2011 Legislative Session: Third Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 12

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Presentation of Revised Estimates

Estimates of sums required for the service of the province

Hon. K. Falcon

Tabling Documents

Budget and Fiscal Plan 2011/12–2013/14

Government's service plans

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Interim leadership of NDP

S. Simpson

Protection of drinking water supply

J. Slater

Elizabeth Fry Society

K. Corrigan

Art exchange between 'Namgis First Nation and Germany

L. Reid

Minerals North conference in Stewart

D. Donaldson

Serpentine Enhancement Society

D. Hayer

Oral Questions

Cleaning services at health care facilities

A. Dix

Hon. M. de Jong

M. Farnworth

Services for developmentally disabled persons

N. Simons

Hon. H. Bloy

M. Karagianis

S. Simpson

Government action on B.C. Ferries cancellation of prepaid passes

G. Coons

Hon. B. Lekstrom

K. Corrigan

B.C. Ferries service model

C. Trevena

Hon. B. Lekstrom

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Assistant Deputy Speaker

J. Horgan

Petitions

M. Mungall

Tabling Documents

British Columbia Judges Compensation Commission, final report, 2010

British Columbia Judicial Justices of the Peace Compensation Commission, final report, 2010

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) Initiative Vote and Referendum Act

Hon. B. Penner

B. Ralston

D. Donaldson

S. Simpson

M. Sather

N. Macdonald

J. Brar

H. Bains

D. Routley

J. Horgan

Hon. B. Penner

Bill 5 — New West Partnership Trade Agreement Implementation Act

Hon. P. Bell

J. Kwan

M. Sather

K. Corrigan

B. Simpson

R. Fleming

Hon. P. Bell

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation

Hon. M. Polak

S. Fraser

V. Huntington

B. Simpson

D. Donaldson

G. Coons

[ Page 6529 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2011

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

J. Yap: All members of the House know of the good work of Rotary International, a worldwide organization of 1.3 million Rotarians, many in Canada, who do good work for humanity, promoting peace and harmony and health and the welfare of people.

We have a number of visiting Rotarians from the North Delta Rotary Club. With us today are Sean Hogan, who is the district governor-elect for district 5050 of Rotary International; Neil Inglis; Lornell Ridley; Bob Marshall; Teresa Marshall; Doug Denyer; Bob Attfield; and Elgin Duke.

They're here as the guides for a group study exchange team from Ireland. Rotarian David Falkingham is the GSE team leader, and he's with four team members: Janet Millar, Julie McKee, Patricia Campbell and Tracy Rosborough. This team has been touring British Columbia and Washington State, visiting Rotary clubs and learning about life here in British Columbia and Canada. In a week they return home to Ireland with some great memories, I'm sure, of Rotary life and life here in British Columbia and Canada.

Would the House please join me on giving them a warm welcome on their visit to the Legislature today.

L. Popham: Please join me in welcoming two dear, dear friends of mine. They're two women who I have the utmost respect for. They're women farmers in Saanich, and they run a business called Saanich Organics, which distributes healthy, certified organic food throughout our region. They've been doing it for years. They make their living this way, and I'm hoping maybe they can supply our restaurant here. Please make them welcome.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 53 students from grade 5 who are visiting here from Pacific Academy, one of the best schools in Canada, in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them are their teachers, Mr. Rick Bath and Grant Wirtz, as well as 34 parents and volunteers who have taken time out of their busy schedule. Would the House please make them very welcome.

H. Bains: In the gallery we have Mr. Sudesh Jain and his wife Sushma Jain, all the way from New Delhi, and their daughter Anu Mittal and her husband, Kapil Mittal, along with their two beautiful daughters. Please help me welcome them to this House.

Hon. M. Polak: Today joining us in the gallery we have a friend and constituent of mine, Mr. Tim Lounsbury, along with his grandson Adam Wojak. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Routley: Can the members help me introduce a young man who has been a neighbour of mine for over 20 years — in fact, longer than his 20 or so years, because I've known his parents much longer than that. He's a student visiting us, very interested in politics, very balanced and progressive view, as reflected by his endorsement of the official opposition. Let's all make Nick Wade welcome to the House.

L. Reid: I have the pleasure of introducing nine new Legislative Assembly summer tour guides. They will be with us throughout the summer — please rise — and taking two weeks of training and offering educational tours to many school groups and international tourists who visit the Parliament Buildings during the spring and summer.

I. Black: I need to ask the indulgence of the member for Cowichan Valley, because I'm about to introduce one of his constituents. But I do have a very good excuse, Member, because he happens to be my father.

[1340]

He joined us for lunch today in the Legislature and is pleased to report that the quality of the lemon meringue pie is precisely where it needs to be. Would the House please join me in welcoming my father, Stewart Black, to the House.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'd like to echo the welcome that was made earlier by the member for Surrey-Tynehead, who welcomed the grade 5 students from Pacific Academy. It so happens that a couple of the parents happen to be people I know very well. I would like to welcome Nancy and Rob Martin, who are here with their son Brad on this trip. I would hope that they have a wonderful visit, and I appreciate the opportunity to host them here to watch us in question period.

Welcome.

J. Slater: It is my pleasure to introduce a friend and colleague of mine, Chad Eliason, who is also a councillor for the great city of Salmon Arm. Would the House make him very welcome.

[ Page 6530 ]

D. Hayer: Let me also include my welcome to the members of Rotary Club of North Delta. Dr. Duke used to be my dad's doctor. I've known him for a long time, so I'm happy to see him here with all the Rotary club as well as the Rotarians from Ireland.

Also, I have my niece here, Jasleen Aujla, who will be working as a tour guide. She's a student at UVic, and she's involved in the hockey team. I would like to welcome her. Would the House please make her very welcome.

Congratulations on getting the job working as a tour guide. They definitely need a tour guide who can also explain in the Punjabi language.

R. Hawes: Many of us on this side of the House are anxious to go in to Saanich to buy some organic goods, but unfortunately, the member for Saanich South didn't tell us the name of the guests she has. We're hoping here on this side — hoping against hope — that she'll give the names, please, so we know where to go.

L. Popham: Thank you for making me look so professional in front of my two friends. [Laughter.] Their names are Robin Tunnicliffe and Heather Stretch.

Hon. M. de Jong: Rest assured, we're all on our way.

May 1 to 7 is Drinking Water Week in British Columbia, and to raise awareness, we have two people visiting us in the precincts today. Daisy Foster is the CEO of the B.C. Water and Waste Association. She is joined by Jim Mattison, board member with the B.C. Water and Waste Association. I hope all members of the House will make both of them feel most welcome.

Presentation of Revised Estimates

estimates of sums required

for the service of the province

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2012, presented to the Legislative Assembly May 3, 2011, and a supplement to the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2012, presented to the Legislative Assembly May 3, 2011, recommending the same to the Legislative Assembly.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the said message and the revised estimates accompanying the same be referred to the Committee of Supply in replacement of the estimates that were referred to the committee on February 15, 2011.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. K. Falcon: I have the pleasure to rise and retable the Budget and Fiscal Plan 2011/12–2013/14 , which fulfils the requirements of

section 7 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. The Budget and Fiscal Plan has been revised to reflect the changes to executive council since February 15 but is otherwise unchanged.

[1345]

Mr. Speaker, I also retable, on behalf of the ministers responsible, the service plans required under the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

These documents are presented in two binders. The first binder contains service plans for the Office of the Premier and 17 ministries. The accountabilities in these service plans have been reorganized to reflect the changes to executive council since February 15.

The second binder contains service plans for 27 Crown corporations and agencies and includes a list of organizations that are exempt from the service plan requirements under

section 13 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. It also identifies organizations that are receiving or losing exempt status, together with the reasons for these changes, and four organizations that have been added to the government reporting entity by regulation, with an explanation for these additions.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

INTERIM LEADERSHIP OF NDP

S. Simpson: It's been an eventful political year in British Columbia, with both parties experiencing unanticipated leadership changes. As we all know, such change has a significant impact on the workings of a political party and a caucus. In the case of the government side, Premier Campbell remained in office until the selection of Ms. Clark. On the opposition side, our leader stepped down, creating a vacancy while we waited for the ultimate selection of the member for Vancouver-Kingsway.

Filling that vacuum was a challenge that needed to be addressed, and we survived it well, thanks to the member for New Westminster, who stepped up as interim leader when called upon by our caucus and party. I want to thank her for the stability and leadership she provided, offered up with class, humour, commitment and hard work over the past few months.

As the member for New Westminster likes to say, she was minding the gap, and she did it well. She demonstrated a calm determination in how she executed her responsibilities and, in doing so, built a renewed solidarity in our caucus.

All members have an appreciation of the challenges of leadership. We understand the pressures and the variety of demands put on our leaders, all happening under the

[ Page 6531 ]

spotlight of the media and the public. The member for New Westminster delivered with flying colours during her months at the forefront of the NDP.

As caucus chair, I had the opportunity to work every day with her as we prepared for our new leader and continued to perform our duties as opposition. The member for New Westminster did a remarkable job bringing us through this time in such great shape. She pushed the government hard on issues, always with integrity and a determined respect that advanced our views with clarity and insight, and she worked inside our caucus with a single-minded focus on building our team.

The member for New Westminster has demonstrated the best traits of elected office and leadership, stepping up to the challenge and working to bring people together for a common cause. I know I speak for all members of the official opposition and, I trust, for all members of the House in thanking her for demonstrating the conduct and demeanour that reflects on all of us as elected representatives.

PROTECTION OF DRINKING WATER SUPPLY

J. Slater: As was mentioned, May 1 to 7 is proclaimed Drinking Water Week in B.C. to raise awareness of the value in our water. Our proclamation this week is supported by the B.C. Waste and Water Association, whose mandate is to help safeguard public health and the environment on water matters by providing education, training and knowledge-sharing.

I would like to acknowledge again the guests Daisy Foster and Jim Mattison for all their hard work and their organization in British Columbia, as we have some of the best drinking water in Canada.

The quality of our province's drinking water continuously improves over the years, and we should be proud of that. In the last ten years we have made significant progress in improving the quality and standards of drinking water. In 2003 we enacted the Drinking Water Protection Act to protect water from source to tap and to safeguard the health of British Columbians. This was built on the action plan for safe drinking water, created in 2002 to focus on preventing and treating contamination as well as identifying risks in communities.

[1350]

Examples of investments in drinking water systems include $20 million through Towns for Tomorrow for more than 150 projects, including 61 water and sewer infrastructure projects, and $80 million for 87 projects through the B.C. community water improvement program. Of the projects approved to date through the Building Canada communities component, 80 of them were for water, sewer and wastewater infrastructure, with an investment of more than $100 million.

The B.C. Water and Waste Association has been providing operator training in B.C. for 50 years. We now have more certified operators — more than 1,300 certified since 2002 — and on-line courses designed to help train small-system operators.

I invite you to raise your glass of water, take a sip and acknowledge the great taste of B.C. waters. Cheers.

ELIZABETH FRY SOCIETY

K. Corrigan: This week is National Elizabeth Fry Society Week. The Canadian society was founded in 1939 and named after the British pioneer who was a crusader for prison reform for women.

In Canada the society provides support for women across the spectrum of justice system involvement. Importantly, they focus on the children of those women. The goal of the society is to enhance public awareness and education regarding the circumstances of victimized and criminalized women involved in the criminal justice system. It's important work, supporting perhaps the most marginalized women in society.

My first contact with the good work of the Elizabeth Fry Society came in the 1980s, when I was a member of the Lakeside Advisory Board, a community board which liaised with women prisoners at the Lakeside prison in Burnaby.

Elizabeth Fry members were tireless and dedicated and non-judgmental advocates for a group of women who often were in many ways broken and discarded by society. In my community of Burnaby, among other things, the E. Fry supports girls in custody at the Burnaby Youth Custody Centre by ensuring they understand their rights and teaching them self-advocacy skills. They also provide recreational and educational opportunities to youth and sometimes are just there to listen.

National Elizabeth Fry Week always ends on Mother's Day, because the majority of women who are criminalized and in prison are mothers. Most of them were the sole supporters of their families at the time they were incarcerated. As Elizabeth Fry Societies point out, when mothers are sentenced to prison, their children are sentenced to separation.

I hope everyone will take this opportunity to make themselves familiar with the good work that the society does, consider making a donation and, finally, consider the society's aim to encourage the development of and support for community-based alternatives to costly incarceration.

ART EXCHANGE BETWEEN

'NAMGIS FIRST NATION AND GERMANY

L. Reid: Life is not just about moments that leave you breathless but rather the moments that take your breath away. One of these moments was the opening of the Power of Giving art exchange in Alert Bay, British

[ Page 6532 ]

Columbia. Art is the exchange of ideas and values, exactly what transpired when the 'Namgis First Nation and the people of Dresden, Germany, decided to share their most precious artifacts, when an extremely large museum exchanged their treasures with the U'mista Cultural Centre on Cormorant Island.

When items representing the baroque period in history came to British Columbia and the world's finest mask collection went 11,000 kilometres across the globe to Dresden, Germany, it was a journey of respect for us and for those that come after. "The world cannot be safe for democracy unless it is safe for diversity." These words were spoken by renowned First Nations artist Roy Henry Vickers at the 2011 DIVERSEcity Awards. It was such a pleasure to hear him speak.

We agree that art is about telling stories, about showcasing cultures, and we both know that diversity needs to be celebrated each and every day. I don't believe there's a better example of showcasing cultures today than the exchange entitled Power of Giving.

Special thanks to Dr. Martin Roth, who invited me to participate; Consul General Sitz; and the many wonderful German visitors who have fallen in love with Cormorant Island. You will always be welcome. I would encourage all British Columbians to take in the exhibit on Cormorant Island, which will run through to August 28, 2011.

MINERALS NORTH CONFERENCE

IN STEWART

D. Donaldson: We will rock you, Mr. Speaker. No, that's not a preview of the question period coming up today. "We will rock you" was the slogan of this year's Minerals North Conference held in Stewart April 27 to 29.

I attended and was able to welcome on behalf of all MLAs in this Legislature mining leaders from across the country, exploration companies, suppliers, and local government and First Nations representatives. The mood was upbeat due to some of the best commodity prices on record. This makes for a very promising exploration season this year and an improved outlook for mining in the northwest.

[1355]

The significance of the region from a mineral perspective to the province and even nationally was noted by a number of the expert speakers. The enthusiasm was tempered somewhat by a concern expressed by many at the conference over a lack of resources in the permitting, monitoring, assessment and First Nations consultation sections of ministries that deal with mining. As was pointed out, this could hinder the ability of the sector to react quickly and efficiently to the bump in commodity prices.

Aside from industry, there was also positive news from Geoscience B.C., which will invest in a $3 million data-gathering exploration program in the northwest this year. This is the type of work from the publicly funded body that has spurred private sector investments when conducted in other parts of the province. Geoscience B.C. does valuable work, as was recognized by the bipartisan Finance Committee of this Legislature that recommended its activities be further funded after 2011.

"We will rock you" really did rock, and that was in large part due to the enormous effort of Stewart. Mayor Angela Brand Danuser, her staff, volunteers and the people of that small community put on an incredible show. The sun shone for three days, and the community with Canada's most northerly ice-free deep-sea port created the atmosphere for an extremely successful Minerals North.

Congratulations to all involved.

SERPENTINE ENHANCEMENT SOCIETY

D. Hayer: There is an organization in my constituency whose only goal is to make the world a better place. They do it quietly and without conflict and with little help from anyone other than the members and volunteers. In fact, every member of the Serpentine Enhancement Society is a volunteer, from its president, Glenn Wright, to directors and members Dr. Tom Goodman, Barry Child, Alan Dobby, Dave Woods, Carol Wright, Frank Marshalock, Bruce Easton, Chris Hamming, and Ebb and Julia Budgell.

The goal of these fine people is to return the valuable salmon runs to the Serpentine River, the leisurely stream that winds its way throughout one of the most urban places in Canada, my city of Surrey.

On the last Earth Day the Serpentine Enhancement Society increased the population of the stream by releasing 20,000 juvenile salmon raised in the Tynehead Hatchery, located in Tynehead Park in my riding. These society members raised salmon for the future. They raised awareness of the importance of fish and about the environment, with our young people, through ongoing interaction with elementary schools and children throughout the city of Surrey with all schools.

There are hundreds of volunteers who diligently contribute their time to keep the valuable hatchery, wildlife habitat enhancement and education programs ongoing. Some of them volunteer hundreds of hours every year. This excellent organization is holding an open house and fundraiser on Sunday, May 8. I urge everyone in the House and everyone in Surrey to attend this very important event and ask all members in the House to thank and congratulate every member and all the volunteers of the Serpentine Enhancement Society for the important work they do for our environment, for our future.

[ Page 6533 ]

Oral Questions

CLEANING SERVICES AT

HEALTH CARE FACILITIES

A. Dix: My question, as promised, is to the Minister of Health. I wanted to say to the Minister of Health that I don't think…. I don't believe the fact that he's surrounded by four former Health Ministers and a highly regarded doctor is any indication of a lack of confidence by the Premier.

My question is a very simple one. As he knows, problems with hospital cleaning and hospital cleanliness caused the Vancouver Island Health Authority to take away seven cleaning contracts from Compass. Now, those contracts were awarded to another contractor, Marquise, and then what did Compass do? They bought the company. They bought Marquise. This absurd situation is being allowed to continue. When will the Minister of Health put patients first and stop this failed privatization agenda on Vancouver Island?

[1400]

Hon. M. de Jong: To the opposition leader in this our first exchange: I appreciate his concern for my well-being. I'd observe, looking at who's sitting next to him, that old House Leaders never die. They just fade into health care.

To the question at hand, though, the member will know — and I'm sure all members understand — the importance that the government places on ensuring that the health facilities that British Columbia's families visit are maintained to the highest possible standards of cleanliness. That has been the policy. It continues to be the policy.

Those standards will be rigidly enforced, and happily, we are in a position, given the work that has been done by some of those previous ministers in the government, that we can actually assess that in ways that very few jurisdictions can and in ways that were impossible just ten years ago in B.C.

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

A. Dix: Dramatic increases in hospital-borne infections. Repeated violations of WorkSafe rules. That's the record. The government in 2008 nonetheless renewed without bid this contract.

The fact of the matter is that hospital cleanliness is a major problem in British Columbia, and everybody knows it but the government. Their auditors are the only ones in the world who believe there's no link between cleanliness and the spread of infection.

Now, this case shows the absurdity of the government's policy. They took action against Compass, and Compass is going to get all of those contracts. When will the minister take action? When will he take action to protect patients on Vancouver Island and deal with this privatization agenda?

Hon. M. de Jong: What I do find somewhat curious is that the member relies upon data or purports to rely upon data that exists, whereby only ten years ago, none of that data would exist. The previous administration showed no interest in actually measuring on an ongoing basis what was taking place within our health care facilities. That has not been the approach of this government or the health authorities.

I might also say this. In making the comments he has in this chamber, what the member really does is disparage the work of hard-working men and women who day in, day out attend at health care facilities in British Columbia and keep those facilities clean to the very best of their ability.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

A. Dix: The disrespect with which this government has treated health care workers has been established everywhere in Canada including at the Supreme Court. So for the minister to suggest that a government that has cut the level of cleaning is concerned about workers is an insult, hon. Speaker. It is an insult.

Why don't they take action now? They even acknowledge that their scheme didn't work on Vancouver Island. They even had to intervene to deal with Compass, and now Compass is frustrating that process by buying the company and getting the contracts back.

Why doesn't he take advantage now before this process is gone through and repatriate those contracts so that people on Vancouver Island can ensure that they have clean hospitals to go to in the future instead of the government's agenda, which apparently is to cut costs in that one area of health care where surely no one believes costs should be cut. When is he going to take action and reverse this privatization agenda?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, there in his final comment reveals the true frustration. The member remains opposed and objects to any of the partnerships that draw on the dynamism that exists within the private sector to ensure….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat for a second. Sit down.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

[1405]

[ Page 6534 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: At a time when the health care budget in the span of just ten years has essentially doubled from just over $9 billion to almost $18 billion, we are going to do two things as a government. We are going to ensure that British Columbia families access health care facilities that are kept to the highest standards possible in terms of cleanliness, and we are going to continue to look for innovative ways to partner with the energy that exists in the private sector of British Columbia to help deliver those services where it is appropriate to do so.

M. Farnworth: What British Columbians want to see in their hospitals is cleanliness, not outbreaks of C. difficile . That's what British Columbians want to see in their hospitals in B.C.

Nanaimo General Hospital is synonymous with infection control problems in the province of British Columbia. In 2008 a C. difficile outbreak resulted in more than 90 cases of illness and three deaths. Those infection rates have continued up to the present day. Last year alone, there were 11 deaths due to C. difficile in the same region.

My question is: given the fact that VIHA is once again looking at changing cleaning contracts in the province of British Columbia, why doesn't the province do the right thing and bring that contract back in-house and get cleanliness standards back to where British Columbians expect them to be?

Hon. M. de Jong: In-house, out-house, out-of-house — the objective is to have hospitals that are maintained to the highest possible standard. If the members can't step beyond this ideological connection they have with a particular way of delivering service, then that's their problem. But the government is going to continue to look for ways to ensure that we are capitalizing on innovation and at the same time ensuring that B.C. families can access hospitals and health care facilities secure in the knowledge that they are being maintained to the highest possible standards of cleanliness.

M. Farnworth: What's been ideological is this government's approach to health care and their ideological disrespect not only to health care workers but to what the people of this province expect, which is cleanliness in hospitals.

Last spring 11 people died during a C. difficile outbreak which finally ended in August. It's due in part to shoddy housekeeping taking place, not meeting the standards maintained in contracts. VIHA is considering changing the contract in Nanaimo General Hospital once again.

So will the minister ensure the right thing and do the right thing, which is bring those housekeeping standards back in-house and ensure that people have confidence once again in the housekeeping taking place in British Columbia hospitals?

Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, anytime there is a death in whatever circumstances, it is tragic. But in raising this issue — and the member as critic, the members of the opposition will appropriately raise them — he should do his homework and be fair and be clear about what some of the assigned causes for those deaths were and how the germ was brought into the hospital. That's all I'll say about that.

But the member went on to talk about the standards. He's a former Health Minister. Mr. Speaker, what was different when that member was a Health Minister, than any of the people on this side, is there were no standards. It is that absence…. It is the fact that as government and when he was minister there were no standards that, I think, lies at the root of the frustration.

[1410]

There are standards today, and we are going to work with the health authorities to ensure that those standards are maintained at hospitals right across British Columbia.

SERVICES FOR

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED PERSONS

N. Simons: Last week in this House the minister responsible for Community Living B.C. said that no adult with a developmental disability was forced to move out of their group home. Perhaps the minister could tell that to Renata Cole of Terrace, whose daughter and three other residents of a home were required to move because of the budget pressures put on by this government to Community Living B.C.

Can the minister please explain to that family how their daughter was forced to move?

Hon. H. Bloy: To the member across the way, in my short time in this ministry I have been assured by Rick Mowles, the CEO of Community Living British Columbia, that no one has ever been moved without their prior approval, without being part of the planning process.

In my meetings with the British Columbia Association for Community Living, Faith Bodnar and some of the families associated with them talked about the great work that Community Living British Columbia does. In fact, they were recognized as the leader across Canada in the work that Community Living B.C. does.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: Maybe the minister's responsibility now is to look objectively at the programs his government provides instead of listening without question to everything he's been told by the people who are propping

[ Page 6535 ]

him up. These are families that are being impacted by the minister's cuts. These are families that are being told contradictions to reality. Despite what the minister said last week, we've had group home closures, forced moves. We've had program cuts, budget cuts, and now we have a minister who's in denial.

There's a person in British Columbia who waits by the door. After 20 years of going to a day program, he's no longer funded. He puts his coat on, and he waits by the door for his lift. If that's not a program cut, I don't know what is.

What is this minister going to do to get to the truth of the issue in his ministry and actually address the needs of families who have a member with a developmental disability?

Hon. H. Bloy: I want to reiterate to the member across the way that group homes are not a choice. Group homes have not been closed. Every individual has been asked if they want to move out. Not every person wants to live in a group home.

You know, this is not about the budget; this is about a plan which is best for individuals. There are lots of people that live in our communities. They work in our community, they have disabilities, they study in our community. We have athletes that are training, living in our community. These are about choice, and these choices are made by individuals without any question of being forced to move.

M. Karagianis: I just heard the minister say that government offers a plan that is best for individuals. Well, I'd like the minister to tell that to Kirsten Eikenstein. She has been caring for her daughter Corrine for the past 19 years here in greater Victoria.

Corrine has cerebral palsy, is unable to use her hands and is 100 percent dependent on all aspects of care. Now, Corrine was receiving 12 hours of care a week, but this B.C. Liberal government cut that. Now Corrine gets two hours respite a week, and when she turns 18 and finishes high school, that will be cut.

So I'd like to ask the minister: do you think it's okay for people like Corrine to be cut off of services entirely when they turn 18 years of age?

Hon. H. Bloy: I can assure the members across the way that Community Living British Columbia is reviewing members and…. What's the word I'm looking for? They…. I'm sorry.

[1415]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. H. Bloy: Community Living B.C. reviews each client that comes into the system. Clients with special needs are reviewed from about the age of 15 so that they're prepared. They have a plan ready for that individual when they come into Community Living British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: I'm actually quite shocked that the government thinks that zero support is a plan for any child aging out of school. But maybe the minister can defend the numbers to Janet Gann. She's been the primary caregiver for her disabled son for the past 19 years, despite her own health issues.

Janet's son has been doing a job training program in Burnaby and is part of the Special Olympics skating team. Community inclusion is very paramount to her son's mental health. Yet, once Janet's son completes high school, he will no longer receive any supports — none of the supports necessary to be part of his community.

Janet wants to know from this minister why her son should have to pay for the B.C. Liberal government funding squeeze for this ministry.

Hon. H. Bloy: Community Living British Columbia has not cut its budget. It has increased by $13 million over the last year, and it continues to work with innovative approaches to help all individuals.

You know, we had a report out last week from BC-CLAG. I've read that report. I'm reviewing it, and I look to further talking with my staff about that report.

S. Simpson: This minister and the B.C. Liberals are failing people with developmental disabilities in British Columbia. That's the reality, particularly for people who are living in group homes. So 33 closures, and young people moving from Children and Families to CLBC are finding that there is no service available for them when they get there. That's the reality we're facing.

This minister talks about the assessments that are done. Well, let's talk about that. This assessment is done by the Guide to Support Allocation . That's what CLBC uses. Let me read you one clause out of this flawed report: "Staff are to focus on current disability-related needs as outlined within the plan, rather than past or anticipated future need."

My question to the minister: does he think it makes any sense that with a person with a developmental disability, when you do their assessment, you ignore their history, and you ignore their potential future condition? Is that his idea of an assessment?

Hon. H. Bloy: Our first priority as a government and through Community Living British Columbia remains the individuals and the families that we support. There

[ Page 6536 ]

have been no budget cuts. I want to reiterate that. There's been a $13 million increase.

Community Living British Columbia remains committed to serving our clients with innovative support and services. We want to reach out to each client that we have within the system. I'm proud of the work that Community Living staff and their 3,200 contract providers provide to these people across all of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Let's talk about those providers. This minister talks about the providers. Well, most of them are members of the B.C. Association for Community Living. This minister talked about Faith Bodnar, their executive director. So what has she said about the performance of this government? "We know that service redesign is not an answer to addressing the funds needed for those who are waiting for service…. It is short-sighted, poor and harmful excuse for fiscal planning…and…completely unsustainable." That's what the community thinks about this government's plan.

Hon. Speaker, the plan has failed. The reality is this: 600 people a year, new people coming into the system, and no money for them.

Will the minister go to his friend, the Finance Minister, and get him to give a few of that $2½ billion of cushion to Community Living B.C. so the developmentally disabled don't have to pay for your fiscal mismanagement?

[1420]

Hon. H. Bloy: I want to reassure, to the members opposite, that our first priority is always the individual and their families. I can tell you that Community Living B.C. has not had a cut in budget. It's had an increase of $13 million. I've met with the community living association of British Columbia in the discussions that I've had.

They're so proud of the work that CLBC does in British Columbia. They recognize them as a leader is what they told me in a meeting that I had with them and some of their family members. I look forward to meeting with them again in the future. But they were pleased with the work that we were doing. They considered Community Living British Columbia a leader in providing services for individuals with developmental disabilities.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON B.C. FERRIES

CANCELLATION OF PREPAID PASSES

G. Coons: B.C. Ferries unilaterally changed the rules for prepaid Coast Cards and seized well over a million dollars from thousands of B.C. families who bought the cards expecting the ferry corporation to honour them. The issue is serious enough that there's a threat of a class action lawsuit.

Instead of forcing British Columbians to take a government-owned corporation to court, will the Minister of Transportation solve this today by making B.C. Ferries honour the cards or give the money back?

Hon B. Lekstrom: This issue has obviously come to the forefront, and we've heard about it. I know the important part of this — and I know the member will agree, or I think he would — is that the ferries commissioner has recognized that this is a concern, as well, and has also said that he is going to investigate this, look into it, put a report together and get back to us. I'm looking forward to those findings, as I'm sure the member is and all British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Coons: It has come to the ferries commissioner's table, and he's acknowledged that he can't do anything about it. He can make recommendations, but nobody has to follow those. This is obviously a B.C. Liberals–sanctioned ripoff of ferry users and families.

The results of a poll released in March showed 87 percent of the province wants this government to step in and force B.C. Ferries to honour the deal they made with customers and either pay back the money they took or honour the cards. So far, the only message this Liberal government is sending to families is that they're out of luck.

Once again, to the Transportation Minister: will this government put families first and give back the money for those who bought the cards in good faith?

Hon B. Lekstrom: As I said in my previous answer to the member, the independent ferries commissioner is looking into this. I'm looking forward to the results of his findings, and at that time we'll look into it.

But what I do find interesting is how righteous the member believes he is. Let's just point out — and this will be an uncomfortable fact….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon B. Lekstrom: Between 1991 and 1999 there was a 70 percent fare increase through B.C. Ferries when your government held office. I don't know how you can be so righteous, Member. It doesn't work.

K. Corrigan: Boy, I sure would love it if the people on the other side of this aisle would get into this millennium, let alone this decade. In 2007 New Democrats introduced legislation to remove an expiry date from gift cards. Under pressure, this B.C. Liberal government eventually passed a watered-down piece of legislation

[ Page 6537 ]

with a $1.2-million-wide loophole that B.C. Ferries has exploited.

If the Minister of Transportation won't stand up for British Columbians, will the Solicitor General step in and force B.C. Ferries to either honour the prepaid cards or pay back the customers?

Hon B. Lekstrom: I do understand why the member would not want to go back to the 1990s. No British Columbians do.

[1425]

We actually, obviously, recognize — as does the independent ferries commissioner — that this is an issue. He has made a commitment that he is going to look into it, review this issue. I'm looking forward to the results — as, I'm sure, the member is, and the member that asked the question. I'm looking forward to the results of that, and we will see what happens.

B.C. FERRIES SERVICE MODEL

C. Trevena: Mr. Speaker, 70 percent of British Columbians reject the way this government privatized our ferries, and they want the government to return them to our public hands. To the Minister of Transportation: does he support the model for B.C. Ferries as set down in the Coastal Ferry Act?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It's interesting to note, when you look at customer satisfaction, that it's at an all-time high today. I don't hear issues regarding the service. It was clear, obviously, when the price increase under PT3 came out, it was an issue. The people raised their concerns. Whether it be a 4 percent or an 8.23 percent increase, it obviously is a concern. I share that concern.

I know the commissioner today is hearing from the people of British Columbia about what their ideas are, what they would think is an acceptable increase. When they talk about that, the commissioner will then take that information, put together his final report and report back to British Columbians.

I'm looking forward to that. We have a world-class ferry system, one that provides an incredible level of service to the people it serves. Can it get better? Everything we do in our day-to-day lives can get better, Member, and I'm going to work hard as your Minister of Transportation to ensure that that happens.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: I actually asked the minister whether he supports the model for B.C. Ferries under the Coastal Ferry Act, and I'm assuming his long-winded answer about the ridiculous increases in fares means that yes, he does. But I would just like to explore it a little more, assuming that the minister really does agree with this.

The minister had a one-on-one meeting with Comox-Strathcona regional district director Jim Abram, and Mr. Abram wrote that the minister supports having the ferries under highways and that the minister's only challenge is convincing cabinet that the experiment with the B.C. Ferry Services has failed and that it's time to fix it.

So I would like to know what the minister thinks. Should our ferries be part of our highways system or not?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I did have a good meeting with Jim, who's a long-time friend. I got to know Jim when I was the mayor of Dawson Creek and even before that when I was a councillor. Jim actually had relayed his thoughts, saying it should be back under. I said: "That's one interesting point." I said: "I'm prepared to look at anything." [Laughter.]

It's obviously humorous for the members across. I'm glad you're happy today. Quebec must be a highlight for you, I'm guessing.

What we can tell the members…. Obviously, when I look at service levels, when I look at customer satisfaction levels…. Is the model working? The model is working, or those levels wouldn't be as high as they are today. Are increases a concern? Increases are always a concern in our day-to-day lives, whether we're talking ferry fares or anything else.

I do want to remind the member — and this is something I'm sure the other side has forgotten — that between 1991 and 1999, there was a reason for a 70 percent increase in the ferry rates during that time. For you to stand there and laugh and shrug it off and hope the public forgets that, it doesn't work. The reality is that we have a world-class system. We have invested in new boats, in new docks; we continue to invest. B.C. Ferries continues to invest in that, Member, and we are going to ensure that we continue to have the best ferry system in the world.

[End of question period.]

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF

ASSISTANT DEPUTY SPEAKER

J. Horgan: By leave, I move, seconded by the member for Fort Langley–Aldergrove electoral district, that Dawn Black, member for New Westminster electoral district, be appointed Assistant Deputy Speaker for this session of the Legislative Assembly.

Motion approved.

[1430]

M. Mungall: I rise to present a petition.

[ Page 6538 ]

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

M. Mungall: I have a petition here from 544 residents of the Creston Valley regarding Urmston Creek. They're looking for the provincial government to cancel the conditional water licence for industrial bottle sales on that creek and also to conduct an environmental assessment of this community watershed prior to the issuance of any future large volume water licences.

Tabling Documents

Hon. B. Penner: I have the honour to present the following reports: the final report of the 2010 British Columbia Judges Compensation Commission and the final report of the 2010 British Columbia Judicial Justices of the Peace Compensation Commission.

I'm also obliged to make some observations about the reports, concerning the compensation of provincial court judges and judicial justices. In particular, under

section 6(1) of the Judicial Compensation Act…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. B. Penner: …when these reports are tabled.... I'm obliged to advise the assembly that pursuant to

section 6(3) of the act, if the assembly does not resolve to reject any recommendations contained in the reports within the timelines established by the act, then the judges and judicial justices will receive the salaries and benefits as recommended in the respective reports.

I wish to further advise members that the government is duly considering the reports at this time.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House we will be doing second reading of Bill 4, intituled the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) Initiative Vote and Referendum Act; and in

section A, in the Douglas Fir Committee Room, we will be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — HARMONIZED SALES TAX (HST)

INITIATIVE VOTE AND REFERENDUM ACT

Hon. B. Penner: I move that Bill 4, the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) Initiative Vote and Referendum Act, be read now a second time.

This act follows through on the government's commitment to resolve the question of the harmonized sales tax more quickly and efficiently. As members will already know, the government has ordered a referendum on the HST to be held under the Referendum Act. That referendum will take place beginning next month, with ballots being mailed to all registered voters starting the week of June 13.

Voters will have a number of weeks to receive their ballots and consider their votes before returning them to Elections B.C. I pause here to note that those ballots must be received back by Elections B.C. not later than 4:30 p.m. on July 22. That doesn't mean putting them in the mail on that day. That means they must be put in the mail sufficiently in advance so that they're received by Elections B.C. by July 22. Final results should be known in early August.

Using a mail-in ballot means a substantial cost savings compared to an in-person initiative vote, which is what would have been required under the Recall and Initiative Act. The cost of the mail-in ballot is estimated at about $12 million, compared to the $30 million it would have cost to have an in-person initiative vote.

Also, under the Referendum Act the threshold is a simple majority, unlike the higher threshold that is required for an initiative vote. This follows through on government's commitment last fall to abide by the wishes of a simple majority of British Columbians as expressed through a referendum.

The bill itself is straightforward. It cancels the initiative vote that is currently required under the Recall and Initiative Act on the HST petition and draft bill that was submitted to the Chief Electoral Officer last September. For certainty, the bill also confirms that the Recall and Initiative Act does not apply to the referendum that is being held on the HST question.

I look forward to comments from other members.

B. Ralston: I rise to address this bill on behalf of the official opposition.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The bill arises out of the changes that took place when the previous Premier decided that the referendum would proceed under the Referendum Act rather than under the Recall and Initiative Act. It revises

section 13 of the Recall and Initiative Act, which sets out the procedure for an initiative vote, as it's called, rather than a referendum, following upon the successful receipt and certification of a petition.

[1435]

The initiative vote is set out in

section 13, requiring the Chief Electoral Officer to hold an initiative vote. It also goes on to say at

section 13(3) that "the regulations may (

a) specify what provisions of the Election Act apply,

[ Page 6539 ]

and (

b) adapt any of the provisions of the Election Act with changes that the regulations may provide."

The date is set by

section 14: "If required, initiative votes must be held on September 28, 1996 and on the last Saturday of September every third year after that date." That's how we came to the date that was referred to previously, the date in September of this year.

Now, the amendment does away with the requirement to have a vote at that time, and the referendum will proceed under the provisions of the Referendum Act.

The Referendum Act is a very brief document. It gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — that is, the cabinet — the opportunity to make regulations that govern the operation of the referendum. I'm quoting from

section 6: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations (

a) providing that specified provisions of the Election Act apply to and in relation to a referendum under this Act, and (

b) adapting any provisions of that Act with changes that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers appropriate."

There's a wide possibility there to adapt provisions of the Election Act. I'll be referring to the most notable decision in the regulations that have been put forward, which thus far appear to be the only regulations that are going to be put forward, in the sense that there's no registration required of third parties — that is, people other than the government and the opposition or the proponents — and there's no restriction on the dollar amount that they might spend.

Before I get to that…. That is a very significant aspect of the way in which this referendum will be conducted as opposed to the Recall and Initiative Act, where there was a much more restrictive approach to those provisions. Let's first, if I might, deal with the very issue of the referendum.

There was a considerable debate in the province, broadly speaking, where many people, including many affected businesses, thought that to wait until September for a referendum was…. The uncertainty that that engendered was unfairly damaging their business — particularly in the home-building sector, but other sectors of the economy. Then because of that debate and because of that public pressure, and I think because of the sheer logic of the position, there was discussion about moving the date forward — in other words, into June.

In fact, the new leader of the Liberal Party, although she did slightly deviate from that position at first…. She first proposed cancelling the referendum in favour of a free vote here in the Legislature, a position that I think it would be fair to say was rejected, if not ridiculed, by even fellow Liberal leadership candidates.

After putting forward that position and that flopping, falling on its face, she then moved to the position that the referendum be held on June 24. This was part of the public discussion. It was part of the Liberal leadership debate between leadership candidates, and that became her position. Indeed, in her policy book she stated that "our government will proceed with a June referendum on the HST. The date for the referendum should be June 24."

It is notable that in none of the discussion, none of the material, none of the media interviews, none of the campaign material — indeed, nowhere — was it ever said that it would be a mail referendum with the results coming not in June but in August. That's a significant shift in the position. That was never set forward anywhere as part of the public record at any time.

[1440]

Significantly, as well, the Premier, Ms. Clark, also said in her material: "The referendum will be conducted in the same manner as a provincial election." I'm reading from her policy book, page 11. "The referendum will be conducted in the same manner as a provincial election."

Ordinarily — and I don't think one would dispute this — as a simple matter of fact, the elections provincially are not conducted by a mail ballot. That may be fine for certain forms of society elections or credit union elections, but they're not conducted by a mail-in ballot. Yet the Premier apparently decided that this would be conducted as a mail-in ballot.

That promise, set out in her policy book, was probably broken relatively quickly, because there's no way in which one would construe this mail-in ballot as conducting a referendum in the same manner as a provincial election.

Her course on this matter has been somewhat haphazard — a stab at a vote in the House and no referendum, a promise to have the referendum conducted in the same manner as a provincial election and then resorting to a mail-in ballot, breaking her word on that. That's where we have got to at this point.

We've now had a sense of how this referendum campaign will be conducted. As I said, significantly under the Recall and Initiative Act — and this would be also the case if one is talking about conducting it in the same manner as a provincial election; her words, not mine — there would be limits on spending by third parties. Indeed, that is the case, and I'll get to the court case that decided this issue not too long ago.

Under the Recall and Initiative Act, proponents and opponents must register, have a financial agent, disclose contribution information 90 days after the referendum, comply with limits on anonymous contributions, comply with expense limits. Advertisers must be registered, disclose advertising expenses, comply with a $5,000 limit for third-party advertisers and identify the sponsor in the ad.

Significantly, this referendum…. Despite the power vested in the cabinet to make those regulations — because the Referendum Act gives the cabinet the power to do that, and indeed, they've already promulgated some fairly routine regulations taken from the Election Act

[ Page 6540 ]

about the ballot and timing and various other eligibility issues, a typical election process — the government has declined to issue any direction whatsoever on campaign finance.

Now, one has to think back to 2008. Here in this chamber the government — the then Attorney General, former Court of Appeal Judge Mr. Justice Oppal — put forward a bill to limit third-party spending not simply during the 28 days from which the date between the election and the time the election is called but extending back 120 days from the date on which the election writ would be issued.

[1445]

That was debated. During the course of the debate the proposed restriction was amended and reduced to 60 days, and it was vigorously defended here in the chamber — about the influence, the effect of third-party advertising on democratic process.

If I might, I'd like to quote the then Attorney General, Mr. Oppal, on May 5, 2008:

"These limits mirror those contained in the Canada Elections Act. We believe these limits are fair and reasonable and will allow third parties to participate in the electoral process without having a disproportionate influence over election outcomes. Again, an important reason for reintroducing spending limits is the effect that set election dates have on the nature of political campaigns in British Columbia.

"As well, in the Supreme Court of Canada, the Hon. Mr. Justice Michel Bastarache, in upholding third-party campaign spending, wrote: 'Without the limits'" — this is not some wild NDP theorist or even an MLA here; this is a member of the Supreme Court of Canada who's saying this — "'a few wealthy groups could drown out others in debates on important political issues.' We agree with that" — to resume quoting Mr. Justice Oppal, as he was at one point, then the Attorney General — "and that is why we are setting reasonable limits on what third parties can spend."

This was in defence of a limit of restricting third-party spending 60 days prior to the issuing of the writ. That ultimately went to the Supreme Court and was struck down, but the limit on third-party advertising during the 28 days prior to the election was not challenged and remains in force. That was the balancing act that was struck by the Supreme Court in its earlier decision, that there could be fewer limits or no limits prior to the issuing of the writ, but during the formal campaign, in order to ensure that a few wealthy groups don't drown out others in debates on important political issues, there be limits on campaign spending.

This appears to be a very commonsense decision. I think it would pass the head nod test, as sometimes people call it, where people sitting around, either at a workplace or at a coffee shop, think there should be some limit on spending in the process of a referendum so that some wealthy groups can't drown out others, to quote Mr. Justice Bastarache. I think most people would agree with that.

Yet this government has chosen to put absolutely no limits on third-party spending — none whatsoever. That really, for most people, causes real concern. We have the Minister of Finance, who has fashioned himself as a neutral arbiter in this process, so he would have us believe, yet third parties will be out there able to spend as much as they want without any restriction, even the kind of restrictions that were in the Recall and Initiative Act.

One can well imagine why there were certain reasons to move for the referendum. Under the Referendum Act, the threshold is different. But an unintended consequence, if one is charitable, or an intended consequence, if one is not, is that these restrictions on third-party spending no longer exist in this referendum. That is of concern to most British Columbians — about the fairness of the referendum process when there is no limit on third-party spending.

It appears that there's no intention to change that. We're well down the road, although I suppose given that we are at the end of April, it would still be open to the government, by order-in-council…. That is, the cabinet could still decide, under the Referendum Act, to put some reasonable limits on third-party spending. We're not asking for a ban — I don't think anyone is asking for a ban — but some reasonable limits, such as those in the Recall and Initiative Act. But I don't expect we'll hear that at all.

In what appears to be a very routine bill, a change that's required to remove the necessity for the Chief Electoral Officer to conduct a referendum in September since one is being conducted by mail ballot beginning in June with results in August, we have some very different results being produced.

[1450]

If I might say, the new Premier, despite her public statement that the referendum would be conducted in the same manner as a provincial election, has broken that promise in two significant ways. One, it will be a mail-in ballot, which is certainly not the way in which a provincial election is conducted, and secondly, there will be no limits whatsoever at any point in the process on third-party spending.

That, I suppose, is the damp clarion call of the new order across the way — two broken promises, a significant deviation within months of issuing her statement as a prospective candidate for the leadership of her party. It's a fairly dismal start for sure and of significant public concern to British Columbians. So with those brief comments, Madam Speaker, I'll resume my place and turn over the floor to other speakers.

[ Page 6541 ]

D. Donaldson: Hon. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 4, the Harmonized Sales Tax Initiative Vote and Referendum Act. I'd like to take a few moments to talk to this bill, and my comments will centre on fairness and trust. I have a suggestion. I always like offering suggestions to the government to improve bills. So I'm going to offer a suggestion, and then I'm going to also provide a comment around the bill.

My suggestion is around fairness. The fairness involves the spending on the campaigns that will result from this bill. We recently had the Finance Minister announce the government will be spending $1.7 million of taxpayers' money over the next couple of months on HST information. That doesn't actually even include the taxpayer-funded advertising campaign, the costs of which still haven't been worked out.

But in regards to this money, the Premier, Premier Clark, talked during her campaign….

Interjection.

D. Donaldson: The Premier talked previously about "equal funding to both sides of the question." Let's have a look at that $1.7 million. Out of that money, $250,000 is allotted to the no side on the HST on this referendum question. So much for the Premier's promise back in February committing to equal funding to both sides of the question.

Out of $1.7 million, $250,000 is allotted to the no side. So I would say, as a question of fairness, that doesn't equal fairness in most people's minds.

As well as the question of fairness, the third party, which my colleague has described very well previous to my speaking here…. There are no limits in this bill, Bill 4, regarding third-party spending. Unlike in the Recall and Initiative Act, there was potential for limits to be placed on third-party spending.

What does this mean? Well, the big winners will be those who are in favour of the HST. Groups. What are these groups? We know a few of the groups who have come out of the woodwork. These were the groups like the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association and the industry-funded Coast Forest Products Association.

They're the same set of groups that went to court last July to try to prevent the HST initiative from seeing the light of day. They, I believe, were trying to use constitutional arguments to prevent the initiative question from getting out there, and that didn't work out very well.

[1455]

The courts rejected the arguments of these groups. As a result and in the end, the anti-HST petition gathered more than 700,000 signatures and was allowed to stand. Going back again to third-party spending and what it all actually means, it turns out that reporting during the court case that these groups initiated identified that the groups had donated more than $160,000 to the B.C. Liberal Party. I suppose that by going to court they were just trying to get value for their money, since the government had botched the job of delivering the HST in the first place for them. That's one thing about fairness in third-party spending.

Again, it's worth repeating the quote that my hon. colleague, has already entered into Hansard . I think it's worth reporting because it does come from a Supreme Court justice, Mr. Justice Bastarache, who said, in regard to third-party spending: "Without the limits, a few wealthy groups could drown out others in debates on important political issues." Of course, as we've heard, the former Attorney General of this government, the hon. Wally Oppal, agreed with that statement.

So we have a situation where the Premier has said that we want equal funding to both sides of the question. Most people would think: "Well, that means pretty well equal funding to both sides of the question, whether you're in favour of the HST or whether you reject the HST." We know that 700,000 people have already signed, saying they reject the HST. But equal funding to both sides of the question, without third-party spending limits, without the transparency around that….

I understand Open Government is now part of a ministry on the other side of this floor. You know, it would be nice to see. If we're talking about open government, then we should have transparency about third-party spending on the HST referendum.

So again, the Premier said, in her run-up to becoming the Premier…. She urged factual information, not a sell job in relation to the HST. Well, it's hard to know if you're going to get factual information from one side that has no spending limits. The other side has not the same ability to raise dollars with regards to the HST.

For a matter of fairness, I would suggest Bill 4 goes and looks at the Recall and Initiative Act and looks at third-party spending and looks at imposing some reasonable limits on what third-party spending could be to make it fair for both sides and to back up the Premier's words on equal funding to both sides of the question.

My second point I'd like to make, hon. Speaker, is a comment around trust. I believe that when a person holding a position of Premier speaks, people believe them and trust what they have to say. Premier Clark said, and this is a quote at her swearing in: "We're going to have a referendum on June 24" — a referendum on June 24.

Well, most people in the province, I believe, when they heard those words, would think: "Okay, whether I'm for or against the HST, I'm going to have my ability to vote on June 24 on a referendum on whether to accept or reject the HST." That's something that they weren't able to do before the last provincial election because, apparently, the government hadn't made up their mind — or perhaps they did — before the last provincial election around the HST.

[ Page 6542 ]

Anyway, here we are, June 24. Premier says we're going to have a referendum on June 24. What's transpired since then?

Since then we now have a mail-in system. The way Elections B.C. has laid it out — the mail-in system was advocated and put in place by this government, with Premier Clark at the head of it — there are going to be ballots sent out June 13. Hopefully, they say, by June 24 most people will have received those ballots. By July 8…. That's the last day for unregistered voters to request a ballot from Elections B.C. And then lo and behold, July 22 is the final deadline for completed ballots to be received by Elections B.C.

That's a long ways from having your say on a referendum on June 24, something the Premier promised shortly after being sworn in.

We had advocated for the referendum date being moved up, and it was good to see that the government took our suggestion on that. They tried to move it up. It was originally set for September 24.

[1500]

The reason for that — and we heard this on the Finance Committee over and over again, with groups, business groups, presenting — is that the uncertainty is creating a lot of distress. The uncertainty creates a lot of distress in the business community around the HST. So moving it up would help alleviate that, be better for our economy — moving up the referendum.

Well, with this mail-in ballot system that the Premier has now put in place, it's going to result in only having the final vote on the referendum known several weeks before the original September 24 date. It really doesn't move up the uncertainty question to any great degree, and I would say definitely does not fall within what was intended when the Premier said: "We're going to have a referendum on June 24." The ballots won't be finally completed and counted. They will be completed by July 22. But several weeks to count and verify, and we'll know the result in August.

Again, it's a matter of trust, hon. Speaker. If you can't trust the words, "We're going to have a referendum on June 24" — when actually the results won't be known and the date isn't until July 22; the results known in August — then I think that is a bit of a sad commentary on the words of the Premier coming out.

I'll wrap up by saying my two comments on this are around fairness and trust on Bill 4. Fairness around third-party spending limits. If the government wishes to uphold their words around transparency and open government, then I suggest that reasonable third-party spending limits be instituted on the referendum question.

Then on trust, well, we have a mail-in ballot system that runs counter to what appears the words of the Premier were saying: "We're going to have a referendum on June 24." I think that's a rather sad start to what the Premier has said is going to be a more trustworthy government on this other side.

Thank you very much for allowing me some time to talk to Bill 4, hon. Speaker. I'll now take my seat and allow my colleague to begin.

S. Simpson: We're here debating Bill 4. Bill 4 is the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) Initiative Vote and Referendum Act.

Hon. Speaker, the reason for this bill is to make changes, as has been noted by previous speakers, to what had originally been intended under the Recall and Initiative Act to have a vote on September 24 in regard to the HST, to make a determination about British Columbia's views on the HST and about its future.

The decision has been made by the government, by the Premier to move that up slightly and to change the enabling legislation from the Recall and Initiative Act to the Referendum Act and in doing that commence this action in mid-June resulting in sometime in August us getting a result from this vote.

The other important aspect of this, I think, as has been pointed out, is that we are moving from what was going to be a more conventional ballot, much like an election. That's what the Premier told us we were doing. That's what originally had been intended, but that's now been changed to a mail ballot, and we'll get to see what the circumstances of that are with that mail ballot. But it clearly is a different circumstance from what we had originally anticipated would occur.

Now, I think it's important that as we move forward that people be reminded as to why it is that we're in this situation at all — that we're in fact having this vote at all. I think it's important. Why did we have a September 24 date at all? What created the circumstances that required that? What's created the circumstances that now have us moving back to a mail ballot in June?

Well, just in case people need to be reminded, prior to the last election, of course, the government told us on numerous occasions that they were opposed to the HST and a harmonized sales tax and were supportive of the PST-GST combination as it was.

We were told that continually. We, of course, know that almost immediately following the 2009 election, the government announced its intention to introduce a harmonized sales tax. They brought that forward. They rushed it through.

[1505]

It would have proceeded if it wasn't for people at the grass roots, for the official opposition, for many business people and community interests, particularly small business people, who stood up and said: "This is wrong. The way you've done this is wrong. It shouldn't proceed." And of course, for many consumers, at the point they realized that essentially what this was, a $1.9 billion tax shift from large business to consumers, they said that was wrong too.

[ Page 6543 ]

From a government that continually talks about tax cuts, here they are putting $2 billion of additional taxes on consumers. That's quite a tax cut — $2 billion of additional taxes on the backs of consumers. And of course, we know that the community at the grass-roots level rose up. People came together across the political spectrum and succeeded with the initiative that forced, in fact, the decision to move forward with the September 24 vote that now has, with this legislation, been moved to be a mail ballot under the Referendum Act to proceed in June.

So what is the state of this? What is the situation? Now, as this moves forward, of course, as we always know with these situations, the devil is always in the details. The details around this really reflect on the question about what are the circumstances that are going to be in play as this moves forward. As some of my colleagues have said, the government has announced about $1.7 million of spending that we know about that will be put forward.

That spending will include $250,000 for a yes side and $250,000 for a no side. It also includes about a half-million dollars for educational institutions to do some work around this. We don't know what that means. We don't know who's going to be involved in that, how they balance the academia of that. But that's good. Educational institutions — hopefully, they'll do a good job in terms of hosting some forums. That's not a bad way to spend some money to have a discussion around this.

Then there's $700 million for the government to educate us. This is a government that hardly has a balanced view of this tax on consumers and small business, on working families and small business — a $1.9 billion tax on working families and small business. This is a government that hardly has a balanced view of this, so it will be pretty interesting to see how this $700,000 gets spent.

Of course, on top of that, hon. Speaker, we're not sure whether that's all the spending. The Finance Minister has been questioned in question period about whether there will be additional spending in relation to this. The Finance Minister hasn't quite given us an answer to those questions yet, but we might try again to see if we can get that answer again before we're done here on the second of June. We might try, because the Finance Minister doesn't seem to want to tell us what his plans really are as to how he's going to spend money on this.

That's what's happening with that piece. But that may not be the most concerning piece of this. The no limits — the lack of any limit on third-party spending — may be the biggest concern of all.

The reality is this. If you say to me as the business community, "I'm about prepared to give you $1.9 billion a year in tax breaks in perpetuity every year," then does it seem like it might be a good idea for me to drop a few million dollars to convince the people of British Columbia somehow that them paying this tax rather than the corporations paying it is a good idea? Just might be a good business investment for big business to do that.

Now, I don't have any problem with business deciding that they're going to look after their interest. My concern comes when this government decides to be blatantly unfair and to bias this vote by in fact encouraging that and creating a circumstance that encourages business to do exactly that. I expect business to look after their interests, but I expect the government to look after British Columbians' interest, and you're not doing that.

That's the problem we have. We have a government that's saying to business: "We don't have the courage as a government to stand up and do what we want to do, so you do it for us because you're the beneficiary. You're the big beneficiary, and we're not sure how to explain to British Columbians that a $2 billion tax increase is good for them, so you go explain it to them. Then we'll all be good. And we'll collect your campaign donation before the next election, thank you very much." We see all of these issues weave together.

[1510]

Today, of course, we're going to deal with this bill. We're going to pass this bill. But the story isn't this piece of legislation. The story is everything that has come and brought us to this time and this place.

It is the duplicity of the government in regard to the issue of the HST around the election and what they said the day before and what they said the day after. It is the performance of the government in trying to convince British Columbians that increasing their taxes by $2 billion without one cent of additional funding for services is good for them. It's about them paying off their friends who are the beneficiaries of that without producing one single piece of credible evidence that it actually creates jobs and investment.

That's the situation we're in, but we will move forward. I will say to the government that you might want it load up the money on the corporate side to fight this and to try to promote this tax. You might want to use the government money that you can slide into advertising and other manipulation to fight this, to promote this tax. The reality is this. The people of British Columbia know what this is all about. They know this tax is bad for the province. It's bad for the people of British Columbia, and it's bad for this province in its entirety.

That's what British Columbians know, and they're not going to buy a sell job from the B.C. Liberals to change that. So do whatever you choose to do. Manipulate it however you choose to manipulate it. At the end of the day, come August, we will see this tax defeated in British Columbia, and there will be fairness for British Columbians again when you stop the tax breaks, unfair tax breaks, at the expense of citizens. That's what we're facing.

I look forward to the defeat of this tax come August, when we see that. I look forward to the justifications

[ Page 6544 ]

of the smiling Minister of Finance when he comes to try to defend this tax over the next coming weeks. The reality is this; it's a bad tax. It's on the backs of British Columbians. It doesn't do anything for British Columbians. They know that. Everybody in this province knows that. They'll defeat the tax. It will be a good day for British Columbia.

B. Simpson: Madam Speaker, I'm happy to see the advancement of the referendum on the HST and glad that the government is following through with the previous Premier's commitment to hold it by way of simple majority. [Applause.]

It seems like it might be easy to get applause today.

I think it's important that there is an admission that this has been a debacle. It's been a debacle right from the get-go. Various members of the other side, on the government side, have admitted that. They've admitted it publicly.

It is a necessary step for British Columbia to get this behind us as soon as possible, and it's necessary that for the people who expressed their democratic right in the initiative process, their demand is actually honoured. That's mostly what I want to speak to today: whether or not this bill honours their demand to have a voice or whether there's a trap in this bill that needs to be addressed.

The second

part is, of course, that the business and investment community needs to be clear about the future of the HST. I know that there are lots of folks out there…. I've had discussions with the real estate community, where there are strange aspects of this tax that are not being resolved because people are uncertain as to the future of the tax.

Now, I was threatened with recall as a result of the HST, not because of some of my political machinations over the last little while. The conversation went something like this. I was meeting with the initiative group in the Quesnel area about the successful initiative, and one of the individuals put a demand on me that I come down here as a legislator and that I force the Premier to repeal the HST in the House and that I vote very strongly in favour of repealing the HST.

[1515]

My response to that person was, one: "Good luck with that. Let me educate you about being an opposition member in a House." But secondly, it was that I have a broader obligation as an MLA than just the people who happen to be sitting with me at that time. He came back at me: "Well, you're responsible to me. I voted for you, so you will do as I tell you."

I said: "Well, let's go up to West Fraser Mills and sit and have a conversation with the chairman and board of West Fraser Mills. Let's go and have a meeting with the B.C. Cattlemen's Association or the Quesnel Cattlemen's Association. Let's go and have conversations with the local chamber of commerce, because their advice to me is contrary to your advice."

I think one of the problems we have in this House is the polarization of debate. The ideological and partisan nature of the debate makes issues appear as if they are black and white when, in the vast majority of cases, they're shades of grey.

It is without question that this tax shifts a tax burden from large business, in particular, onto the backs of consumers. That's not questioned, and I don't think that the government would continue that argument, although they tried it earlier on. But now that that tax exists, it's not a simple matter, as I told this individual, of flicking a switch and making it disappear and going back to a PST-GST world without some clarity on the part of government as to what that unwinding means.

Does it mean punitive measures on the part of the federal government? If so, how will the provincial government absorb that? Does it mean that if we go back to PST that PST will have to be increased for a period of time in order to deal with the charges associated with unwinding this? Does it mean a potential increase in personal income tax? What does it mean to unwind this tax?

I'm disappointed, in some respects, in the government for not providing that kind of information as clearly as I think the electorate needs to understand how to vote on this initiative when it is actually held.

The government is engaged in a process that I do think, and I agree with opposition members, has a sense of being untoward. I don't believe the government should be holding its Talking Tax town halls, or whatever they want to call them, funding agencies to basically go out and say, according to the ministers: "The tax is good. How do we improve it?"

That's an interference in this democratic process, an interference by government to make a case for a tax that the public has said they don't want but want a voice on the future of. So I do think that's unfair.

I think the fairest thing that the government could have done is simply fund the yes and noes and constrain all other activities other than releasing the independent panel report. I haven't been in my office this afternoon, but it still hasn't been released, and we were promised we would see that independent panel report after the federal election. So a fairer process would be to release the independent panel report, fund the yes and no, and get out of the way and allow British Columbians to make that determination in that vote.

But I also think there's a broader issue, and I won't get into it much because of time. The issue of talking taxes with British Columbians only about the HST misses a critical point, in my estimation. It's actually in today's budget documents, where the budget documents indicate the government is going to have to work very, very hard in order to meet its objectives to have a balanced budget in 2013-2014.

If we're going to go out and talk taxes with British Columbians, we should talk to British Columbians

[ Page 6545 ]

about taxes and revenue writ large, against the backdrop of demands on public services. The member for Juan de Fuca, during the leadership event for the NDP, indicated that we need a fair tax commission of some kind. I would agree to that. We need to actually, all together, embrace this issue of taxation and public services. The government is wasting a whole bunch of money making a justification for HST when we could better use that money to have the broader tax debate.

My final comment and the substantive aspect of what I have to offer to this debate is a concern I have about the structure. I'm of mixed minds relative to a mail-in ballot or a day-of ballot and walking into a ballot box. But we're on this path. It's the path in the bill to hold a mail-in ballot under the auspices of the Referendum Act.

[1520]

There's one fly in the ointment, and that is that Canada Post has a 97 percent strike mandate that could be initiated at some point during this referendum process. They are in negotiations. My understanding is that Elections B.C. is fully aware of this situation and has been talking to Canada Post, but it is outside the control of Elections B.C., outside the control of government. As a consequence, this bill does something that I think is problematic. The bill cancels the initiative, but it also cancels the end date of September 24 to get this thing resolved, by doing so.

We're now in a situation where around June 13 or so the mail ballots are going to start going out, and they have until July 22. If at any point during that time period there is an interruption in mail service, then I'm concerned we are setting ourselves up for legal action against the outcome of the referendum. If people claim that as a result of an interruption in the mail service they did not have an opportunity to exercise their rights in this referendum, then I think we have created a situation where now we have a litigation potential against the referendum.

That's one issue I'm concerned about. The second is if…. There's a clause in the act that allows Elections B.C., through the Chief Electoral Officer, to take into consideration emergency circumstances, adjust the date in accordance and then make a case later to the Legislature by way of a report on why the date was shifted.

But if you think about the timing of this, if something happens in that June window and the Elections B.C. Chief Electoral Officer decides that that's not a good window because there may be a strike, then we're into summer, and holding a mail-in referendum in summer, I think, would not be a fair way to get the voice of the people, which then takes us to the fall.

What's happening is there's no compunction for the government to get this thing done, so I've tabled an amendment. I will speak to it tomorrow. I've got some questions for the minister in third reading about whether or not the government can provide to this House a contingency plan in their dialogue with Elections B.C. so that we know that this HST issue will be resolved once and for all by September 24 and won't be dragged out any further than that.

My recommendation is that if we're not sure about that, then we should actually repeal this bill on June 24 so we've got the 90 days to give notice to hold a referendum on September 24. If we think we're putting ourselves in a position where we're going to have a referendum event that litigation can be put against because of an interruption from the mail service, then I believe that we have to have a fail-safe, and there's no fail-safe in the act as it is just now.

Finally, I would like to see all MLAs engaged in this and engaged in making sure we have an informed debate. I would hope that the government, in conjunction with Elections B.C., would make sure that all of our constituency assistants are fully educated about how this mail-in ballot is going to happen, that they are given an information package — because we're going to get the calls — and that we will be able to give informed advice to individuals about how to get packages, when to mail them in and all of the things that are going to happen as a result of people wanting to participate in this process.

But I do hope the government will bring forward some sense of a contingency plan in the event that this mail-in ballot is interrupted by a mail strike.

M. Sather: It is indeed my pleasure to respond to Bill 4, Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) Initiative Vote and Referendum Act. Well, it definitely has been a long, strange trip with the HST and continues to be. The people of British Columbia were led to believe — more correctly, misled — that there wasn't going to be any HST, and then we saw the contortions the government went through to try to explain it.

[1525]

But as we move on to this phase of this fiasco, certainly, we have to look to what Christy Clark, the current Premier of this province, has to say about it. This is what she said just last year: "It's an insult to British Columbians for the government to, first of all, have brought in the tax in what most of us regard as a very, very sneaky way and then refuse to bother explaining why they did it properly. They can't even be bothered to mount a defence. And I think that's an insult."

She went on to say that it seems impossible the tax wasn't contemplated before the spring ballot. "I just don't think it's possible that that could be the case."

There's a clear condemnation of the genesis of this whole thing from Christy Clark, who is the current, albeit absent, Premier of this province. There's a lot of explaining that needs to be done about this. No doubt about it.

[ Page 6546 ]

The Premier herself, before she became Premier, had the idea: "Well, you know what?" She seemed to be quite anxious, quite hurried, to get rid of this whole affair. She said, "We'll just have everybody go back to the House and revote it; we'll revote on the HST," although some of her colleagues had to then remind her: "Well, you know what? We've already done that three times."

So I don't know if there was a caucus revolt or what the dynamics of it were, but lo and behold, the Premier then decided: "Well, no, I guess maybe we won't have that vote just after the election that I had and when I get my members back into the House, albeit very belatedly."

So we went from there to a decision that she made to say that we will have the vote on June 24. We agreed to that, on this side of the House. We thought it would be straightforward. The Premier said that it will be held like an election. If you have an election, you have an election day, you vote, the votes are counted that night, and it's all over with.

Then again, there was another twist and turn in the journey led by the erstwhile Premier. She said: "Oh no, we're not going to do it that way after all. We're going to do a mail-in ballot." The mail-in ballot, as has been explained, will take place between June 23, with all the ballots having to be in by July 2, and will be counted sometime in August.

So all of this contortion to move the date back from September to June — which is a good idea, given all of the uncertainty not only amongst business but also amongst consumers about whether or not to do their renovations now or whether or not to wait until after the HST vote — is going to be I don't know what. They moved it back by a month, maybe — that is, assuming the postal strike doesn't get in the way, as the previous speaker just mentioned.

Interjection.

M. Sather: So it's a peculiar rendition of reality, and I know that the member for Kamloops–South Thompson agrees with me wholeheartedly. It's good to see his support again in this House, Madam Speaker.

The spending, however, is something else. Right out of the hopper, there's $500,000 to be split between the yes and the no sides. Sounds pretty darn reasonable. Everybody gets the same amount.

It was too good to be true, unfortunately, because then the Premier went on to explain — and the B.C. Liberals explained — that there will be an additional $500,000 to universities, colleges and institutes. Now, I don't know what institutes those will be. I'm looking forward to finding that out. I wonder if it's going to be the Fraser Institute, for example, that's going to be one of those institutes that will be — in an unbiased fashion, I'm sure — explaining the HST to British Columbians. If that's so, I know that this government, because they are committed to fairness, will also let the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives have a go at it as part of that $500,000.

[1530]

Then we mustn't forget — and the people of British Columbia don't — $700,000 down the drain from a pamphlet. Sorry, the $700,000 is the voters' guide. Now, that is another thing that the government is going to be unbiased about, we're absolutely certain. We look forward to that, albeit I don't think the taxpayers particularly do, particularly on the spending side. The government has informed us that they're going to do factual, unbiased information.

We've got the Talking Tax tour of the Ministers of Finance and of Transportation. That one got off to a pretty rocky start too, I must say, where the Finance Minister said, "Well, you know what? We might talk about knocking back the HST a percent," and then the Premier said: "Oh, wait a minute; we're not going to be doing that." She says: "We aren't going to be talking about trying to reduce it by a point or two before the referendum." I mean, I think people will see that as buying them with their own money.

We have to agree with Christy Clark on this one. I'm sure when she does get into the House eventually that they will get on the same page about what they're doing with regard to policy. I know some of the members opposite, some of them who ran for leadership themselves, have some questions about the capability of the minister and the terms of the governing end of things. I remember watching her on television in the '90s. She was a very able opposition member. That doesn't translate, though, unfortunately, into being a good leader. I think that's what the members opposite are now finding.

You know, there was $780,000 — that's what the amount was, not $700,000 — on the scrapped pamphlet that the government threw in the recycle. Let's hope it wasn't in the garbage. Last fall there was $48,000 of government spending for polling and $70,000 more for two pro-HST websites. That's not to mention, of course — which other speakers have already talked about — the amount of third-party business advertising that's going to take place. So much for the fair and balanced referendum campaign.

You know, all I can say is that we need to have the leadership. We need to know what Christy Clark, the Premier, actually thinks about these issues. We would like to see her here in this House. It's been over two months — over two months, Madam Speaker — since she was elected, and she's not here yet. If she's fortunate enough to get elected during the May 11 vote, then there's the return-of-the-writ period. I mean, we may not see her for more than four days this whole session.

Interjection.

[ Page 6547 ]

M. Sather: Yeah, if we're lucky. We should feel so fortunate if she shows up for four days.

I think that's the way she wants it, which is really disappointing, because I thought Christy Clark had a lot of jam. I thought she would want to be in the House, but she seems to be avoiding this House in all ways possible, kind of taking a leaf out of the book of the former Premier. You know, he was in the House from time to time; I have to give him that. Although when he came to Maple Ridge, I know it was always skulkingly. Nobody ever knew he was there. The hiding-out methodology of governing — I don't think it's the way to go.

The Premier doesn't even want to debate in the by-election. She's out there modelling various uniforms and this sort of thing. I don't think that's what the people of British Columbia want to see. They want to see a Premier who takes the business of the people seriously, who will come into this House and will address the issue of the HST, will address all the other important issues. That's what we're looking forward to — some kind of leadership. We're not seeing it yet.

N. Macdonald: I'll keep my remarks fairly tight. Many of the things that we're going to talk about have been broached already by fellow members of the opposition.

I do want to put on record, as I did when we were back here a year ago talking about the HST as a piece of legislation…. I did put on the record things that people in my constituency had sent to me, talking about the impact of the harmonized sales tax. I want to do that just with one more person, talking about the impact not only of the legislation but of the uncertainty that has been created.

We're here looking at Bill 4, and it basically replaces the September 24 referendum that's required under the Recall and Initiative Act. The mail-in referendum will be set under — as the minister pointed out — the Referendum Act, and the rules for that will be set without the scrutiny of the Legislature. It's going to be done by regulation.

[1535]

Now, I think what everyone understands in British Columbia is that this is a government that has a willingness, almost a readiness, to manipulate processes. They do that regularly, even with things that should be as sacred as how we work in the House. So it's a government that's willing to do that.

I'll just touch on one very clear manipulation that's begun, and that's around the financing. There is a recognition in what the Premier has said and what this government has said that money plays a factor in creating a fair process.

They've provided money. They've provided a tiny sum for one side in favour of the referendum and a tiny sum for the other side. So there's recognition that money plays a factor. But then they set up the process by very deliberately not putting in place any restrictions at all on third-party funding, with commercials or advertising or any limitations at all. What we know is that that is going to create a massive imbalance.

There's a willingness to try, on behalf of this government, to get their way on this. That's the pattern we have seen from the beginning — a willingness to bend what is acceptable practice in order to get the result that they want.

That began when the HST was first introduced, following a very clear commitment — a written commitment during the election in 2009 — to not introduce the HST. It began then, and it has continued over the past year and a half or two years. It continues with this legislation. It's clear that there is going to be a lack of fairness, because there will not be rules in place to limit spending.

There was also a clear promise by the Premier — and it's been alluded to by previous speakers — to move up the date of the referendum. I want to speak to the uncertainty about a process that now stretches into August, instead of a conclusive result delivered June 24.

I'll just take one example from one business. Remember, the cost of the HST impacted restaurant meals, telephone, hockey tickets, haircuts, movies — a whole host of new areas that were not previously covered by the PST, including bicycles, as I'm reminded — a long, long list. I just want to talk to one of them. It is around condominium sales.

This is an e-mail that was sent to me by a realtor from the East Kootenay, Marilyn Jolie. She's referring to the sale of condominiums up at the resort in Kimberley. I'll just quote from the letter that was sent. Marilyn says that there is difficulty in selling condos on the ski hill because of the implementation of the harmonized sales tax.

Then she goes on to explain: "Should someone want to buy a condominium in B.C., the HST must be paid each time, as they are viewed as a commercial enterprise. So say I have a buyer coming in this weekend, and they would like to purchase a condominium for themselves and family." So there's no rental pool here. "They will have to pay 12 percent on the purchase price. So if the condominium is valued at $300,000, then $36,000 is due and payable on completion, as well as the property transfer tax."

Now, we come from a border region. We compete for tourism and for purchases like this with Alberta and the United States. Most of the people, about 70 percent, that come in to Kimberley resort come from jurisdictions that lie to the east of British Columbia.

"So the buyer that purchased that same condominium would have no HST and would pay 7 percent less, and the property transfer tax would not be there. Or they can go to the States and purchase without any additional taxes at all. And believe me, they do," says Marilyn Jolie.

[1540]

[ Page 6548 ]

She goes on to say that this is making life difficult for all resort communities. This is discretionary spending for the most part. She says clearly that the uncertainty of when the HST will be repealed is also an issue. "Why buy now? Let's wait and see where the HST will go."

I just refer to that in that the HST was introduced July 1, so the summer season for selling was lost last year. Because we are not going to a definitive answer on June 24 with this process, we again lose the summer season for realtors in Kimberley and other resort communities.

"The tax being implemented across the board was thoughtless and unfair. They say business will hire more people when they make more money, and that is true to a certain extent, but look at the billions the corporations have in cash now, and they're sitting on it. They're not hiring as they should be. The fairy tale about passing savings on to the consumer, of course, has not happened." So that's Marilyn Jolie. It's just one example of what MLAs are hearing in their offices and have heard for the past year and a half or two years.

This tax is a problem. The longer the uncertainty remains is a problem. This side feels so confidently from what we've heard in our areas that the tax will be rejected that we're choosing to overlook deficiencies in the system that the government is putting forward. But there is no question that from day one this initiative has been a debacle. It has been a disaster. It has cost Premier Campbell his job. There's no question it has cost the credibility of some very fine members on the government side. It continues to be a problem.

Now, I want to keep my remarks very quick. We have in the past been given an opportunity to go through and list example after example of where the harmonized sales tax has hurt the people that we represent. I know that in my area 30 percent of the people took the time to find the opportunity to sign the initiative petition, which I think we need to remember is where this began.

This began as the people of British Columbia standing up to a tax that was seen as introduced in a duplicitous way and one that was clearly unfair in that it shifted the taxes from corporations, in many cases multinationals, onto the backs of individuals and families to the extent of almost $2 billion per year.

So that debate has been had. The next debate will very clearly be as unfair as the government can make it, but in the end I feel confident that certainly the people that I represent will take the opportunity to reject the harmonized sales tax and will look to the government to follow through on its commitment to rid us of the HST.

J. Brar: I would like to also make brief comments to Bill 4, Harmonized Sales Tax Initiative Vote and Referendum Act. When it comes to HST, one of the things the people of B.C. think about is that a clear promise was made to the people of B.C. by the B.C. Liberal Party before the last election that they had no plans to introduce HST. But as soon as the election was over, within three days after the election, they had their first meeting with the federal officials, still claiming they knew nothing about the HST before the election.

The people of B.C. certainly don't believe the B.C. Liberal government on that. Therefore, it's very important that we conduct this referendum in a way so that people of B.C. find that this is a fair process, not biased in any way or not biased for any group.

If we look back, during the Liberal leadership race one of the candidates, Christy Clark, made a very clear promise to the people of B.C. during her leadership race bid. The promise was that "the referendum will be conducted in the same manner as a provincial election."

[1545]

It is a very clear promise made to the people that it will be a very similar, same, identical process as the provincial elections conducted to conduct the referendum on HST. That was the promise given by Christy Clark to the people of B.C. when she was in the leadership race. But as soon as the race was over, and as soon as she became the Premier of B.C., she changed her mind. She changed her mind, and she made a completely different announcement. The announcement was that the HST referendum will be conducted through a mail-in ballot — a mail-in ballot, Madam Speaker. That's a completely different process than the provincial election process.

So on that one the question is how the people of B.C. can trust this Premier who made a promise to the people of B.C. to conduct the referendum as a provincial election but then changed her mind after winning the election to do it a completely different way and through mail-in ballot. That goes back to the promise this government made before the election, so it's very important that this referendum is conducted in the most fair, unbiased way so that people get the factual and objective information when it comes to HST so that they can make the right decision.

That's the purpose of a referendum — that people have all the accurate information. Then people go in, and they can choose what they want to do with the HST. That's the first point — that Premier Clark has changed her mind and broken a promise on the HST already, which she gave to the people of B.C. before becoming the Premier.

The second point I want to raise is that there is no limit on third-party spending. Again, the promise made by this government to the people of B.C. was that there will be a fair debate, that there will be a spending limit so that both parties — the party opposing HST and the party supporting HST — will have similar funding so that there's a balance in debate.

[ Page 6549 ]

That promise was made by the same government before the Liberal leadership race. But now we know that the new Finance Minister or the new government under Premier Christy Clark has changed its mind again, and they broke that promise as well.

Now, there is no limit on third-party spending — absolutely no limit. What it means is that the big corporations can spend $10 million or $50 million, if they wish to, just to convince the people of B.C. that the HST is good for them. This is of course in their interests because the HST is a tax shift of $2 billion from the corporations to medium and small businesses and the people of B.C.

So by saving the HST, they saved $2 billion in this tax shift. It is in their interests to spend as much money as they can to convince the people of B.C. to just keep the HST. Therefore, it is not a fair process that one party can spend unlimited money because they have it and the other party cannot spend that amount of money.

As I said before, the corporations can probably spend $10 million on this, when people opposing may only spend $100,000 because that's the money they have. If this government wants to build any credibility among the people of B.C. on the issue of the HST, then this government must restore that balance. This government must put very clear spending limits when it comes to the third-party advertisement on the HST.

I would like to suggest that under that, there must be a third-party spending limit put in place so that the people of B.C. get very objective, unbiased and fair information so that they can make a decision based on that information. That's very important.

[1550]

I would also like to briefly speak about the impact of HST on people of B.C., particularly people in Surrey. What I have heard from the people of B.C., and people of Surrey particularly, is that this whole issue of HST — the way it was introduced, the way it has been handled by B.C. Liberals, the way it was brought in — has created a lot of uncertainty. That has had a huge impact on the economy of B.C. That's what I hear from the people in Surrey.

It has certainly a huge impact on small businesses and the people of B.C. It's costing way more for many things for the people of B.C. as compared to the past. That is also an issue I hear from the people of B.C.

The HST also has created for small business people a huge problem of cash flow. It's a huge problem of cash flow because now in many situations they have to pay, upfront, 12 percent HST. Many small businesses don't have that much money to continue the cash flow. So that creates a huge problem for them as well.

Having said that, I would like to conclude in my comments that, in order to build some credibility, this government must stand and keep their promises as made on HST, particularly the promise they made on the third-party spending limit. There must be a spending limit. Otherwise this will not serve the purpose, for people, of a fair and unbiased referendum.

With that, Madam Speaker, I will take my seat. Maybe another member can go on this.

H. Bains: It is my honour to stand here to speak on Bill 4, Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) Initiative Vote and Referendum Act. Three issues come to my mind, and some of them have been articulated by my colleagues previous to me.

One is the matter of trust or lack thereof. I think when you look at the history of how this tax was brought in, the hated tax in the province, where the government before the election said that they were not contemplating to bring this tax in…. Even though they were asked specifically in writing, they said no, that they were not contemplating.

Madam Speaker, what did they do after the election? They brought it in. Without consultation, without informing anybody, they rushed in, and the tax was brought in. It left a huge impact on small businesses and consumers. I can tell you…. There's a restaurant owner that I know. He tells me 29 percent — business that was affected by HST since the HST was brought in. Another manager I know who manages a chain of restaurants, about three of them, said it ranged from 10 to 27 percent.

That's just the business side, but then there are consumers who will be burdened with this tax if it goes through. A record number, over 700,000 British Columbians that signed that petition, are telling this government that they don't like this tax. They don't like the way it was brought in, they don't like the tax itself, and government was forced to bring in the referendum.

The referendum was to take place September 13, I believe it was. The new Premier, during her leadership campaign, said that she would move the referendum to June 24. There was some relief in many of those businesses which are waiting to have some inflow into their businesses — a new infusion of capital which was being held back because of this uncertainty that was created until this issue was decided. Businesses were suffering.

People believed that. Well, what happened? Just like they did when they brought this tax in, they told you something different before the election and did exactly the opposite after the election. Same thing this new Premier has done.

[1555]

She said during her leadership campaign that she will bring this referendum in, that she's moving this referendum to June 24. People got some relief and thought, "Well, you know, there will be some…." Uncertainty that was created by this lengthy delay, by this referendum, will be removed, and their businesses will start to prosper again.

Guess what. New Premier, same old approach — says one thing before the election and does quite the oppos-

[ Page 6550 ]

ite after the election. Nothing has changed. Only the face has changed, and the name has changed. Same approach, flip-flop — say one thing before the election and do quite the opposite after the election. That's the record of this government, and people are tired of that.

People want an opportunity to get on with their lives. Businesses want to have certainty so that they can get on with their businesses. But this government is not helping. When you look at how they are conducting the business for people, that's why people do not trust this government. That's why people want to get rid of this government — so that they can have a government they can have trust in. At least they will have some certainty in their businesses, and the people will know exactly what they're expected of and what kinds of taxes they would be paying.

Madam Speaker, the third part that I want to talk about during this debate is the unfairness. Again, new Premier, same old approach. They say one thing, but they do quite the opposite after they have said what they would not do. Consistently, the new Premier said: "Well, you know, we will have equal funding available to the no side and the yes side."

Well, what did they do after the election, when she won the leadership? Well, $1.7 million is allocated to this referendum. I don't even know what they call it, but there's $1.7 million available to parties who are for or against, but only $250,000 to the no side. What kind of fairness is being created? That's the question that the people are asking — not only that they said that's what they would do, but they have done quite the opposite after what they said they wouldn't do. But here is what they've been referring to.

The previous Attorney General has also said the same thing — that there has to be fairness when we are conducting elections, when we are conducting these referendums. This is what he said about creating fairness. This is what I will read from one of his speeches. "These limits mirror those contained in the Canada Elections Act. We believe these limits are fair and reasonable and will allow third parties to participate in the electoral process without having a disproportionate influence over election outcomes."

What does this government do? Again, they don't pay one iota of attention to fairness. They are hell-bent to bring in the HST, and they are hell-bent to do whatever it takes to have the referendum passed and forced down onto the consumers and onto the small businesses who are hurting.

[D. Black in the chair.]

So who are they governing for? That's the question that the people are asking. They certainly are not governing for those restaurant owners and those restaurant managers who told me that their business has gone down by 10 to 27 percent. They certainly are not governing for consumers, who will now be paying a lot more taxes on items that they never paid before. That's the record of this government.

New Premier, same old approach. Although she said that she wants to make sure that she will do business differently and that she wants to bring family first…. Well, whose family first? This is a burden on British Columbia's families, if the HST referendum goes through. This government is creating an unfair playing field by giving more money on the advertisement side to the yes side, and the government themselves will not come clean and tell the public how much money they are spending on advertising for HST so that they can force this unfair tax onto the consumers and the small businesses.

Madam Speaker, those are the three points that I want to make. Those are the three points that my constituents in Surrey-Newton want me to make and bring here to this government's attention.

[1600]

The Finance Minister. He comes from that region, and I thought he would pay a bit more attention to the people who have sent us down here to represent our constituents. But obviously, the Finance Minister again is toeing the line of his friends and big business, because they are the only ones who will benefit from it — not consumers, not small business.

I urge this government on behalf of my constituents and all British Columbians, for their sake, for their family's sake: do not create an unfair playing field when it comes to the referendum. Let them decide. They have already sent a very clear message to you when they signed that petition — over 700,000. They don't like this tax. But let them decide now. Do not interfere by interjecting with their own tax dollars to tell them what is right for them.

That's not how you govern. You need to govern the way you promised them to govern. You let them know what kinds of taxes they can expect. You let them know what kinds of uncertainties or certainties there are for their businesses.

Madam Speaker, I know my time is not much. I think time is running out, and I will sit down by making those points. [Applause.] See? I think, you know, they are paying attention. But hopefully, this government will pay attention to those concerns of my constituents and many other constituents across this province and not interfere with that process.

D. Routley: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and welcome to that chair. It's certainly a new face in the Speaker's chair, and we're all congratulating our new occupant of the chair.

I rise today to speak about Bill 4, which we're supporting, but with considerable reservations. The basic principle that brought about Bill 4 was essentially a loss

[ Page 6551 ]

of trust in government. Bill 4 wouldn't be necessary if there hadn't been a failure by the B.C. Liberal government to be clear, when they ran for re-election, about their intentions regarding the HST.

Bill 4 has only become necessary because of the massive civilian reaction to having been misled by their government. What we saw in this province was an unprecedented reaction. If people out there feel that there is too much cynicism — and I'm sure cynicism is a booming commodity in this province — we should be reassured by the fact that people did respond with such rightfully held anger to having been misled by their government. That is in a sense reassuring — that reaction.

What is problematic with Bill 4 is not that it attempts to redress that loss of trust but that it fails to provide the mechanisms necessary to do that with fairness. Essentially, people responded to the HST because of the fact that they were misled by the B.C. Liberal government. But their response also was generated and fuelled by the fact that people felt it was unfair that there should be a $2 billion tax shift from the largest corporations in the province onto the backs of individual citizens and small businesses.

Small businesses, which create employment in this province, were penaliz