last year, more than 850 were found to have been caused most likely by people. With the dry season approaching, we can all play a

part in preventing wildfires.

Here are some ideas: attending campfires responsibly, including respecting and following provincial fire bans; avoiding discarding cigarettes outdoors; monitoring all industrial and recreational equipment responsibly when sparks or large amounts of heat are possible; and practising common sense and being aware of our surroundings when any type of fire or potential for fire are present.

In closing, I want to urge British Columbians to enjoy the outdoors but also to practise fire prevention. I would also like to thank the many people that have helped improve B.C.'s fire management prevention programs and all those who placed their lives on the line to protect life and property for all of us to enjoy.

CANADIAN NAVY CENTENNIAL

B. Simpson: I first came to Victoria in 1974 as an able seaman fresh out of basic training to attend signal school at CFB Naden. For the next two years I spent most of my time on the water around Vancouver Island aboard the destroyer HMCS Mackenzie and was fortunate to travel to Japan and Alaska and to participate in naval exercises out of San Diego.

It is with great pride today that I stand to recognize the centennial celebrations of the Canadian navy. Canada's navy came into existence May 4, 1910, when the Naval Service Act became law. Permission to add the prefix "Royal" was granted by King George V in 1911. When the Second World War broke out, Canada had just 13 vessels. By the end of the war, the Royal Canadian Navy had grown to become one of the largest Allied navies, with 434 commissioned vessels.

In 1968 the navy was merged with the army and air force to form the Canadian Armed Forces, now called the Canadian Forces. The maritime component was named Maritime Command, replacing the title Royal Canadian Navy. Today Canada's navy plays an active role in world affairs and in securing our borders.

The aim of the Canadian navy centennial is to build and strengthen in Canadians an appreciation for their navy. The theme is "Bring the navy to Canadians." Events will be focused to honour the past, showcase the current navy and reinforce the requirement for a future navy.

There will be numerous activities marking this centennial celebration, including an international fleet review here in Victoria June 9 to 14. The CFB Naden band will participate in a travelling road show entitled Sailors and Songs — the clean ones, of course — A Musical Tribute to a Century of Canadian Naval Service . On August 1, the Victoria Symphony will perform a salute to the navy, and on August 15 the public will be able to participate in the Canadian navy centennial 10K run here in Victoria.

I hope that all members of this House will join me in recognizing the Canadian navy's centenary and members will look for opportunities to participate in this year's celebrations.

[1355]

Oral Questions

ACUTE CARE BEDS AT

ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

C. James: For years health care in northern Vancouver Island has declined because of a shortage of acute care beds. Now, thanks to B.C. Liberal mismanagement, the situation is about to get worse. The proposed changes to St. Joseph's Hospital in Comox will lead to a loss of 18 acute care beds — further damage to the health care in the region. That's a 22 percent cut at a time when the region is already reeling from years of health care neglect.

So my question is to the minister. Will he agree today to protect the services and make a commitment that there will be no reduction in acute care at St. Joseph's Hospital?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, what's happening at St. Joseph's is exactly what's been taking place at other hospitals whereby

PATH units have been set up. These

PATH units are beds that are being utilized by seniors as they await movement into residential care sector. In fact, they are organizing them into entirely stand-alone wards so that they can have the appropriate level of care they require.

The final thing I would say to the Leader of the Opposition is that the Leader of the Opposition likes to continue with this farcical nonsense about there being cuts in health care when, in fact, the health care budget is increasing by over $2 billion over the next three years.

[ Page 4623 ]

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

C. James: Once again, this minister and this government are completely ignoring the community and ignoring the facts. There are 18 less acute care beds at that hospital. That's the fact.

This impact will be felt in communities from Parksville to Port Hardy, Port Alberni to Powell River — 18 less acute care beds for communities that are already reeling with a shortage of acute care beds. That will mean longer wait-lists, more overcrowding, and it will compromise patient care.

So, again, my question is to the minister. Will he commit today to working with Comox Valley residents and health care professionals who have ideas to resolve the challenges and keep the acute care beds at St. Joseph's?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I mentioned to the Leader of the Opposition, what they are doing is recognizing that some of the beds at St. Joseph's are occupied by seniors. So what they are doing is putting them all together in what they call a

PATH unit to allow them to transition into residential care. Fortunately, under this government we have constructed over 6,000 new residential care beds right across the province of British Columbia.

I do understand, given the nature of the question from the Leader of the Opposition, that it's consistent with every question I receive from the NDP, which is that any change in the health system must never happen. We must not ever change anything. Don't do anything different. Just keep pouring more money into it, and whatever we do, for goodness' sake, don't change it. Well, that may be how the NDP operated; that is certainly not how the government is going to operate.

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

C. James: The minister completely ignored the fact that the reason they've got a difficulty around seniors is that the government broke their promise to build 5,000 long-term care beds in this province. That's why there's a problem.

Mr. Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

C. James: The minister is well aware that there are actually right now existing residential care beds that could be opened for those seniors in that community, beds that could be used to protect the acute care beds at St. Joseph's, beds that could be used to increase residential care in the Comox Valley.

So, again, my question is to the minister. Why does he refuse to consider the proposals that are being put forward by health care professionals and the community in the Comox Valley?

[1400]

Hon. K. Falcon: Just like yesterday, unfortunately, I have another uncomfortable NDP fact. This is a new part of my answer, apparently, that is going to be consistent in future answers. This uncomfortable NDP fact is that in 1991….

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: I have yet to provide it, Mr. Speaker, and already I've excited a reaction from the members opposite.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: At St. Joseph's Hospital in 1991 the number of acute care beds was 125. In 2001, after a decade of NDP government, it was 109. That might be a little uncomfortable for the Leader of the Opposition, though I do have good news. The answer today is that it is still 109.

A. Dix: There we all thought the minister was running to be Premier, and he's running to be Leader of the Opposition. How about that?

I've got news for the minister. It's not innovation in a hospital bed shortage to close acute care beds and turn them into long-term-care beds. This is an unassisted triple play against the people of the Comox Valley. It's going to generate longer wait times. The minister knows it. It's going to undermine patient care. The minister knows it. And it's going to lead to higher costs.

The minister is only focused on the short-term crisis this government caused in VIHA. Will the minister put on hold this damaging effort to cut 22 percent of the acute care beds at St. Joseph's Hospital and talk to the community about better options?

Hon. K. Falcon: The Health critic is apparently saying: "Certainly, don't do as we did; do as we say." Actually, that's not really the way it's going to work, Mr. Health Critic. You were the chief of staff. In fact, the chief of staff.…

Mr. Speaker: Through the Chair.

[ Page 4624 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, that Health critic was the chief of staff to the Premier in the 1990s. They were the government that massively cut acute care beds right across the province of British Columbia. That is their record. Indeed, at the very hospital that they are alleging cuts, which have not taken place, they were the ones that reduced the acute care beds at St. Joseph's Hospital. That was the only government that reduced beds at St. Joseph's Hospital.

The Health critic should know that one of the ways that you deal with the challenges in the acute care system is by building in the residential care sector. That's why there are almost 13,000 new and entirely rehabilitated beds right across the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: The problem with what the minister is saying, of course, is that no one who knows anything about that hospital agrees with him — not the nurses, not the doctors, not the community. I think the only person in the Comox Valley supporting this attack on the acute care beds is the government member for the Comox Valley.

Will the minister put this cockeyed idea of cutting acute care beds and transforming them into long-term-care beds when there are other long-term-care beds available...? Will he put it on hold and meet with the community this week?

[1405]

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, just reminding the member that actually the number of acute care beds at St. Joseph's is exactly what it was when we came in, in 2001. The only cut that took place was during the ten years of that government. I know that's an uncomfortable NDP fact, but it's actually a fact.

What is happening at St. Joseph's, like many hospitals that have what are sometimes referred to as bed-blockers, is that some of those seniors are being put into a dedicated ward and are receiving the appropriate level of care as they move to transition into the new residential care beds that are being built right across the province, including on Vancouver Island.

I get that that's a change for the Health critic, and I know that for the NDP, in their world, nothing can ever change. You must always do everything the way it was always done. I get that that's the NDP approach.

That's certainly not our approach. We are working to build more supports in the community, more supports for seniors at home, more supports for seniors in intermediate and long-term care. That's what we're doing on this side of the House.

SCHOOL DISTRICT COSTS AND FUNDING

R. Austin: School boards across the province are struggling with massive shortfalls because this government has failed to fully fund cost pressures — Vancouver, $16.3 million; Surrey, $12 million; Langley, $13.5 million; Prince George, $5.2 million; Nanaimo-Ladysmith, $2.8 million; Okanagan-Skaha, $2.5 million; Cariboo-Chilcotin, $2.3 million; North Okanagan–Shuswap, $1 million; Okanagan-Similkameen, $855,000; and Vancouver Island North, $750,000.

My question is to the Minister of Education. Are trustees making up these budget numbers, or is the minister misleading parents and communities in an attempt to lay the blame for education cuts on local school boards?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: As the member opposite is well aware, our government has, every year for the last ten years, made education a priority. At a time when governments around North America are reducing the budget, we have increased the budget for the tenth year in a row, up $112 million.

The member opposite is also well aware that coming this fall, school districts are predicting we will have 60,000 fewer students in classrooms around this province yet an additional $1.3 billion invested in this school system.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: The minister's spin does nothing to improve the quality of education our children receive in the classroom. Districts across the province are being forced to make deep cuts to programs and services that our children rely on. The Education Minister says the same thing day in and day out. Parents, quite frankly, are sick of it. Parents want a straight answer from this government.

Will the Education Minister show some respect for parents by stepping outside of the message box and committing today to ensure that schools have the resources they need to give our children the education they deserve?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: May I say that this side of the House has enormous respect for parents. That is why we made the decision to provide funding for parent advisory committees and DPACs and why we have made every effort, through school planning councils and other areas, to include parents in their children's education.

But parents around this province have been asking questions, and they've been asking the same questions that we've been asking on this side of the House. With 60,000 fewer students in classrooms around this province, why is it that some school boards are not looking for administrative savings? Why is it that some school

[ Page 4625 ]

boards are not making the effort to look at things like shared services, like a common payroll, like a common IT system? It's time for us to start to do things differently.

[1410]

L. Popham: The Saanich district, faced with a $3.3 million shortfall, is looking at making cuts to field trips, school libraries, learning assistants and music programs. This is what the chair of the Saanich board of education says about the claims made by this minister. "The provincial government is not adequately funding its own education mandate and other costs it imposes on boards."

My question is to the Education Minister. Will this minister step outside the message box, show some respect to parents and explain why this government is underfunding education?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The Saanich school district will have 14 percent fewer students next year than it did ten years ago. Yet in spite of that, per-pupil funding has increased by 33 percent for Saanich.

I'll tell you what really concerns me. I am hearing from some school boards, absolutely — their willingness to go forward. They already are beginning to do things differently — to look at shared services, to look at working with their municipality.

What concerns me is the school districts who say to me: "We want more money to do things the same way. We want to do things the way we've always done them. We're not interested in looking for administrative efficiencies, and the only way we can manage our budgets is by doing things that are not in the best interests of our students."

Well, we are prepared to step in and assist these school districts wherever and whenever it is necessary.

D. Thorne: Well, here it is — another day in the Legislature and another school district facing a government-induced crisis. Once again, the Minister of Education resorts to…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Thorne: …meaningless numbers and spin instead of answering the questions that she is being asked.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat for a second, Member.

Continue, Member.

D. Thorne: Richmond is a growing district. They will have almost 250 more students this year than they had last year, yet they have been forced to lay off almost a hundred staff — staff that includes support workers for vulnerable children with special needs.

My question is also to the Education Minister. I also am wondering if this minister can step outside of her message box, get off her spin and explain to us why growing districts are facing budget shortfalls and having to lay off staff.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Richmond is one of the school districts that…. If we did not take into consideration full-day kindergarten, it is one of the 52 districts whose enrolment would be continuing to decline. So except for the fact that we have expanded our school system and embarked on a new program, 52 of our 60 districts are still experiencing declining enrolment. That is the fact — declining enrolment.

Schools throughout this province have 50, 60, 70 or 80 percent of their classrooms that are empty. Who do we need to look out for here? Who are we speaking out for? It's not the students who are no longer in the system. It is the 550,000 students who are still in the system. That's who we need to be taking care of.

D. Routley: This year the Cowichan school board's finance committee was asked to "cut $3 million out of a gutted system." In the face of proposals which included eliminating adult education and cutting alternate programs, the finance committee has given up. They quit. They won't make the cuts demanded by this minister.

[1415]

My question for the Education Minister — if she's willing to step outside of that message box long enough to answer to trustees, students and parents in the Cowichan district: what is she going to do to rescue our districts from her underfunding?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Mr. Speaker, I must say I find it shocking when the members opposite talk about our school system in this way. They are well aware and their critic is on record as saying that we have one of the best education systems in the world. Undermining the public, parents' and teachers' confidence in this system is really quite appalling. I actually met….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat for a second, M inister.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I actually met just yesterday with this school district, and we had an excellent and constructive meeting. This is a district that is well aware that they are facing declining enrolment of 20 percent in the last ten years. In spite of that, their per-pupil funding

[ Page 4626 ]

is actually up 37 percent. They realize the financial resources that are being put in place and that many of their challenges are directly due to declining enrolment.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

H. Lali: The Kamloops-Thompson school district faced a $5.4 million budget shortfall due to B.C. Liberal education funding cuts. Even after finding $3 million in savings through school closures and other drastic measures, the school district is still facing a $2.4 million shortfall.

To submit the legally required balanced budget, they will have to cut 57 jobs, 30 of which are teaching staff, and all of this while 60 percent of the schools in the Kamloops-Thompson school district will require replacement within the next 20 years.

My question is….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

H. Lali: In the absence of any support from or even due to the complete silence of the two lambs, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson and the member from Kamloops South — or is it the other way around? — I ask the Minister of Education why her Liberal government is making massive cuts to education funding in school district 77.

Why is it that the minister across the way won't get out of her public affairs bureau–induced message box and answer the question?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just wait, Minister.

Members.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: One of the things, certainly, that we are very interested in is foundational skills, and one of those is numeracy. In the world of the members opposite, you take a school system and over ten years increase the funding by $1.3 billion. That's increase by $1.3 billion, and that's a cut.

The member opposite is talking about what's happening in schools around the province. Certainly with respect to school closures, we know this is always very difficult.

[1420]

But I'd like to quote someone today, and I'd like to ask members who said the following about school closures. Who said this? "Look, if a school is so short of students it makes it educationally not sound to remain open, then obviously it had to close." Who said that? Well, it was the member for Skeena.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT OF

POLICE COMPLAINT PROCESS

M. Farnworth: Linda Bush's son Ian was killed in a tragic police shooting. She has been waging a public campaign to get justice in that terrible tragedy. She has stopped and cancelled her lawsuit against the RCMP, but she hasn't given up waging a fight for civilian oversight when it comes to investigating police complaints in British Columbia. In a quote Linda Bush stated: "The RCMP aren't the ones fighting civilian oversight. They're quite happy to have it. In B.C. it's the provincial government that is dragging its feet in this area."

So my question to the Attorney General is this. How long does Linda Bush have to wait and the people of British Columbia have to wait until we have true civilian oversight regarding police investigations in this province?

Hon. M. de Jong: This was a tragic set of circumstances. I think the loss of a young life is always, obviously, a tragedy, and Ms. Bush, as a parent, suffers that loss more than any.

On the question of civilian oversight, though, I do want to point out to the House that in any circumstance such as this, there is first involvement by the civilian coroner. That always happens. So that review takes place.

If it involves a community police force, we have just recently made changes to legislation that involves the Police Complaint Commissioner. Discussions are underway right now as part of the negotiations with the national police force to ensure that there is civilian oversight with respect to the RCMP operating in British Columbia.

YOUTH SUICIDE AWARENESS PROGRAM

M. Karagianis: Today we learned that the Ministry of Children and Families has cut the suicide awareness for youth program, known as SAY, that is run by the NEED crisis and information line. SAY has reached more than 2,000 students each year for the past 14 years, and it has saved lives. One student said: "The stuff we learned in the suicide class basically saved my friend's life."

So this question is to the Minister of Children and Families. What kind of backward thinking is she using to cut suicide and prevention education from greater Victoria schools?

[ Page 4627 ]

Hon. M. Polak: The change that's being made to the operation of the crisis line is directly related to our contracted service delivery project on the south Island. It is, in part, in response to changes that the Vancouver Island Health Authority has made to consolidate their crisis line.

In addition, we've also made changes to the way in which we provide for suicide prevention for children and youth. Things such as, in the south Vancouver Island area, the child and youth mental health department now has a Project Alive team that didn't exist in years past, and also the implementation of important programs like Friends for Life, which is an anxiety prevention and stress prevention–related mental health program that exists in all B.C. schools in grades 4, 5 and 7.

We're changing to meet the needs of a changing group of people who live in southern Vancouver Island, and we're very proud of the investment that we continue to make in double the amount for children and youth with mental health needs in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: This is really just shocking from this minister. The savings is $43,000. Yet this vital life-saving program will be lost here on the south Island. The other tragic consequences are that the kinds of supports that go into schools after a tragedy has happened to support students and teachers will also be gone.

[1425]

We know that, unfortunately, suicide is increasing among teens and has dramatically increased over the last couple of decades. We also know that 80 percent of those students seek help from a friend. Peer-training services are also disappearing with this.

Again to the Minister of Children and Families: can she explain what in the world she is thinking by cutting a service like this to vulnerable teens and their families? What in the world can she be thinking?

Hon. M. Polak: As I said to the member, this is not a budget reduction. It's part of our south Island contracted service delivery project to better align services with the needs of the community. The member should know that since 2003, we have more than doubled the number of children we are serving with mental health services, and we have more than doubled the financial support we provide for children and youth needing mental health services.

[End of question period.]

J. Horgan: Just for the attention of members and for Hansard, in my two-minute statement I referred to the sad-sack Salmonbellies. I just want to make sure that was on the record.

Orders of the Day

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

Mr. Speaker: Could members attend to their other duties so we can get on with debate.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Consumption Tax Rebate

and Transition Act

(continued)

On the amendment (continued) .

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I rise today to conclude my remarks and to speak against the amendment of Bill 9.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The opposition has moved an amendment to Bill 9 that is a tactic to stall. Instead of using the time during these debates to intelligently express their concerns about the HST, this opposition has had the opportunity to announce to British Columbians what their position on HST is. But you haven't heard a definitive position yet. You know why, Madam Speaker? It's because they know this is good policy. All we've heard from the members opposite are some of the items and services that, as of July 1, we'll have to charge an extra 7 percent on, and we know there are some.

It's easy and I would suggest a little irresponsible to simply note some exceptions, because for every exception, there are huge benefits that accrue from removing the PST. The public should expect that the members opposite look at the bigger picture, but I guess that's what we were elected to do.

That bigger picture is job creation. The bigger picture is productivity. That bigger picture is our economy. But perhaps the bigger question is what fuels the engine of our economy. Today the fuel is the HST, and that is simply good tax policy.

Businesses can claim tax inputs to recover all of the HST that they've paid. The transformation to HST will mean a significant savings and a boost in productivity for businesses in B.C. because they will no longer have to pay PST. They will no longer have to prepare PST remittances. They will save on consulting costs because the PST rules right now are very complicated and frequently require professional advice in their

interpretation. Employees will spend much less time trying to find the answers to PST questions, and PST audits will be eliminated.

[ Page 4628 ]

This amendment by the opposition reflects their inability to address reform of any kind. This amendment by the opposition ignores the consultation and advice that numerous organizations have provided to governments on both sides of the House over the past few years. Perhaps this is indicative of the opposition's inability to listen to sound advice.

The member for Port Coquitlam has introduced an amendment to ask that a Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services be struck to review repealing this regressive tax we call PST.

[1430]

Business has been asking government to streamline our tax system for years. We've been listening to the people who have created jobs in B.C., and who better to get advice from and listen to than the business organizations that represent hundreds of thousands of jobs in B.C.? They represent business owners who, month after month, waste time and money complying with this outdated tax.

These are the voices of people who know how much embedded tax consumers are paying, and these are the voices of people who know that our current system increases the cost of products and services to consumers.

This amendment suggests that we haven't been listening to the very business owners and people who've been begging us to harmonize all these years. It's also becoming increasingly obvious that the members opposite don't understand what good tax policy is. It's becoming obvious that the members opposite think that B.C. exists in a vacuum.

The members opposite would like to think that we live in a country that doesn't include New Brunswick, Labrador and Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and, more importantly now, Ontario — or a world that doesn't have 29 OECD countries that have transformed their tax system to a value-added tax like the HST.

I cannot support the amendment to Bill 9. Unlike the members opposite, I don't want B.C. to fall behind the rest of the country in economic recovery, because that is what will happen if the federal government can't implement the HST in B.C. But if that comes as news to the members opposite, it's because, like for most consumers, it's actually difficult to see the PST, which is a hidden tax in all the things that we consume. We want to get rid of that.

Jon Kesselman, a noted SFU economist, said that experts who study taxation are virtually unanimous that the HST is the right direction for this province. He said: "Sales tax harmonization fulfils all of the standard economic criteria for good tax policy with flying colours."

Strong leadership isn't about what's popular. Strong leadership is about taking positions that are selfless. Strong leadership is about having a crystal-clear vision of the future of British Columbia. Strong leadership is about integrity, and for the opposition to suggest otherwise is offensive and desperate.

I've witnessed the personal attacks on the integrity of the Minister of Finance, and I stand before you to give my full support to our Minister of Finance. In the fullness of time, history will prove it fortunate that we had someone like our Minister of Finance, with vision to transform our sales tax system during these challenging times.

The opposition has moved an amendment to prevent us from sales tax reform. The opposition has moved an amendment that will delay us from improving our productivity. The opposition has moved an amendment that will kill jobs. The opposition has moved an amendment that supports an archaic and Byzantine sales tax. The opposition has moved an amendment that embraces the accumulation of taxes in the production of goods and services.

The opposition has moved an amendment that supports increased costs for business. The opposition has moved an amendment that prevents us from helping small businesses reduce the sales tax compliance costs.

I'm in opposition to any motion to stall the process of repealing the PST. We have an agreement in place to transform our archaic sales tax system, and transition work needs to take place. There are provisions of this act that need to take place in ten days. This amendment will jeopardize our ability to do this.

C. Trevena: I stand here to support the motion, and I'd like to read the motion: "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."

I wanted to read that back into the record because in some of the debate that has been happening about the amendment, there has been a lot of, at times, hyperbole, a lot of times a lot of angst.

What the opposition is doing through this motion is looking at how we can use one of the very important tools of this House, one of the committees that this House establishes, to examine this piece of legislation. This piece of legislation has been described as fundamental, one of the most important pieces of legislation that we'll see, possibly, in this decade. It is, without doubt, a very important piece of legislation, because it is a major change to our tax structure.

[1435]

The amendment is asking that we can have, really, further deliberation among ourselves as well as going outside on the bill which will eradicate the PST and allow the way for the HST to come in.

My colleague from Nanaimo, when he was talking about the amendment, used many biblical analogies —

[ Page 4629 ]

from the Old Testament, the New Testament, ranged across the way. He was very interesting and very enlightening. I would like to use a little bit of historical context in my remarks, as well as talking a bit about the present and obviously about the bill itself.

One of the things that we have to remember when we are discussing legislation in this place, particularly when we're talking…. I think any legislation, but as we say, this is really a change to our tax structure. It's a change to the way we're going to be financing these services and the infrastructure that we expect in this province.

We have to take things, I think, in a very considered approach. So I'd like members to think a bit about the history of this place and the history of the parliamentary system in which we operate. We don't operate in isolation; we operate within a system that has evolved for over a thousand years.

I was reading the other day about how there are questions about what's happening in Ottawa and referring that back to the Magna Carta in Britain. This is more than a thousand years of history of evolution of our political system. Part of that evolution involves what we have here — which is our committee structure — which is why I think it's really important that we can use the tools that we have within this House to make sure that we have very valid, very accurate and the best-informed policy to take to the people of British Columbia.

As I say, the history of this place and the history of parliamentary democracy are very important in this context. One of the things that I would like to remind all members is that we start our sessions with Bill 1, which is

An Act to Ensure the Supremacy of Parliament. I'll read this because I think it's too rare that we are all aware of this — not just us in this House, but the people who vote us into this place — which takes me on to my second point.

The Act to Ensure the Supremacy of Parliament is always Bill 1 in any session.

"This Act to Ensure the Supremacy of Parliament is an important part of our democratic process. The purpose of this Bill, and its introduction prior to consideration of the Throne Speech is to perpetuate the established right of Parliament, through its elected representatives, to sit and act without leave from the Crown.

"This Bill simply asserts the right of the Legislative Assembly to give precedence to matters other than those expressed by the Sovereign.

"Introducing it at this point in the opening proceedings of the Legislative Assembly is a tradition that dates back to the reign of Elizabeth I when, on March 22, 1603, Parliament first recorded this assertion of independence from the Crown for purposes of legislation."

I refer to that now because, as I say, I think the history of parliamentary democracy and our role within it cannot be forgotten when we're talking about the evolution of policy and how we get to a certain place. We are now talking about a bill that is going to get rid of the PST to bring in the HST.

We've seen a lot of, really, a huge populace…. There's no question about it, there is a populist movement within this province opposed to the bringing in of the HST. As some people would say, it's the imposition of the HST. We've heard various levels of language — whether it's parliamentary or unparliamentary — about what people think is happening with the HST.

But without doubt, there is a huge opposition to it outside this place. It is incumbent on us within this place to make sure we are seen to be using the best possible practice, every single tool that we have within our powers as elected representatives, to ensure that we thoroughly examine this bill which will allow for the HST to be introduced. If we don't do that, we open ourselves up for a huge amount of questioning, a huge amount of challenge. I think we open ourselves up to even greater disillusionment than we are already seeing in our political process.

[1440]

We saw in the last election the lack of interest in our parliamentary system. We saw that people didn't want to turn out to vote. We had a real decrease in the electoral turnout, and I would hope that we all learned a lesson from that. We've now seen a real engagement by clearly thousands of people across the province in their opposition to this piece of taxation policy.

I think we've got to be very mindful of those two things when we are deliberating on this, which is why I'm fully in favour of this amendment. It will allow us to use a tool that we have given to us in this Legislature.

We want to ensure that people are engaged in the political process. We don't want to see people not turning out to vote and then complaining about things, and we want to ensure that those people who have concerns can be heard. That's why I think that this amendment really does deal with both problems. It allows people who are clearly so angry with the government for the way in which the HST has been implemented, or will be implemented…. I mean, it does go back partly to the election.

People didn't vote in the election. For whatever reasons, they didn't vote — whether they didn't feel engaged, weren't inspired. For whatever reason, they didn't vote in the election. But then after the election, that sense of disengagement, that sense of disillusionment, was really exacerbated by the announcement so soon after the election that the HST would be brought in, although it wasn't in anybody's election platform.

I think in both respects, the lack of engagement before the election and now this populist engagement…. If we can bring in the Select Standing Committee on Finance, which is an already established committee of this Legislature…. It is a creation of this Legislature. If we can use that to further the debate, allow people to come and voice their concerns, I think it would be exceedingly healthy for our democratic system. Here in B.C. I think our democratic system needs that.

I was hearing yesterday one speaker saying that they were really very disappointed in the way that we work in

[ Page 4630 ]

this House. We've always got the rhetoric going. We're always confrontational. I have to agree that it's a real problem with this style of debate. I mean, this is the way that we are, but we don't advance the debate. Oftentimes we don't listen to each other.

We have our political standpoint, and we stick to our partisan standpoint. We on this side of the House will, say, rail against the government, the government will give the good policy about what they're saying, and we won't actually have any real debate.

The committee structure. One of the things about the committee structure is that because it is bipartisan and because there is a limited number of people, it allows for debate. It allows for conversation. It allows for a discussion.

I think that those of us in this House, the 85 of us who have been elected by the people of our constituencies, all do hold dear the awareness and the concept of what we're here for, our role as legislators and the importance of fully debating and discussing legislation, and the privilege that is bestowed on us by our election to this place. I think that everybody in this place really wants to have some sort of engagement, not to just have the rhetoric but to be able to fully discuss these.

Other members have said that this side of the House, by moving this amendment, that we are just stalling. It's a stalling tactic. I would disagree. I think that it's very valuable. It would be very valuable to engage the people of B.C. in a very detailed discussion about what this tax is going to mean.

We can have people come. We as legislators can sit in the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and hear from people — hear from individuals, hear from organizations, hear from the interest groups — to make sure that we are actually listening to what is heard and not just each side of the House coming out with the validators and the interest groups that we have heard from.

[1445]

On this side of the House we have heard a lot from the tourism association and from the restaurant services and food services. These are the ones that we are espousing in our debates. On the government side, we are hearing from various chambers of commerce and others who are supportive of the government side of the debate.

But to hear from more people, to actually hear from the individual business people, to discuss what their situation is; to hear from those voices from the non-profit organizations, what their experience is and how they feel, if they are going to be impacted, what their concerns are….

I really do think, because this is such an important change in our taxation policy, that it demands this close examination from both experts — from people who have expertise in tax reform, from academics, from people who develop public policy — as well as from people in the public. One of the questions that keeps coming back is: why was it done so quickly so soon after the election, and why was it only after the election that we were getting the research?

I know that various members of the government side have talked about the fact that this has already appeared before the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. I've got to say that at that time, in 2008, what was asked for was a cost-benefit analysis to be conducted to determine whether a harmonized sales tax may be worth considering.

The only cost-benefit analysis we've seen to this date is the Mintz report, which has been quoted quite regularly, but that came out after the fact that this was going to be brought in. I think that there really is a serious need to hear from other people, other tax policy experts — and there are many of them, I'm sure, both here in B.C. and from other parts of the country where there is an HST and where there isn't an HST — why different jurisdictions want to bring in such a tax and why others don't. This is all part of an informed debate that could be brought out by the select standing committee.

In our own rule book — which all members are given when we start as legislators; we're given the detail book on the standing orders of this House, Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia — when it's talking about the select standing committees, it does allow for the fact that issues that are part of a select standing committee still can be debated within this House.

It says, as part of the analysis on Standing Order 68: "The mere fact that a subject matter has been referred to a committee for investigation may not preclude a debate in the House on that subject matter after the committee has reported." So it allows for continued debate on the issue. It's not stymieing debate. It's not closing debate. It's allowing for a more informed debate, and I think that's really what is lacking.

We are lacking, clearly, in this House. I think, from hearing the arguments from both sides of the House, we definitely need a more informed debate on this.

As I say, the last time I spoke in opposition to the bill before I was able to speak on the amendment, I was speaking after the Minister of Forests and Range, who said, and I'd like to quote from him, that it was a pleasure for the minister at that stage to discuss the bill on second reading, which is "undoubtedly one of the most important debates that will likely take place in this House in the second decade of the 21st century."

Interjection.

C. Trevena: The Forests Minister likes his own words, and I'm very pleased. I'm pleased that I was able to put them back on the record, so they're quoted twice in Hansard .

[ Page 4631 ]

If this is really the most important debate in the first decade of the 21st century, it is incumbent on us to use, as I say, every tool available and to have a fully informed debate about the pros and the cons of it, the benefits, the losses and how it would work.

[1450]

I would ask that we take this motion very seriously, that we pause and, before everybody votes on party lines when it comes to the vote on the amendment, that government members actually do stop and think — as we'll stop and think, when we debate any piece of legislation — of our role here in deciding what is happening in British Columbia.

There are a number of committees in this Legislature that have been appointed. We have the Select Standing Committee on Finance. Listed in the committee structure, there should be ones on Aboriginal Affairs; Education; Finance and Government Services, this one which we want to refer the bill to; Health; Public Accounts; Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct and Private Bills; Crown Corporations; Legislative Initiatives; and Children and Youth. They meet variously. Some haven't met at all; some meet very regularly.

This committee on Finance and Government Services. It's an established committee. It travels around the province before the budget, before its deliberations and hears from people.

I for a time was on the special committee that was set up by this House. It was a special committee set up by this House on sustainable aquaculture. That was set up. I think it was set up because there was clearly awareness that there was a problem about aquaculture, a huge disagreement within this province about the future of the aquaculture industry. That is very important for me because I represent a constituency where aquaculture is a major industry, both finfish and shellfish aquaculture.

I was very pleased that the government had decided to set up a special committee of this House to discuss that. As part of that committee, we travelled around the province. We talked to people literally up as far as the Hazeltons on the Skeena, so we were hearing from people who had experience of the salmon up there. We talked to people throughout my constituency, talked to people in Victoria, in Vancouver.

People were able to submit…. We had pages and pages — in fact, volumes — of submissions during that committee — people who were really engaged and who wanted to be heard, people with expertise, some people who were just passionate. That was a really worthwhile endeavour.

Sadly, the government has acted on only one recommendation of that report. I'm still hopeful that many of the other recommendations will be acted upon, but only one recommendation has been acted upon.

What I would hope would be that through this committee, a similar process can happen — that this committee can go to different areas of B.C., to places where people want their voices heard, to places where there are experts, people who are in business, people who are in the tourism sector, people who can actually participate in the debate.

It is a supremely worthwhile endeavour if we want to get this policy right, if we want to make sure that it is the right thing for B.C. — which this side of the House doesn't think of — to have that committee listen to what people have got to say.

It'll give the opportunity to hear from the different stakeholders, to hear from — as I say, we have our stakeholders who are very concerned — tourism operators. The Council of Tourism Associations has suggested that 10,000 tourism-related jobs would be lost, and it could cost the tourism industry up to $545 million a year and also reduce government tax revenues. It'd be very interesting to hear from tourism operators themselves to explain the impact on their operation, to hear from the council itself to explain these facts.

We've heard from the restaurant services association, who've called it a meal tax. We on this side have heard a lot from them. They say it's going to cost their industry $750 million a year, which is an astounding $50,000 per restaurant in B.C. Again, accepting this amendment, having this motion, would allow that industry to come forward and explain its findings, to show its accounting, to show why it feels it is going to cost this much.

[1455]

It would allow us to hear from the First Nations, who feel that they haven't been consulted fully on this and are very concerned about that. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs has recently written a letter where they are very worried about the "lack of any substantial consultation." I'm quoting from the letter. I assume it's gone to all MLAs, but this one was addressed specifically to me. One of the signatories to it, one of the members of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, is Chief Robert Chamberlin, who is a constituent of mine.

It says that the plan to bring in the HST, which would come through Bill 9 if this motion doesn't allow for the further debate….

"There has been a lack of any substantial consultation process for the proposed HST on First Nations families and communities. The Union of B.C. Indian chiefs, UBCIC, opposes the proposed HST. To our great frustration, neither level of government has agreed to meet or speak with the UBCIC or any other First Nations group, despite the pressing and serious nature of this issue and the government's legal duty to consult."

I believe that for the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the select standing committee referral may not be enough. They want specific consultation, but it would be an opportunity to go to those communities and engage with people. The government side can be talking about what the HST means. But more than anything, it is an opportunity for people to explain what they feel the impact

[ Page 4632 ]

will be, how they have done their accounting, what they see it's going to be.

I think it really is very important. I've got to say that even people who usually support the government side, the people who are usually very vociferous in saying that the government is doing the right thing on various pieces of legislation, are concerned about the allocation of the harmonized sales tax.

As was mentioned in the budget earlier this year, back at the beginning of March, the money from the harmonized sales tax was going to go specifically to health care. This has raised some concern. I'm not sure I have ever before quoted from the Fraser Institute in this Legislature, but I'd like to quote from the Fraser Institute, which is very concerned about the HST being allocated specifically to health care and is saying that such legislation does nothing to reduce costs and improve services.

I may categorically disagree with the Fraser Institute on most issues, and the rest of the

article I actually do disagree with — a lot of the rest of the article. The specific concerns they have could be discussed and could be examined at a meeting of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

This isn't a spurious amendment. It isn't an amendment that is here just to fill the time. We all know there is legislation that needs to be discussed. We all know this is very serious legislation, and we know it's serious legislation that is concerning a huge amount of people. I think this motion would allow that debate to occur fully.

I've got to say that it would also allow maybe some more specific examination of the harmonized sales tax from different groups. For instance, we know that the harmonized sales tax will not be included in fuel. It's not there in gas, but it's going to be there — this is one thing that we on this side of the House have raised quite a lot — on bicycles and bicycle equipment.

We now are going to be paying that bit extra for Energy Star appliances. There are various levels where it is being brought in, which have been argued on this side of the House to be contrary to the government's avowed assertions that it's going to tackle climate change. I mean, the very fact that you now have HST on bicycles but there is going to be no HST on fuel for cars does seem to be a very basic contradiction.

Referring the bill to this committee would allow for that debate to be aired. It would allow people to explain why it is good to have no HST on gasoline. Why is it good to have no HST on bicycles? Let's bring forward those arguments. Let's hear them out properly rather than the back-and-forth rhetoric in this Legislature, where one side says it's wrong and the other side says it's right.

[1500]

Let's actually have a more informed discussion, a smaller discussion with the number of people who are on the committee. It's a committee chaired by the government. There is only one committee in this structure that is chaired by the opposition, and that's Public Accounts.

It's a committee chaired by the government. It has a majority of government members on it. But it would really allow for specific debate — say, a debate about climate change. How does the HST impact all our desires? I believe that everyone in this Legislature has a real concern about climate change and how we are seriously going to tackle it.

This is a serious issue. How are we going to attack it? What are we going to do differently? How are we going to look at the future of B.C. in a way that is addressing the real needs of the 21st century? This committee could be a venue for that sort of discussion as well.

I think that one of the problems, and one of the concerns that has come, is that there hasn't been a lot of scrutiny and a lot of examination. I know that we have within the structure of our own debates…. We are now in second reading of this bill, and the opposition has brought in an amendment to the bill.

In second reading we have the rhetoric; we have a debate back and forth. We all stand up. We're all standing up, effectively for half an hour each, to say what we believe is either wrong about the HST, on this side of the House, or right about the HST, on the government's side of the House.

After this stage we get to the committee stage. There is a committee stage within the bill, which allows for our side of the House to question the Minister of Finance, and he is supported by very highly qualified Ministry of Finance staff to analyze the bill.

The critic for Finance, the member for Surrey-Whalley, has the opportunity to stand in this House and question the Minister of Finance. But I think one of the issues is that that isn't enough. I think this is one of the problems that we in this Legislature have in many ways — the use of committees and how we use committees.

When we have a bill being discussed, the committee stage of the bill is restricted in that way. People who watch governments and are not really close watchers see the different ways of doing it and may wonder why in Ottawa they have a much broader system, so when a bill comes before the House, when it goes to committee stage, they can bring in witnesses.

They can bring in experts. They can bring in people to talk about it. We don't do that. We have a very structured committee stage at which we have our critics and members of the opposition directly asking the minister questions.

I think that by using this as a tool, it would allow us to broaden out the committee stage in a very healthy way. I think that the committee structure could be used to a huge extent to include people in what we are doing in this House, to get people to feel that they're involved, to allow people to bring in their expertise — and not

[ Page 4633 ]

just on this bill. I think in many bills it would be an extremely healthy evolution for us in this House.

J. van Dongen: I am pleased to speak today on Bill 9 and specifically to speak against the Bill 9 amendment tabled by the opposition.

The Minister of Finance has set out a timetable for the elimination of the provincial sales tax and the implementation of the harmonized sales tax, and I believe that timetable must be upheld in the best interests of British Columbians. The idea of a harmonized sales tax has been available for many years, but it was only recently that the federal government finally made it attractive and flexible enough for our government and our Finance Minister to decide that now was the right time.

[1505]

Any delay in implementation of this complex transition, I believe, will create further uncertainty, which is not in the best interests of workers, families, consumers or business in British Columbia.

These changes proposed by the government allow British Columbia to set its own combined tax rate. At 12 percent, the lowest in Canada, it is the biggest single thing that we can do to strengthen our economy, based on the advice of leading economists in our province and in our country. Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick all have a harmonized sales tax. Quebec has a similar value-added tax called the Quebec sales tax, and Ontario, as we know, plans to introduce a harmonized sales tax on July 1, 2010.

The B.C. Agricultural Council, the B.C. Business Council, chartered accountants, the general accountants and the Retail Council of Canada are just a few of the sectors and organizations in favour of the HST. The list is actually quite a bit longer, but they all agree that the harmonized sales tax means more jobs for British Columbians. Max Logan, the B.C. director of the Retail Council of Canada, says that "The time savings of collecting just one tax versus two is really going to make life easier" for retailers.

The Chartered Accountants of British Columbia fully support the provincial government's recent announcement to harmonize the provincial sales tax with the federal GST and have repeatedly called for government to implement this policy initiative. Richard Rees, the chief executive officer of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, says: "We have been calling for harmonization for several years. Given the current economic climate.— and Ontario's recent move to harmonization — there is no better time than now to take this important step."

The NDP's amendment to stall Bill 9 and not repeal the provincial sales tax is another example of how the NDP put forward a motion but fail to state their unequivocal position on the harmonized sales tax. As legislators, we have the duty to inform ourselves and act in the best interests of British Columbians.

Under the provincial sales tax system right now, there are many hidden costs. Currently provincial sales tax is applied at every step in the creation of a product. Those multiple PST charges are embedded in the price that we pay at the store as consumers, even though we can't see it. And of course we pay PST on the final purchase price as well. The present embedded provincial sales tax means higher production costs, less investment and fewer jobs.

The harmonized sales tax will mean that B.C. businesses will avoid $2 billion in double-counted PST costs that may be passed on to consumers or used to keep small businesses in B.C. viable. That's $2 billion saved. Surely the members opposite would want that for British Columbia.

It is quite simple. Under the proposed harmonized sales tax, those embedded costs are removed for savings. Costs of doing business will come down as the current 5 percent GST rebate to business translates into a 12 percent HST rebate with harmonization. This proposed amendment to Bill 9 would keep rebates at 5 percent and not 12 percent. So not only would the businesses keep paying embedded PST; the consumer would continue to pay, ultimately, for those embedded costs.

Our government wants our province to progress, and I hope the opposition would as well. The HST will make British Columbia not only one of the most competitive jurisdictions in Canada but in the industrialized world as well.

[1510]

What this means is that British Columbia will be an attractive place for investments to create long-term, stable employment — long-term, stable employment for workers and their families — and it will help to keep businesses viable that today are struggling and trying to survive in a very competitive domestic and export market environment.

"The cost of not following Ontario into an HST system to ensure we continue to be competitive within the Canadian and world economy is too great, and the risk is unacceptable," says David Hull, the executive director of the Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce. I commend David for his leadership on this issue.

By simply lowering the front-end tax on new investments, the harmonized sales tax will encourage further capital investment, making B.C.'s economy more competitive and creating new jobs.

This amendment to Bill 9 doesn't create solutions. Just as I am against this amendment, I am concerned about the fearmongering and misinformation that some people are putting out for purely political purposes. There are a lot of myths being perpetrated, and sadly, many of them are coming from the opposition.

PST is very complex, and the harmonized sales tax is very complex. Not everyone understands it, so there can be innocent errors out there. But I also say categorically

[ Page 4634 ]

that there are groups engaged in anti-HST campaigns for political purposes.

One is the NDP, and the other is former Premier Vander Zalm, both of whom have been noted to have factually incorrect information on their websites. So I ask: is the NDP committed to putting out information on the HST that is factually correct? The evidence so far suggests otherwise.

As publicly elected representatives, we have a duty to learn the facts. On our side of the House we are working to make sure that British Columbians know the facts about HST and not the misinformation and innuendo put out by others. I am talking to my constituents, particularly to seniors and to working people, about their concerns.

Let's look at some of the myths and misconceptions around HST. Heating your house using oil, natural gas, electricity, propane or wood will not cost more with the HST. Point-of-sale rebates will be issued for residential energy. Seniors do not need to worry about higher heating and electricity costs. The cost of their heat and light will not go up because of HST. It will not cost more to fill your prescriptions due to HST, and it will not cost more to put gasoline or diesel into your vehicle due to HST.

The majority of retail items will see no tax change with HST. This includes new cars, trucks, boats, furniture, electronics, toiletries, adult clothing and pet food, just to name a few.

There are a lot of people out there who believe that books, child-sized clothing and residential heating will be subject to HST, but that is simply not correct. All of these items are also HST-exempt.

In addition, like the GST, the HST will not apply to basic groceries, residential rent or strata fees — three items which account for a large proportion of total expenditures by those in the lower and middle levels of income.

Almost all other items that are currently zero-rated or exempt from the GST will also be zero-rated or exempt from HST. What this means is that any goods or services that the consumer does not pay GST on today, they won't be paying HST on either.

It is a fact that there are some consumer goods and services — such as haircuts, movie tickets, eating out at a restaurant, bicycles, gym memberships — where the HST will add to the total price consumers pay, but it is important to note that the businesses providing these services also get the benefit of the elimination of hidden PST costs.

[1515]

With the harmonized sales tax, more sales tax will be rebated to small businesses on their business inputs, thus lowering their costs and enabling them to potentially lower their prices to consumers.

Scare tactics that claim the HST adds $2,100 to a yearly bill for seniors are also just not true. One e-mail suggests that people will have to pay more for car insurance, home insurance, home heating, gasoline, electricity, etc. This information is also incorrect. The reality of it is that the HST won't change the price of any of these items because they are either exempt, rebated or currently subject to PST and GST.

Recently Fred Armstrong, the publisher of the Abbotsford Times, put it this way in an editorial: "The HST is not hidden, it's not antidemocratic, and it's not evil. It's a harmonized sales tax with fewer loopholes than we have now." I commend Fred Armstrong for his integrity to stand up and say the way it is.

It is amazing that the opposition is actually against this tax when more than 130 countries have already adopted a similar tax policy and it is supported by all the senior, well-respected economic think tanks in our country.

All industrial sectors in British Columbia will benefit from sales tax harmonization and will see their effective sales tax costs on new investment drop by over one-third. Small businesses will also see substantial benefits, with their sales tax costs on new investment declining by almost 60 percent.

The harmonized sales tax will remove $1.9 billion in costs from job-supporting sectors in the forest industry, the mining industry, the oil and gas industry, construction, agriculture, manufacturing and transportation, allowing these industries to support local jobs.

The $1.9 billion breaks down this way: $140 million in cost savings in the forest sector, $80 million removed in costs for the mining and the oil and gas sectors, $210 million of costs removed in the transportation sector, $880 million in costs removed from construction, $140 million in double-counted PST from the manufacturing sector and about $19 million saved in agriculture.

For these reasons, I am opposed to this amendment. And there are many more reasons. Small, medium and large businesses are expected to save a further $150 million annually in compliance costs under the new streamlined single harmonized sales tax system. As I said, this applies directly to all of the industries that I've mentioned, including agriculture in my constituency.

I want to refer to a conversation that I had recently with Dave Holmberg, the owner of Bobcat Country in my constituency, and his two sons Dave and Phil, who have had to deal with the headaches of a provincial sales tax system for a long time. Bobcat Country sells skid-steer loaders and related equipment and attachments.

Dave and his two sons are thrilled about the harmonized sales tax because it means no more two sales tax systems; no more frustrating and time-consuming provincial audits; and no more very confusing rules, such as loader attachments for agriculture that are non-taxable but the same loader attachment for industry that is taxable.

[ Page 4635 ]

Harmonized sales tax is going to help them save money, keep their business viable and employ people in my constituency.

[1520]

The harmonized sales tax is estimated to also save B.C. taxpayers $30 million annually, as our province will no longer have to fund the administrative costs associated with a provincial sales tax. This means that people like Dave Holmberg of Bobcat Country and others like him will save money and not have to worry about constant PST audits because that system was so complex to enforce. These savings can make the difference between some businesses staying open or shutting down. Every time one of these businesses decides to stay open, it means they will maintain and create jobs for British Columbians.

I want to speak a little bit about our government's record of positive tax measures. Effective January 1, 2010, the basic personal amount of tax credit was increased to $11,000 from $9,373, an increase of $1,627. In addition, the spouse and equivalent-to-spouse credits were also increased over 2009 levels. B.C. lowered the small business tax rate from 4½ to 2½ percent in 2008, the second-lowest tax rate in Canada. By April 1, 2012, the provincial small business tax will be cut again to zero, the lowest in Canada.

For most taxpayers, B.C.'s personal income taxes have been reduced by 37 percent or more since 2001, and an additional 325,000 low-income British Columbians now pay no provincial income tax. As a result, British Columbia has the lowest provincial personal income taxes in Canada for those earning up to $118,000. The introduction of the HST follows more than 120 tax reductions introduced since 2001 by our government.

The proposed amendment to Bill 9 stalls our families and seniors from getting the net benefit of increased tax credits. More than 1.1 million British Columbians — that's a quarter of our population — will benefit from tax credits, thanks to the harmonized sales tax. Low-income earners making up to $20,000 per year will get an additional tax credit of $230. In families with incomes up to $25,000 annually, each family member will receive a $230 tax credit. For a family of four, that's $920 back to them.

When combined with the recently introduced climate action credit, low-income British Columbians will now be eligible for up to $340 a year in provincial credits in addition to the existing GST tax credit. Lower-income British Columbians unquestionably come out ahead with the harmonized sales tax and associated tax reductions and tax credits that our government has put in place.

A common complaint about the harmonized sales tax is that it benefits big business and that the average taxpayer will have to pick up all of the savings that big business will receive. That simply isn't true. HST benefits business of all sizes, and research by the C.D. Howe Institute into the effects of HST in the Atlantic provinces has shown that the net benefit to business of tax savings did flow through to consumers. That's research done by the C.D. Howe Institute into the actual implementation in the Atlantic provinces.

There are a lot of small businesses and small agricultural businesses in my constituency. For years the B.C. Agriculture Council has been filing annual submissions for additions of items and services to the provincial sales tax exemption list for bona fide farmers.

[1525]

The system has been frustrating for both farmers and farm retailers and government, so the B.C. Agriculture Council had made a considerable effort to work with government on the development of alternative options. The proposed harmonized sales tax is consistent with B.C. Ag Council requests for changing the current system, as it will significantly streamline and simplify the process. "This will have a significant and positive impact on agriculture overall, and it's consistent with what our members have been calling for," said B.C. Agriculture Council chair and Abbotsford-area turkey producer Garnet Etsell.

Country Life , a provincial agriculture-focused newspaper, featured an

article where Garnet Etsell noted that the B.C. Ag Council has lobbied for PST reform for a long time and says that HST "gives us everything we asked for and more." "This is an ongoing annuity of $15 million to $23 million per year," said Garnet Etsell.

What's important here is that employees of small agrifood businesses are also beneficiaries. When companies gain competitive advantages, they can grow and expand, hiring more people over the long term. Small business is now a more viable option for British Columbians. The fact is that with the implementation of HST and the small business income tax dropping to zero next year, our local businesses will become more competitive.

We need to move forward with Bill 9 and vote down the amendment and proceed with the Finance Minister's timetable to eliminate the provincial sales tax and harmonize our sales tax system with the federal government.

Another quote from Richard Rees, the CEO of the Institute of Chartered Accountants: "Harmonization will reduce compliance costs for businesses, save consumers money, maintain the province's competitive position within Canada, reduce barriers to doing interprovincial business, improve productivity and reduce administrative costs for government." That's a quote from Richard Rees, a chartered accountant.

Hon. Speaker, a lot of work has been done by Ministry of Finance officials to estimate the effects of HST on citizens and families. I'm going to give you four examples of their calculations.

For a family of four with a $60,000 annual income, the estimated impact is $8.91 per month. For a senior

[ Page 4636 ]

couple with a $30,000 income, the impact will be an additional $1 per year, virtually a break-even situation. A family of four with a $90,000 income, a higher income level, will be impacted by an additional $15 per month. I've rounded that up a little bit. A family of four with a $30,000 income will actually benefit by approximately $45 per month because of the B.C. harmonized sales tax credit. Those are the best estimates of the expected or calculated impact on our citizens.

When I look at the list of organizations that are independent and are non-partisan which have asked over many years to our budget consultation committee and through other channels, it is a very long list of organizations that support the HST. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce, Coast Forest Products Association, Retail Council of Canada, Chartered Accountants of B.C., Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, B.C. Road Builders Association, Mining Association of B.C., West Fraser Timber, B.C. Agriculture Council, Business Council of British Columbia.

I should say, hon. Speaker, that I regard Jock Finlayson as a very independent and competent economist who says what he thinks and speaks his mind on these issues, and he supports the harmonized sales tax. The B.C. Progress Board and the Canada West Foundation.

[1530]

In addition to these organizations, we have leading economists from prominent organizations and think tanks throughout British Columbia and Canada. Just to give you a few: Glen Hodgson, chief economist of the Conference Board of Canada; Michael Smart, C.D. Howe Institute; John Winter, B.C. Chamber of Commerce; Jock Finlayson, Business Council of British Columbia; Dr. Kevin Milligan of UBC's department of economics; Ken McKenzie, Canada West Foundation; Ben Dachis and Alexandre Laurin, C.D. Howe Institute; David Baxter, Urban Futures; and Jon Kesselman, Simon Fraser University.

All of these people support the merits of a move towards the harmonized sales tax in that it is good for consumers, good for workers, good for families in British Columbia.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

As I approach my close, I'm going to quote further from Richard Rees, CEO of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. I believe that he sets out, in a very independent and non-partisan way, his views in an op-ed piece that was published in the newspaper. His comments include the following:

"Good public policy does not always equal good politics. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the coverage of the harmonized sales tax. From a policy perspective, it is widely understood that business input taxes are overly complex to administer and are a drain on investment" — he's talking about input taxes such as the PST — "unlike value-added taxes such as the GST and HST, which are simpler to administer and encourage investment.

"However, while harmonization is good public policy that will benefit British Columbia's economy, the transition can be challenging…. To date the debate has tried to pit consumers against business. But in reality consumers are the business community. The majority of B.C.'s businesses are small businesses employing less than 50 people. They are your neighbours, and they are the backbone of B.C.'s economy."

One final quote from Theodore Hesburgh: "My basic principle is that you don't make decisions because they are easy. You don't make them because they are cheap. You don't make them because they are popular. You make them because they are right."

I'm proud to be part of a government that is not afraid to make the tough decisions that are good public policy even though they are not easy politically. That's why I will vote against the opposition amendment, which is simply designed to delay a decision which admittedly is not easy politically but is in the best interests of all British Columbians.

M. Karagianis: I'm very happy today to stand here in the House and support the motion to refer that the member for Port Coquitlam presented to the House under Standing Order 78A: "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."

I have stood in the House previously and made my position very clear with regard to Bill 9 and the HST that this government is in the process of trying to implement in the province of British Columbia. This amendment or this motion to refer that we have before us is, I think, the right and appropriate mechanism to be using at this time in the course of these debates.

I want to talk about why I think it is the appropriate step to take and why I would urge government to use this opportunity to take a very sound and sober second look at their intentions on Bill 9 and the HST and to take this opportunity to listen to the public of British Columbia. This mechanism offers us all of those opportunities.

[1535]

It's very interesting listening to the members of the government trying to justify, after the fact, the implementation of the HST. In fact, I've heard so many of them talk about how bad the PST was for the province of British Columbia, but it's interesting that we've never had that discussion before the HST was discussed. In all of the years in this House that the government has been in power, they have never once voiced or talked about or hinted at this widespread discontent with the PST.

Leading into the election a year ago, again we heard no discourse on the discontent with the PST. So it's not surprising that the public is very concerned about not only the deception around the intentions of the govern-

[ Page 4637 ]

ment on the HST but the fact that now we seem to be rewriting and revisiting history. The PST that the government had not one word of debate on in all of the eight years prior to the election has suddenly fallen to the axe as being some kind of heinous tax.

I've even heard members of the other side talk about the HST as a progressive tax and PST as regressive. They've got it backwards, which goes to demonstrate how very little the government has applied in the way of common sense to this. In fact, the PST has been a progressive tax system, and the HST is a completely regressive tax system.

How members on the other side have managed to flip that around to justify it, I guess, is part and parcel of the mystery of the great HST non-debate in the months leading into the last election and then, of course, the very quick about-face that the government surprised the people of British Columbia with right after the election.

I'll go back to what I said on my debate on Bill 9. I don't believe the government, in fact, even has the mandate to implement the HST. It was not something that was ever presented to the people of British Columbia. They've never had a chance to vote on it. If the government felt so concerned and very sure that this was the great saviour, why was that not delivered and debated on prior to the last election?

I think it's very clear that community sentiment around the HST is running at a very high level. In fact, I've heard people talk about being livid and furious. I hear it in my community every time I step out of this place and engage with my community. So it would seem to me that this opportunity now to refer this bill to a committee for sober second thought and for consultation and for discussion and engagement with the citizens of British Columbia and businesses in British Columbia and the tourism industry and the restaurant association of British Columbia….

This is an opportunity. This is a great opportunity. It is the absolutely appropriate mechanism to use right now in this debate in order to get the government to engage with the citizens of British Columbia and maybe listen to the citizens.

It was very interesting listening to the previous speaker talk about how these taxation issues — PST, HST — are so complex. Well, I would say it's not complex at all. The people in this province clearly understand that this is a tax shift under the HST of $1.9 billion away from business onto consumers. There's no complexity there. The voters and citizens of British Columbia clearly understand that.

I want to refer to a letter that appeared in the Times Colonist just two days ago. I think it really shows the level of sentiment running through the province right now, which I hope would urge the government to consider supporting this referral to committee. It just shows how clearly the citizens of British Columbia feel about the government's HST deception and their attempt to kind of shove this tax down the throats of British Columbians.

I'm going to quote from a gentleman, Stephen Hammond, who wrote to the TC . I will exclude names, because he certainly does refer to the Finance Minister: "The Finance Minister…says people are signing the anti-HST petition based on false information. When this marvellous invention that will save the world came to light immediately after the last election, it was clear that we were lied to. I don't like to be lied to and played a fool. He lied to us. The Premier lied to us, and every Liberal MLA stands up…."

[1540]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, Member.

M. Karagianis: Madam Speaker….

Deputy Speaker: Member, please.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Be careful that you are just quoting….

M. Karagianis: Madam Speaker, this was a letter that appeared in a public newspaper from Mr. Stephen Hammond. These are not my words. I am simply reading from a newspaper article. Madam Speaker, I continue….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

Member, if you cannot do it directly, you cannot do it indirectly. I would like you to withdraw, Member.

M. Karagianis: In that case, Madam Speaker, I withdraw. I will read the last part of the letter instead.

This writer says: "While I hugely object to the transfer of $2 billion in taxes from corporations to citizens, I will be seeking out and signing the petition because…." I will not use the language. This writer believes he was misled.

His purpose for signing the petition and seeking to support the initiative is not about the complexity of the HST but because he felt he was misled. That is the level of sentiment. Certainly, I hear it on the doorstep as do all members on this side of the House, and I can't believe for one moment that government members are not hearing this.

I think that, again, this motion to refer this to committee is appropriate so that those people who are feeling so

[ Page 4638 ]

angry will have an opportunity to have a real and true consultative engagement with government on this. As much as we hear members of the other side talk about the minor discomfort that the HST will create, the very minor implications it will have on households, I would have to say that

article after article, expert after expert has been very clear in writing, in the public, in articles that have appeared in the newspaper.

Here is one that is several days old as well, an

article in the Vancouver Sun from Derrick Penner talking about: "Developers are doing what they can to beat the harmonized sales tax July 1 deadline." It goes on to say: "New homes have always been subject to the 7 percent federal GST, but the harmonized tax will add the 5 percent provincial tax to transactions.""The province included a rebate program that will pay consumers back for taxes on new homes up to $525,000."

In Metro Vancouver the benchmark price for an average typical property is $800,000. This writer goes on to say that after July 1, the HST will add $35,000 to $40,000 onto these homes.

We can see immediately that there are huge implications to new homes from the HST. As much as members of the other side want to minimize the implications of the HST, $40,000 on new home purchases is a huge hit to the purchasers at a time when we know that real estate costs are escalating out of control.

I have another

article here from April 17, and this ran in the Times Colonist . This one talks about rental buildings and how rental buildings are selling slowly. I want to read from this article: "Specialist says there is cause for concern as 2010 progresses." Now we all know that rental housing and rental apartments are very difficult to find, certainly here in the capital region, but affordable rental properties are very hard to find.

"Garry Barsalou, who specializes in the sale of multi-unit rental buildings, said in his annual report there are causes for concern as this year progresses…. Increasing vacancy rates are pressuring rents downward, and the introduction of the harmonized sales tax in July will increase operating expenses for building owners."

Now, I know that often members in here like to quote that the HST is not going to be on rent, but here we have a discussion on rental buildings and whether or not there's going to be a huge implication there. We have someone — not a New Democrat, not someone in this House — writing in the paper about how the HST is going to have huge implications to operating expenses for building owners, therefore starting to jeopardize the availability of rental stock.

[1545]

That's a huge concern, I think, because rental stock, affordable rental buildings, in fact, are a requirement for a good and healthy economy for working people, for anyone who wants to live in the inner city and work in jobs within the inner city. If we see any kind of reduction or erosion of that kind of building stock, I think it's something that we should be very concerned about.

I know that the individual who wrote that, and perhaps the industry itself, would like an opportunity to present their point of view to government. So there is one more justification for this referral to committee and for support of this. In fact, I think the government would welcome an opportunity to discuss these issues with the development community, with those who are involved in rental units.

An

article here that also ran in the Times Colonist , March 31, talks about how the implications for pensioners are going to be significant. HST will still make it tougher for pensioners, mutual fund buyers and those using investment counsellors to properly save for retirement. Again, an issue that is top of mind. It is an issue being debated right across this country — the issue of affordability, of retirement savings, of retirement opportunities for many of us in the working class.

So anytime you see seniors impacted on their ability to save for their retirement, live through their retirement, you have to ask yourself: is this a good move? Is the HST a good move in this particular circumstance?

I think there's an opportunity here for the government to sit and listen to experts from that field and talk with them. So I would say there's a great opportunity here for members of the government to join us in supporting this motion to refer this to a committee and have an opportunity to engage with British Columbians on their concerns and with experts in various fields on the concerns they have about how the HST will impact new buildings, rentals, seniors.

In my closing debates on Bill 9, I talked about the vast number of petitions that have been delivered here in the House. Tens of thousands of signatures were delivered in this House. Certainly, the growing discontent, the public discontent and opposition to this is very evident to everyone in British Columbia. If the government members wish to turn a blind eye to that, I am somewhat mystified as to what their justification is for ignoring constituents — their constituents, all constituents of British Columbia.

I did say: why not listen to the people? Why not have that opportunity to have an engagement with the public? The government refused to do it in the days leading into the election, when they rightly should have done it. They therefore have no mandate to institute the HST now. But they do have a chance here with this referral motion to engage with British Columbians, to listen to the people and in fact to have a second sober thought on this and perhaps repair some of the damage done.

Now, one of the things I did learn in my nine years in local government is that probably the most important thing you can do in determining the future forward for your community, or in this case for the province, is

[ Page 4639 ]

due diligence. That, I believe, is again absent from this debate on the HST.

We heard, leading right up to the election, from this government. They had put in writing that they were not supportive of the HST. They had engaged in no dialogue or debate on the PST. Yet within days of the election, they were contacting Ottawa to institute the HST in, I think, one of the biggest deceptions that the province has ever seen. So the due diligence on all of this seems to have been missing.

I know that in the months since this was announced, the government has tried numerous ploys to try and legitimize the debate or to distract from the debate or to throw red herrings out on the debate.

I think we all know that the little gimmick around "This is for health care" failed and fell apart. Now I hear members on the other side of the House discrediting the PST, although no one had heard that debate until just very recently.

[1550]

The government has failed completely to engage with the community, and they're having, at this point, an opportunity to listen to the public. That's the other rule of engagement with the public: listen to what your constituents want. Those things are missing from this debate and from the government's attempts to kind of ram this HST down people's throats.

There's such a level of angst and concern and anger in the community that I am surprised that government members can stand here and say: "You know, this is all okay. We have experts to tell us." In fact, I think the last member just said that this is good public policy. Well, how could it be good public policy when you've never engaged with the voters? You don't have the mandate to do this. You said one thing prior to the last election. You've done the complete turnabout and opposite after the election.

For most people, like the writer of the letter, it's not about the complexity of the taxation. It's about the deception. It's about the government's arrogance and belief that they can somehow do an about-face after an election and that the electorate will not be unhappy. Well, they're clearly very unhappy and are having their say.

You know, this motion to refer to committee is also appropriate, given the fact that the Finance Committee in 2008 had dealt with this issue. They had actually taken on this topic, and the Finance Committee had recommended that a cost-benefit analysis be conducted to determine whether a harmonized sales tax would be worth considering.

There was an opportunity in 2008 for the very kind of engagement that we are now asking for by referring this bill to committee. That came out of the Finance Committee and apparently was ignored by the government. It was only eight months after the debate had begun, and a firestorm had occurred because of the public concern and anger over this, that the government has looked at any kind of study. That's not what the Finance Committee asked for, and it's certainly not what the public asked for.

Again, this is an opportunity to have that second chance. Lots of times in life we don't get a second chance to go back — you know, a do-over. In all of life's circumstances, we don't get that opportunity. Some things are over and done with, irrevocable. But in this case the government has a chance for a do-over.

They could support this motion, and they could send this bill to committee, do the right thing, engage with citizens, call witnesses and talk to these experts that are clearly ringing the alarm bells about the implications of the HST on their industries, the kind of impacts it will have on affordability for families, the kind of impacts it will have on the pocketbooks of hard-working British Columbians.

I would say that the government has a chance to circumvent any further cynicism and voter apathy at this point by showing that they can stand up and say: "You know what? We made a mistake. We are willing to admit it, and we are willing to take the opportunity now on this motion to refer this." We can take this opportunity and support that, and say: "You know, we admit…."

It takes a pretty big and brave politician to say, "I am wrong; I made a mistake," but you know, the government could do that. I believe that the people of British Columbia would think better of them for it. Certainly, it would change the tone and timbre of the public dialogue that is going on right now, because the public dialogue is growing daily in an anti-government sentiment.

The member for Vancouver-Kingsway yesterday talked about the latest polls that show 2 percent of British Columbians strongly support the HST — 2 percent.

[1555]

Interjection.

M. Karagianis: As the member my friend from Port Alberni says: "Oh, that means only 98 percent of the people oppose it." That is a clear message to the government that they're on the wrong track, that they're doing the wrong thing, that the citizens of British Columbia would appreciate them standing up and admitting: "We made a mistake. We will now refer this to committee. We will try and repair the damage done with voters." But I do hear from members who stand up that they're not prepared to talk about that.

Let's look at some of the sentiment that is bubbling up right across this province. Here is the Vernon Morning Star . "Peter Dorey, Olympia Cycle owner, insists the HST will hurt his business. 'It will be a real deterrent for people to buy bikes and bike parts.'"

Let's remember that bicycles and a greener lifestyle of the future are also another promise that the government

[ Page 4640 ]

has made and touted very loudly — forgotten, kicked aside by this HST. Absolutely disregarded in this new grab for tax money, shifting it away from big corporations and big business into the pocketbooks and onto the backs of the working families in this province. The promise of a greener lifestyle snatched away as well by this. So very truly, the fact that bikes are now going to be hit by this tax….

This cycle owner says: "This is a real attack on health care, the ecology and the economy." That's what's happening in Vernon.

Salmon Arm. Ed Murdoch says: "It's my belief, well enforced by hundreds of thousands of constituents across this province, that the HST is a bad, bad move by the Liberal Party of B.C." There's a warning for the government, should they choose to pick it up.

The Peninsula News Review in Saanich North. Tracy Lawrence and her husband both work in the Saanich Peninsula and have two young children. They're worried about how the HST will affect the family's bottom line. "We don't go to restaurants a lot, but we do like to go for coffee, and that'll cost us more. It will hit every facet of our lives from groceries to activities for our kids."

I know the members will stand up and say: "Oh, there is no HST or PST on groceries." The reality of it is that this is how people feel. This is how they feel about how it will impact their lives, and the government refuses in any way to validate the concerns of the people of British Columbia.

You know, we've stood in this House and asked numerous times for the government to clarify what exactly is going to be hit by the HST, because they've been very, very cagey on revealing those details to people. People are surmising, based on their experience so far with the GST, that this is going to be how it hits their pocketbook. If the government wants to clarify that, then they should come clean on that and produce a list and assure people of how this will hit their pocketbooks.

Here's the Peace Arch News , where Pat Patton, Meals on Wheels coordinator, says: "'People are worried financially,' she said, noting that client numbers are down from around 85 to 70. 'When there's a new tax, or anything is going up, and people on fixed incomes are affected, the first thing that goes is meals.'"

There's where the government is driving this new tax into people's lifestyles. Seniors — again, many on fixed incomes — who already are very stretched…. We know. Over and over again, we've canvassed many of the issues that seniors have with costs in the province, and yet they're going up one more time on many of the things that seniors can purchase.

Why would the government not take the opportunity to support this motion to refer, go to committee, take a closer look at this, weigh up the implications of what is going to happen to families and seniors and say: "You know what? We've made a mistake. We admit it. We need to engage with the public. We need to rethink this step."

[1600]

Duane Round, building chair of the Parksville Lions Housing Society, explains that with the unexpected additional $10,000 cost of the HST onto their building fund, it looks like they would seriously not be able to construct the affordable housing in Parksville that they have planned. A $100,000 cost of HST onto a project that would have built seniors housing in Parksville. So the government cannot turn a blind eye. They cannot turn a blind eye to that. They can't overlook the implications of what that means to communities like Parksville. I mean, it's just not right.

Teunis Westbroek, the mayor — and I know Teunis quite well — has come out. He is signing the HST petition because, he said: "I think the government should own up to the fact that before the election they said they weren't going to bring in the HST and afterwards they did. The least the province can do is own up to that. To push it through the way it was done will badly impact on our local economy, both for tourism and for the housing and construction business."

That's a mayor, and he gets it, totally gets that the government has, in fact, botched this contract with the citizens of British Columbia, and he is very upset by it. Again, I think that would be a good opportunity for the mayor of Parksville to be heard as a witness, to come here to the Finance Committee — for this motion to be referred there and for the mayor to have his views heard and respected as part of the government's engagement and dialogue on this.

Hopefully the government will, again, take this opportunity. I know that so far I've heard from members speaking that they don't intend on taking that opportunity.

I'd like to read one last comment here from Monday Magazine from a woman, Doreen Marion Gee. "Being on a low income, this tax will sting me more than my rich friends. Liberal promises about throwing a few crumbs on our tax rebate cheques are a cruel joke. The first enhanced rebate will come in July 2011, a year after the HST has induced hardship, stripped my measly disability income to the bone."

I see that my time is almost over, and I think it's appropriate that Doreen's voice be one of the last things that I read here into the Hansard , because Doreen understands perfectly all of the chipping away — not only just at her measly income here with the HST but at all the other services the government has cut. We've debated it in this House.

At the same time that they're implementing the HST, they're cutting day care for teenaged moms to stay in school. They are taking away dental services for children on income assistance. There are a whole number of cruel cuts that this government is undertaking. Today we talked about the fact that the suicide prevention program

[ Page 4641 ]

here on the south Island is being cancelled, at a time when we know that youth are at higher risk of suicide.

Interjection.

M. Karagianis: The government is indifferent to the calls from the community to reverse these cuts, and they're in denial. I hear the Minister for Children and Families in denial there.

The fact of the matter is that these cuts are hurting communities at a time when they're now going to have to pay more with the HST. So this motion to refer is absolutely the most important and crucial thing, at this moment in time, that this government could determine to support.

E. Foster: I rise today to speak against the amendment to Bill 9, and I like to refer to it as the waste-of-time amendment. I'm going to speak to the importance of Bill 9 and why we need to move forward with Bill 9, which will speak to why I oppose the amendment and any delay in the implementation.

Since the HST was announced, the NDP has been unable to come up with a cohesive stance. First, it seemed that the NDP was on side with the HST, when they supported the Finance Committee's reports that called for a feasibility study into the HST on November 15 of '07 and '08.

[1605]

On August 4 of '09 we discovered that if elected to government, the NDP would keep the HST. The member for Surrey-Whalley said during an interview with CKNW: "The HST implementation is like having your appendix out. Once it's out, it's done. It's very hard to go back."

More recently, on March 10, 2010, the Leader of the Opposition overturned that remark made by the representative for Surrey-Whalley during a CKNW interview when she said: "We're locked in for five years under this agreement if it passes, and at the end of five years you have an opportunity to serve notice, and I've said that's what we're going to do if we're elected."

Then, of course, the