2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 14, Number 3

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Blair M c Kinnon

R. Cantelon

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Veterinarians Act

Hon. S. Thomson

Bill M201 — Protection of the Homeless Act, 2010

J. Kwan

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Nite of Hope breast cancer fundraiser

S. Cadieux

Day of Pink

S. Chandra Herbert

Richmond Therapeutic Equestrian Society

L. Reid

Parent participation preschools

K. Corrigan

Greater Vancouver Regional Science Fair award recipients

R. Lee

History of education in Campbell River area

C. Trevena

Oral Questions

Impact of harmonized sales tax on tenants and condo owners

C. James

Hon. C. Hansen

B. Ralston

S. Simpson

Impact of harmonized sales tax on funeral industry

S. Simpson

Hon. C. Hansen

M. Farnworth

Funding for public health programs

A. Dix

Hon. K. Falcon

Audit of B.C. Ferries data security system

G. Coons

Hon. S. Bond

Tabling Documents

Capital project plan for Interior heart and surgical centre in Kelowna

Hon. K. Falcon

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

S. Cadieux

M. Sather

Hon. I. Chong

M. Mungall

Hon. M. Polak

M. Karagianis

Hon. K. Krueger

S. Fraser

M. Dalton

R. Austin

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Housing and Social Development (continued)

S. Simpson

Hon. R. Coleman

R. Chouhan

N. Simons

S. Chandra Herbert

C. Trevena

D. Routley

[ Page 4269 ]

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

R. Sultan: Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 100th anniversary of Rotary in Canada. I think we're all familiar with Rotary and its global reach, but just to remind you, this is the organization that is investing half a billion dollars in building schools in Afghanistan, that has set out with the modest goal to eliminate polio from the world and is close to reaching that goal, and locally, on the North Shore, operates and helps fund the North Shore Safe House.

We have two representatives of Rotary in West Vancouver visiting us today. We have Jacci McTavish and her friend Jill Hossie, very active Rotarians. They are accompanied by Sharon McGavin, who coordinates the StrongStart program at Eagle Harbour School.

Would the House please make these three ladies welcome.

M. Mungall: Well, coming in from the photo outside, where we were posing for a stop-bullying campaign today, I ran into a local Nelson resident and was very surprised to see this person here in the precinct today. She's an amazing resident of Nelson, a strong activist and a passionate advocate for people with disabilities. Beryl Clayton is here in the House today. May everybody please make her feel very welcome.

E. Foster: In the precinct today are two constituents and good friends of mine from Vernon, Derek and Marjorie Allen. Having worked as a CA and a longtime friend of the Minister of Housing and Social Development, Marjorie has been here to the House many times, but this is Derek's first trip. I would ask that the House make them both very welcome.

H. Bains: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House two groups of grade 5 students from Strawberry Hill School, which used to be in my constituency. Now it is just outside. On behalf of my colleague from Green Timbers, I would like to welcome them to this House — 30 grade 5s with ten adults accompanying them. They are visiting this House, and please help me welcome them to this great House.

Tributes

blair M c KINNON

R. Cantelon: On Saturday night a young man with great promise, great energy and great leadership potential died suddenly. Blair McKinnon left this world too quickly and, as a member of the Nanaimo Young Professionals, showed great promise in what he could do and what he could accomplish. I hope we're all going to learn from his example of leadership and community involvement. I think that all of Nanaimo is sorry for his loss but inspired by his gifts.

I ask the House to share with the McKinnon family in their mourning.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — veterinarians act

Hon. S. Thomson presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Veterinarians Act.

Hon. S. Thomson: I move that Bill 10, entitled the Veterinarians Act, be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Thomson: Today I am pleased to introduce Bill 10, the Veterinarians Act. The bill proposes to repeal and replace the current Veterinarians Act with an updated statute that is consistent in principle with legislation governing other self-regulated professions in British Columbia, including the Health Professions Act and the Social Workers Act.

The purpose of the bill is to ensure that the regulating body of the veterinary profession has the legal authority needed to effectively regulate the safe and competent practice of veterinary medicine and to protect the public interest. Under the current Veterinarians Act, the British Columbia Veterinary Medical Association has a broad mandate to provide both member services and regulatory functions for the veterinary profession.

[1340]

The bill proposes to continue the BCVMA as a college and focus the mandate of the college on regulating veterinary practice, consistent with professional colleges of physicians, nurses, dental surgeons and pharmacists.

In order to ensure fairness and transparency, the bill clarifies and improves processes for registration, complaints, investigations and discipline. The bill improves checks and balances and increases the number of lay representatives on the council of the college. The bill also provides for certification of animal health technicians.

[ Page 4270 ]

This bill was developed in response to advice from the B.C. Veterinary Medical Association, the Animal Health Technologists Association of B.C., individual veterinarians and the general public.

I am pleased to present the bill in this House today. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 10, Veterinarians Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M201 — Protection of the

Homeless Act, 2010

J. Kwan presented a bill intituled Protection of the Homeless Act, 2010.

J. Kwan: I move that the bill intituled Protection of the Homeless Act, 2010, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

J. Kwan: Today is Anti-Bullying Day, and discrimination is one of the most hideous forms of bullying. The Protection of the Homeless Act proposes amendments which would add social condition to the B.C. Human Rights Code as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Marginalized groups such as those who are homeless or low income will be covered under the proposed Human Rights Code amendment. This amendment is consistent with federal recommendations to human rights bodies in the recent MacKay report of 2009 and the earlier La Forest Commission of the year 2000. Other jurisdictions such as New Brunswick, Quebec and Northwest Territories have adopted such measures already.

The addition of social condition would be of practical benefit to those suffering from socioeconomic disadvantage, not only because they would have a legal recourse for discrimination where previously there was none, but also because the statutory human rights regime would provide a more accessible venue for those who, by definition, lack resources to fund an expensive court challenge.

In addition, the educational and symbolic value of adding social condition to the B.C. Human Rights Code will send an important message to the public that they are equally deserving of dignity and protection from discrimination. This legislation would also respond to Canada's international commitments and the recommendations of human rights agencies.

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

Bill M201, Protection of the Homeless Act, 2010, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

NITE OF HOPE

BREAST CANCER FUNDRAISER

S. Cadieux: Last Thursday I had the pleasure of attending the White Rock–South Surrey fifth annual Nite of Hope. This important event raises money to support the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation in their fight against the terrible disease.

It was a night of hope and of great success, and thanks to more than a thousand volunteers and the generosity of local residents $192,000 was raised for cancer research. This donation further complements the $1.4 million Nite of Hope has raised across B.C. since 1994. The fight against cancer is better armed, thanks to this organization.

A big part of this initiative's local success is thanks to one of my constituents, Debbie Rumley. Through her commitment to volunteering and as a cofounder of White Rock–South Surrey's Nite of Hope, she has demonstrated strong leadership in our community.

Debbie was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2001, and after attending a Nite of Hope in Richmond, she was inspired to do her part and bring people together to support cancer research and fight the disease. Through hard work and dedication, Debbie was instrumental in bringing the event to White Rock–South Surrey. Through her efforts and those of co-chair Laurie Ishikawa and many volunteers, the Nite of Hope has raised close to $600,000 over the last five years for the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation.

Cancer is a disease that has touched all Canadians in some way. For myself, both of my aunts fought breast cancer. Whether it's a family member, a friend or co-worker, the commitment of people like Debbie Rumley is making a difference in those people's lives.

I would like to ask the House today to recognize the hard work of Debbie and the Nite of Hope.

[1345]

DAY OF PINK

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise today to speak on the Day of Pink. The Day of Pink began in Nova Scotia when two students heard about a younger student who was bullied for coming to school wearing a pink shirt. They decided to do something about it and bought 50 pink shirts for their classmates.

The next day a sea of pink poured into the school in support of the student who had been bullied, with students

[ Page 4271 ]

decked out head to toe. That sea of pink has spread across Canada and indeed across the world.

Bullying is about power. It's about thinking one is better than another and that the other's difference is lesser. It often takes the form of attacking diversity in seeking conformity. Bullying is definitely not just about kids being kids. It can be sparked off by the different smell of someone's lunch, the fact that they want to date girls instead of boys or boys instead of girls, someone's racial and cultural heritage or the fact that a kid living in poverty comes to school in clothes that don't quite fit.

Bullying doesn't stop in the school yard, however. It happens on our streets, in our homes, in workplaces all across this province and, no surprise to members, in this House. Bullying is assuming one knows best and that others should suffer if they disagree or are different.

To address bullying, it takes more than saying: "Don't be a bully." We're all taught to be nice when we're younger, yet bullying still occurs. To stop bullying, we must embrace and accept difference. There's so much to be learned from each other.

To stop bullying, I say we must embrace love. You don't hear politicians talk much about love, but I believe that's the only way we move away from hate and towards celebration of our diversity. As Martin Luther King said so well: "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."

RICHMOND THERAPEUTIC

EQUESTRIAN SOCIETY

L. Reid: Today I rise to talk about an organization that is near and dear to my heart, and I dedicate my remarks to Frances Clark, who is a Richmond icon. I speak of the Richmond Therapeutic Equestrian Society, which provides the benefits of horseback riding to people with disabilities.

While participation in some activities may be denied to those with a disability, tremendous accommodation is possible astride a horse. Therapeutic riding is recognized as an aid to treating various physical, mental and emotional disorders. Reported benefits include improved balance and coordination, increased confidence and a sense of achievement. Imagine the independence mobility brings.

The society was founded in 1995 through the cooperative efforts of a group of Richmond residents and the Richmond Committee on Disability working in partnership with the city of Richmond, which had identified the need for a therapeutic riding program. The society was incorporated in 1995 and certainly has continued to do spectacular work.

The riding community in Richmond has risen up over the years and has provided horses, provided barn spaces, provided riding arenas. In the fall of 2002 the society moved their program to the Twin Oaks Farm on No. 3 Road. Twin Oaks generously reconstructed a space that allows the therapeutic equestrian community to actually host their riding program on its premises.

The society's program began in May of 1998 under the direction of the Canadian Therapeutic Riding Association and the certified-instructor program. So the quality of the program is tremendous; the quality of the experience the children receive, first-class.

This Sunday, April 18, you will see the 15th annual program that carries forward in the community, which is all about "Lead with your heart." It is a luncheon that takes place at the Richmond Executive Inn, and it is about how we honour, how we come together as a community to continue to build something that is incredibly fine.

It is important to support youngsters that have disabilities in our communities. I take my hat off to the Richmond Therapeutic Equestrian Society, which has done an outstanding job over the years.

PARENT PARTICIPATION PRESCHOOLS

K. Corrigan: Well, I'm thrilled to be able to talk about jewels that can be found in communities across British Columbia, and those are parent participation preschools. I speak from wonderful personal experience on this when all four of my children attended a parent participation preschool. These are cooperative, non-profit societies administered by the parents where parents also take turns assisting in the classroom in a program led by a professional early childhood educator.

The children benefit from a large, supportive community of children, teachers, parents and families. It is also highly beneficial for children to have a very positive first educational experience shared with a parent or other close caregiver. Children also improve their social skills and their cognitive scores.

Parents benefit from active involvement in their child's early education in a supportive community. They improve their parenting skills and often their job skills with this affordable preschool option.

Parent participation preschools are good for communities. There are 37 member preschools in British Columbia serving a diversity of families. Many parents receive child care subsidies. There are many special needs children, and the vast majority of schools have a number of ESL students.

[1350]

I want to mention another important value to our communities. The B.C. Council of Parent Participation Preschools' alumni survey confirmed that the vast majority of parents who volunteer early in their child's life at parent participation preschools continue to volunteer in schools and other community organizations. What a wonderful legacy they leave for the future.

[ Page 4272 ]

The B.C. council has been in operation for more than 60 years, and several preschools have celebrated being open for 50 years or more. This is a testament to this wonderful cooperative model for preschool education, a testament to this organization, to the highly skilled teachers, and to those families themselves that are committed to giving their children a wonderful start in life.

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL

SCIENCE FAIR AWARD RECIPIENTS

R. Lee: Last weekend I had the pleasure of attending the Greater Vancouver Regional Science Fair, which took place at the University of British Columbia from April 8 to April 10. It was a thrilling experience to be among so many enthusiastic high school students, who participated to display their scientific experiments and make their mark in the scientific realm.

Burnaby is home to many technological firms, and with the demand for health care on the rise, scientific knowledge is an important element to ensuring a strong future for B.C. It's important that we foster the educational aspirations of British Columbians. Amongst the science fair winners were several high school students from Burnaby North, Alpha, Moscrop and Burnaby South.

In the category of life sciences I would like to congratulate Carson Shi, Timothy Branch, Katrina Koehn and John Wei for their award-winning projects. In the category of physical and mathematical science Nahmhee Kim from Burnaby North Secondary won an award. Engineering category awards included winners Valeriya Zaborska, Natasha Sharma and Sever Topan.

All the participants did a fantastic job in presenting their science projects and experiments. Honourable mention also went to Rachel Ho, Alison Tam and Amy Wang, while Matthew McRoberts and Nicholas Mani-Flower of Sentinel Secondary swept the awards with the BCIC Young Innovator Scholarship and the UBC engineering award.

I would like to thank all of the volunteers, judges and fair organizers for their time and dedication to hosting this event. I would also like to thank all the teachers who provided their mentorship to these successful students. You are truly making a difference.

HISTORY OF EDUCATION

IN CAMPBELL RIVER AREA

C. Trevena: We often have heated debates about education in this chamber, but I'd like to reflect for a moment on the history of education in my constituency of North Island, as 2010 marks 100 years of school in Campbell River.

In 1910 five students attended classes in rooms at the then Willows Hotel Annex. It closed two months later because of student numbers. It lacked the mandatory seven students of the time to make it viable, but it was a short gap for the growing community of Campbell River. By the next year, student numbers had burgeoned to 16, and the hotel annex wasn't big enough.

The first dedicated schoolhouse was built in the community. It was on the corner of Cedar and 9th, nestled then in the trees overlooking the ocean, and it served the community for a decade before it, too, was superseded and the Elm Street School opened.

As the community evolved, so did the education system. At the end of the Second World War school district 72 was created, with a student roll of 583, and another school was built at that time in an area which was very little developed and quite rural. That was the then Campbell River Junior Secondary, and within 14 years it took close to 1,000 students. It's now the location of Ecole Phoenix Middle School, and those who know Campbell River will know that it's a very urban area.

The years have seen many changes, and the community, too, has evolved. Schools have opened, and schools have closed. Parents, teachers and the community have dealt with all the upheavals — high schools, junior highs, middle schools, elementary, the blending between high school and colleges and, next year, the introduction of all-day kindergarten.

[1355]

Like all members in the House, I have a reflected pride in the dedication of everyone committed to education in my constituency — the school district, the school trustees, the teachers, the teaching assistants, the parents, the principals. Campbell River has come a long way since those days of Willows Hotel, but the commitment to high-quality education has not lessened.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX

ON TENANTS AND CONDO OWNERS

C. James: Yesterday when questioned about the impact of the HST on renters, the Finance Minister dismissed those concerns. He said that the increases will be very slight, even though the B.C. Apartment Owners and Managers Association has said that the impact will be huge. We know that condo owners are facing the same pressures as renters. In quoting a strata expert, Deryk Norton of the Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association said that strata fees will go up as a result of the HST.

My question is to the minister. Will he finally admit that the HST will not only hurt renters, but it'll also hurt condo owners in the pocketbook?

Hon. C. Hansen: Currently condo fees and residential rents are exempt from the GST, and they will be exempt from the HST.

[ Page 4273 ]

What's interesting from the Leader of the Opposition is that on one hand, they're saying that small business operators in the province who are currently paying PST will not pass those savings on, and now she's arguing that landlords, in fact, do pass on some of these costs to eventual renters.

But I will be very clear to the Leader of the Opposition, and I will repeat what I said yesterday. Yes, there is going to be an impact on the cost to landlords, and those are very small in terms of the overall costs. It is estimated that the overall cost increase to a landlord would be in the neighbourhood of about 1 percentage point.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: The Finance Minister continues to brush aside the real concerns of renters and condo owners. The minister knows that the cost for everything will go up. Maintenance fees, landscaping, roofing, window washing, gardening, replacing light bulbs — all of those costs will go up. Marg Gordon of the B.C. Apartment Owners says: "It will be really bad. It's going to add an added cost that we've never had before."

My question, again, is to the minister. Why is he brushing aside these real concerns, and why won't he admit that the HST is going to lead to higher fees for condos?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think what the Leader of the Opposition just said is an example of the kind of misleading information that the NDP are putting out to British Columbians. Because, Mr. Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: When the Leader of the Opposition says that everything for landlords is going to go up in cost, it's absolutely false. The Leader of the Opposition is wrong. There are some things — for example, the cost of a painter for painting some walls once every couple of years — that might be slightly more. But I'll tell you something else. Once the embedded PST comes out of the cost of the paint, that paint will be less than it otherwise would be because of the adoption of the harmonized sales tax.

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

[1400]

C. James: It's a bit rich for this Finance Minister to use the word "misleading" when we know how the government brought in the HST for the voters of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, 600,000 British Columbians living in condos will be impacted by the HST — 600,000. And the minister….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat.

Members.

Continue, Member.

C. James: The only response those 600,000 owners get from the minister is that they're spreading misinformation. The HST is a bad tax that comes at a bad time and a tax that the B.C. Liberals forced on the people of British Columbia to cover up their budget deceit. The people of British Columbia are not buying this minister's or this government's line.

Again, my question is to the minister. Will he stand up now in this House and explain what he's doing to protect 600,000 people in our province?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: I can tell the Leader of the Opposition what we're doing on this side of the House. We're delivering on exactly what we committed to voters in British Columbia 12 months ago — that we're going to keep B.C. strong, that we're going to make sure we create jobs in this province. And that's exactly what the harmonized sales tax will do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: You know, what we saw a year ago was a Leader of the Opposition who, on the carbon tax, was taking her marching orders from Bill Tieleman. Now she's taking her marching orders from Bill Vander Zalm. She was wrong on the carbon tax. She's wrong on the harmonized sales tax.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: This is an opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and actually demonstrate who is actually leading the New Democratic Party today. She can stand up and she can tell British Columbians, including the condo owners in British Columbia: are they in favour of it? Are they going to keep it? Are they

[ Page 4274 ]

going to get rid of it? Are they going to jack up a bunch of other taxes, like the Energy critic said? Or are they, in fact, just going to keep it, as the Finance critic says?

B. Ralston: Clearly, by his comments, the Finance Minister doesn't accept that literally millions of people in this province are opposed to the HST, from every political party across the province. It's clear that he's just not listening and he's not willing to listen to the people of British Columbia.

The executive director of the Condominium Home Owners Association of British Columbia, Tony Gioventu, said: "Cost pressures from the HST will cause condo fees to increase by 2 to 4 percent."

I appreciate that the minister didn't do any studies before he introduced this tax, and he's not willing to listen to people out there, but does he have anything to say to condo owners other than just: "Good luck"?

[1405]

Hon. C. Hansen: I would say to the condo owners association representatives that that number that they're using is wrong. If they would like to contact my ministry, we would actually work with them and sit down so that they understand the very small impact that it may have on condo strata councils in the province.

Condo fees are exempt from GST, and they will be exempt from HST. Some of the costs are going to go up, and some of the costs are going to come down that they're faced with. We'd be pleased to work with them on that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: It's interesting that they're asking that question: "Which ones?" It's obvious they haven't done their own homework. The vast majority of costs that are incurred by a landlord or by a condo strata council will not be incrementally affected by HST. Some things will actually come down in price, and the vast majority of them are going to stay the same.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Well, renters are wrong. Condo owners are wrong. The executive director of the condo owners association is wrong. I'll take the word of people who are in that business over the word of the Minister of Finance any day of the week.

It's clear that the HST will drive up condo fees for over 600,000 people here in British Columbia. Why is the minister still in denial of this fact?

Hon. C. Hansen: He should have continued the list. He should have talked about the forest industry that's looking forward to creating thousands of new jobs because of the harmonized sales tax. He should have talked about the motion picture industry sector in British Columbia, which is quite excited about the harmonized sales tax because it will create thousands of jobs.

He could look at sector after sector in British Columbia and the strong support that's out there for the harmonized sales tax by those industry leaders and those job creators because they know that this is good for the B.C. economy. It's good for job creation in British Columbia.

I challenge the Finance critic from the official opposition to stand up and tell us what the NDP policy is on the HST, because it is clear as mud.

S. Simpson: The increased costs for condominium owners are spread, due to the HST, across every aspect of building operations. For example, Mr. Tony Gioventu, of the Condominium Home Owners Association, stated: "When it comes to a new roof, when you paid only 5 percent GST on labour, it will cost you 12 percent HST as of July 1."

This is potentially thousands of dollars out of the pockets of these homeowners, depending on the size of the projects. Can the minister tell us why it's okay to add 600,000 condo owners to the millions of other people that he's hurting in this province with the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: I challenge all of the NDP members to actually go into their own website and fix the lies that are in their website today.

[1410]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, I'll ask you to unconditionally withdraw that last comment.

Hon. C. Hansen: I will withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

Hon. C. Hansen: Mr. Speaker, I challenge the NDP members to actually fix the blatant misinformation that is on their website today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: Mr. Speaker, we know there is a lot of misinformation that is floating around on the Internet sites today. I think it's incumbent upon all members in this House, on both sides of it, to stick to the facts and to actually make sure that seniors and other British

[ Page 4275 ]

Columbians are not fed the kind of fearmongering misinformation that is floating around, including from the NDP's own website.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: The tragedy for British Columbians is that they have no way to fix the way they got fooled by Liberal misinformation in the last election. Story after story, broken promise after broken promise in that election, and they can't fix it till 2013. But be assured they will, Mr. Speaker.

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX

ON FUNERAL INDUSTRY

S. Simpson: Moving on to another topic related to the HST. We know that the B.C. Liberals were very enthusiastic to talk about death taxes during the last election. Now the Canadian-Independent Group of Funeral Homes is talking about death taxes today, and the death tax they're talking about is the HST — hundreds of additional dollars for the cost of a typical funeral.

Will the Minister of Finance tell this House why, when people are at the most ultimate point of their grief, he's prepared to put his hand in their pocket and take their money?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We're not continuing, Members.

Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: Let's actually look at the costs to a funeral home operator. For example, if they're going to put new carpet down in the funeral home today, they're going to be paying PST and GST on that. They get the GST rebated. They don't have to pass that on to their clients and the families that use their services. The PST that they pay on that carpet today — they have to build that into their costs. That's the big advantage of a value-added tax — that the funeral home operators will save that.

The same is true of a hearse. If they were going to buy a new hearse for the funeral home, today they would pay PST on that. They don't get that back; they have to build it into their costs. After July 1 if they buy a hearse, they will get the full rebate of the full HST amount. So there are costs that come out of those.

[1415]

The other thing that's important for funeral home operators to consider is that we have lowered the tax on small businesses to 2.5 percent, and the year after next it's going to be eliminated completely.

The other benefit that funeral home operators get in British Columbia is that we have increased the threshold for that small business tax rate now up to half a million dollars, and I can tell you that's a big, big benefit for the funeral home industry in this province.

M. Farnworth: The bottom line is that this government didn't tell the truth to the people of British Columbia before the last election. The bottom line is that the people of British Columbia don't trust this government. They're doing their own research on the impact of the HST, and they're finding out it hurts them.

The Canadian-Independent Group of Funeral Homes have done their own research and found that the cold, calculating grasp of this HST agenda of this government reaches into funeral services of families facing a terrible time in their grief. They're making it more expensive.

My question to the minister is this. Why does he ignore the research done by the people who actually have to deliver the services, and why is he making funerals more expensive for British Columbians at their moment of grief in this province?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think, as we have been very upfront with British Columbians, there are some things that are going to cost a little bit more.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: The vast majority of goods and services in British Columbia either will not be affected at all or, in fact, will be less than they otherwise would be in an HST world. But we've been quite upfront that there are some things, some goods and services, that might cost a little bit more.

That's exactly why we have put in two very important measures for the benefit of British Columbia families. One is an HST tax credit. It will be a cheque in the mail for 1.1 million British Columbians to help them offset those things that might cost a little more. The other thing that we put in place is a reduction in personal income tax, increasing the basic personal exemption from $9,376 to $11,000 a year. Those are specifically designed to help offset the cost to families for those few things that might wind up being more after the consumption tax is applied.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: The only thing that this government has been upfront about is the fact that they've never been upfront with the public of British Columbia about the impact of the HST. The Canadian-Independent Group of Funeral Homes….

Interjections.

[ Page 4276 ]

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

Continue, Member.

M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, you know, they can laugh, and they can make all the jokes they want. But the bottom line is that the HST has an impact on real families right across this province. At a moment of a family's greatest grief, when they have to deal with the burial or cremation of a loved one, this government is making it more expensive, and they try and deny it. Yet the research done by funeral homes shows it's going to be more expensive.

[1420]

So why is this government, at a time of a family's grief, making it more expensive and piling more pressure on families fighting to make ends meet?

Hon. C. Hansen: I can tell the member what families across British Columbia want. What they want is meaningful jobs, and that's exactly what the HST will deliver. In every corner of British Columbia we know that the HST will have a positive effect on job creation. That ensures that B.C. families are supported. That's our goal. That's what we're going to deliver on.

FUNDING FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PROGRAMS

A. Dix: Last week the Minister of Health confirmed that he had ordered $45 million in cuts to population and public health programs that are directed by the chief medical officers of health in the health authorities. As ordered, the health authorities are submitting cuts to the minister for approval.

Can the minister confirm that the list is composed of cuts to disease prevention, health screening and inspection programs, and will the minister think twice and not slash the very programs that keep British Columbians healthy?

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, Mr. Speaker, once again I find myself rising in the House to have to say to the Health critic that once again he is completely, totally wrong. I feel bad having to do this over and over, so let me just say it right here on the record in front of every member of this House. There will not be one nickel cut from public health in any health authority. But I'll tell you what we will do.

We are asking the health authorities to identify 10 percent of that budget to refocus those dollars into an effective public health program that will deliver results on issues from childhood obesity to health promotion to disease prevention. That's exactly what we want to deliver: results for British Columbians.

They would never understand that because the only thing the NDP understands is that you have to keep doing things the same way and expect different results. That's the NDP world. It's not our world.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Let's review some of the programs that the minister is proposing to refocus out of existence. The Interior Health Authority is proposing cuts to the inspection of family day cares in Kelowna and Kamloops and across the IHA. Now, hon. Speaker, even extreme right-wing bloggers think government has a role in regulating and protecting children.

Vancouver Coastal Health is proposing the elimination of its healthy living program, directed by its chief medical officer of health, including highly regarded diabetes education programs directed at diverse communities.

Will the minister simply rescind his ridiculous orders to cut these programs?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, you can't think of an issue that just typifies the NDP more than that question. Because in the NDP world, nothing must ever change. No programs should ever be looked at. Nothing should ever change. Keep just throwing money into the system. Don't ask for any different…. Don't measure results.

Let me say this. On this side of the House we are not judging our system based on what we're throwing in; we're judging our system based on what we're getting out. I can tell you that the public of British Columbia wants to know that we are getting results, and results, by the way, Mr. Critic, aren't how many different programs you have delivering the same thing. Results are how many people are more active and how we're improving the health population. That's what we're doing on this side of the House.

AUDIT OF B.C. FERRIES

DATA SECURITY SYSTEM

G. Coons: An internal audit completed last year by B.C. Ferries shows there are serious security gaps at the corporation for people who pay fares with credit cards — 45 deficiencies that need to be fixed immediately. Otherwise, B.C. Ferries could face millions of dollars in fines or penalties, and people could become victims of fraud or identity theft.

[1425]

What's particularly disturbing is that B.C. Ferries and this government didn't let anybody know about this serious security issue. It wasn't until last week that the public first heard about it after the Globe and Mail managed to obtain the internal audit. The audit was completed last year, and the CEO of B.C. Ferries says he won't get around to fixing the gaps until next winter — seven months from now.

It's unacceptable that British Columbians and travellers were kept in the dark about this serious issue, and it's unacceptable to wait so long before addressing the issue.

[ Page 4277 ]

To the Minister of Transportation: what's she going to do to fix these security gaps immediately, before there's a serious breach of information and before people become victims of fraud?

Hon. S. Bond: This member is on the record as constantly having taken every opportunity to try to discredit a company which has worked very hard. In our recent comptroller general's report, generally, B.C. Ferries operates very well. In fact, it was a result of an internal audit. In fact, the work is being done. Measures are being put in place.

Let's be clear to the member opposite. No compromise has taken place, and the system will be corrected, Mr. Speaker.

[End of question period.]

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

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Health.

Tabling Documents

Hon. K. Falcon: In accordance with the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, I'm submitting before the House a major capital project plan for the Interior heart and surgical centre in Kelowna.

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Consumption Tax Rebate

and Transition Act

(continued)

S. Cadieux: I am pleased to continue on this afternoon with my comments in support of Bill 9. I've already talked a lot about the things that won't change and corrected some of the inconsistencies and misinformation that's been perpetuating. Yes, it's true that some services, like haircuts and luxuries and restaurant meals and golf fees, will see a slight increase under the HST, but first, let's remember a few things.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

First, to spend money, you have to have money. I'm really talking about jobs and after-tax income. The HST will create 113,000 jobs in this province. The HST, combined with the more than 120 tax cuts we've made since 2001, means B.C. residents will continue to pay amongst the lowest taxes in Canada after July 1.

For most taxpayers, their personal income tax has been reduced by more than 37 percent since 2001, and today there are more than 325,000 low-income residents that pay no provincial income tax at all — zero. Those are changes that we made, Madam Speaker, and those are changes that the NDP voted against.

In fact, if you'd like a dollars-and-cents example to put it all in perspective maybe, a middle-income earner, let's say, who earns about $40,000 a year, which is similar to many of our very deserving teachers, in 2001 would have paid over $3,000 in taxes — $3,041, in fact. Today they pay $1,450. That's a 52 percent savings. That's more than $1,500 more in their pockets every year.

Everyone earning up to $118,000 a year pays the lowest provincial income taxes in Canada. That's a good reminder for those who may have forgotten that fact. In fact, we haven't seen much, if any, mention of that during the discussions in the media about the impacts of the HST.

In speaking with people about the HST, there has been a lot of misunderstanding and a lot of things I've corrected. For example, some folks believe that it's a new tax or a tax in addition to the PST and GST we pay today, or thought that it would affect grocery prices or home heating — both of which are untrue.

[1430]

Many of the same people who misunderstand the merging of the GST and PST into the HST and the fiscal impact on their household budgets are surprised to hear that their income taxes have been reduced and the total positive impact of the changes that are there, in fact, in their budgets.

Yesterday one of the members opposite made an inference that low-income earners in this province are continually hurt most by the policies of this government, and that's just not true. Of course, no one would deny that life is more challenging when one is low income. Because of that, the B.C. Liberals have made changes that provide the best impacts to those with low incomes.

In fact, for total provincial taxes and fees paid in 2001 versus 2010, we've seen decreases in almost all income brackets. For a family of four, for example, that is earning about $30,000 a year, the total decrease in taxes paid over that time is 47 percent. That's a lot of money. A family of four earning a much larger income of $90,000 has only seen a decrease of 11 percent. So I'm really not sure where they're getting their numbers from, but they certainly aren't the numbers that are in the budget.

I'm also not sure that they are taking into account or even considering how many things this government has done to further assist low-income individuals. We've got a new HST credit coming. We've got the climate action tax credit. We've got Fair PharmaCare and reduced — and even eliminated in many cases — MSP premiums.

[ Page 4278 ]

Again, we're talking, really, about income. With this bill, what we're talking about is: how do we make sure that people can earn an income in this province?

Right now more than 50 percent of British Columbians earn their income working for a small business. Small business owners know that. Chances are they employ somebody each one of us knows and each one of our constituents knows. Small businesses are 98 percent of the businesses in British Columbia. Since 2001 small businesses have created 172,000 net new jobs. They account for 34 percent of our GDP. They're the backbone of the economy. Small businesses will see their effective tax rate on new investment decline by almost 3⁄5 by 2018.

All of the things we're doing are going to help small business in B.C. continue to grow and remain competitive. John Winter from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce has said: "With the commitment to harmonization and the other measures announced regarding personal, corporate and small business tax, the provincial government must be congratulated for creating the most competitive tax regime in North America."

I know this is very complex and dry, but what does the change from PST to HST mean for small business on a day-to-day basis? Currently businesses pay PST on their inputs that go into producing their final product or service.

For example, a restaurant, which we've heard a lot about during this debate, will no longer pay PST on a long list of products essential to their business and considered business inputs: fridges, stoves, freezers, energy, cleaning supplies, cash registers, paper towels, menus, napkins, placemats, pots, pans, blenders, coffee machines, mixers, advertising materials — all of these things businesses like restaurants use in creating their product and selling that.

Today they pay PST on all of it — 7 percent on all of those things, which they then pass on to the consumer. With the repeal of the PST, they save that 7 percent on all of their purchases. These savings reduce their costs, attract investment, create jobs and result in lower prices.

Administration is also going to be easier. Collecting, accounting and remitting PST is costly and complicated. The proposed HST eliminates all of the current duplication. One of the things that small business owners have been telling this government for years is that we needed to simplify the reporting process, and the HST does that.

Streamlining administration and saving business money may seem insignificant at first to some, at least those on the other side of this House, but B.C.'s businesses are expected to save $150 million annually in compliance costs. And we can't forget the savings to our province's coffers of $30 million a year, also in administration savings.

[1435]

New efficiencies and savings combined with our government's small business tax reductions, with the rate dropping to zero by 2010, will make the small business tax rate the lowest in Canada. That means the lowest, meaning attractive, in case anyone isn't clear on that.

In B.C. more businesses are also going to qualify for that zero percent rate because the small business corporate threshold is now $500,000, the highest in Canada. That'll save small businesses $20 million a year in taxes, money that can be used then to support and expand their business, hire more people, pay higher wages or build new locations.

This is all good news, and they're all things the HST supports. The HST is all about the economy, and all the leading economists agree that it's the single most important thing we can do for the economy in B.C. SFU economist and public finance scholar Jonathan Kesselman said it best: "In addition to gains and economic efficiency and investment growth, harmonization reduces complexity for consumers, compliance costs for business and tax collection costs for governments." Hmm, gee — better for everybody.

Economics may be dry, and people may have a hard time listening to it and may not want to take the time to understand it. People want to know how it affects them. Well, I've got one word: jobs. Or maybe three words: well-paid jobs. I'd like to read an excerpt from an editorial in the Vancouver Sun last September. Many people may have missed it. It's a little lengthy, but it's poignant, so I'd like you to bear with me on it. It reads:

"The bottom line is the HST is good public policy.

"Many analysts agree that future economic momentum will come increasingly from productivity gains rather than employment growth. The B.C. government claims the HST is equivalent to a 40 percent tax cut on business investment, which should propel productivity improvement going forward.

"Baldly stated, more competitive businesses create high-paying jobs and generate tax revenues needed for essential services like health care and education.

"Personal income tax is the single largest source of provincial government revenue. Individual taxpayers contributed $6.2 billion in the last budget, representing about one-third of total taxation revenue, giving Victoria the financial wherewithal to spend $15 billion on health, $10 billion on education.

"Statistics Canada says that the top 10 percent of income earners pay 52 percent of all taxes. Half the population of B.C. pays no income tax at all. It's obvious from these facts that taxes paid by high-income individuals are crucial to the standard of living in British Columbia."

A little further on in that article, it said:

"It should also be clear, even though it has been missing from the debate, that the harmonized sales tax is intended to ensure that B.C. is able to maintain and create employment that pays people well. The average annual wage in B.C.'s mining industry is $112,000, an income that attracts the highest marginal provincial tax rate and second-highest federal rate.

"Highly paid work is equally found in forestry, manufacturing and oil and gas. It's no accident that these industries are singled out to benefit from the introduction of the HST."

And finally:

"The best thing the government can do to induce that outcome is to tax consumption rather than production and investment, and that's what the HST does."

[ Page 4279 ]

Effective, competitive taxation drives investment, which drives job creation, which drives economic prosperity for workers and for the province as a whole. That sounds like good policy to me.

You know, there are some intangible benefits. What I mean by that is…. Well, one industry that'll benefit is the emerging green energy industry. We'll see a stronger industry because of the HST and, more importantly, a better place to live. I know that's hard to imagine here in B.C., but I can't imagine what life would be like for our kids and grandkids if we didn't act now to capitalize on this emerging and enormous opportunity.

I can imagine how disappointed in us those kids would be if we didn't create a climate for economic prosperity, for growth and stability, and if we didn't invest in creating a hotbed of innovation and technological expertise through our universities and technology clusters, and worse, if we chose not to diversify and cushion those ebbs and flows of world markets in a new global economy.

[1440]

With the HST we are recognizing that the world continues to change and that we must change with it. We must accept change. Although often it is uncomfortable, it is essential, and that change is sometimes how we as policymakers drive a strong economy.

The NDP have been wrong on every economic policy, opposing every measure that has made British Columbia the envy of Canada and North America as we make our way through this global recession. The NDP have opposed and voted against more than 120 tax cuts. Our government is eliminating the small business corporation income tax. The NDP voted against that. We introduced the carbon tax, making B.C. a leader in the fight against climate change. The NDP voted against that.

They were wrong about these tax initiatives, and they continue to be wrong about the HST. The NDP have opposed and voted against every income tax reduction that has helped keep B.C. families strong and let them keep more of their money so they can decide what they want to spend it on.

Now the NDP are against repealing the PST, it would appear — a move that will make B.C. more competitive and create jobs. More jobs in B.C., supporting businesses in B.C. — that's certainly not something anybody on this side of the House is going to apologize for.

The world wants to do business with us, and the HST makes doing business with us more enticing. That is how we will keep B.C. strong. That is what we were elected to do. That is how we will keep B.C. families strong, and that is how we will keep B.C. the best place on earth.

M. Sather: It is my distinct pleasure to rise to address Bill 9, the so-called Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act. You know, it's hard to understand why the government wouldn't come out and say in the title of this bill, this act, that it's about the HST, because they continue to tell us all day long how wonderful the HST is.

Now is the time for applause, gentlemen, ladies. No applause. Well, maybe they're having second thoughts. Maybe they are. It's never too late to have second thoughts about a very, very bad move.

You can go through this bill, and you will not see any reference to the HST. In fact, that's what this is all about. This discussion from the government side regarding the HST has become quite bizarre. We just heard it again from the member for Surrey-Panorama, and we previously heard it from the Finance Minister, who said: "I can't wait to see the NDP stand up and vote against the repeal of the PST."

Duh. Isn't that a little bit weird to them? I mean, this….

Interjection.

M. Sather: It's voluntary. It may be voluntary.

It makes no sense, because everybody knows that repealing the PST is about bringing in the HST, just like everybody knew and knows about the financing of health care — comes from general revenues. So what does this government try to do? They try to spin something about how all this money from the HST will go to health care. Flimflam, Madam Speaker. That's what we're seeing from this government around this bill — nothing but flimflam.

Since they don't really want to name the bill for what it appears to be, I thought I would make a couple of suggestions to help them out. For example, they might have called this act the "We're pretty sure British Columbians are going to love this tax" act. Well, that's what they seem to believe, so why not go for it? Why not put it right out there? I mean, they tell us constantly how this act will be good for British Columbians.

They tell us that, and yet I don't know. Maybe they don't get out and talk to British Columbians, because that's not what British Columbians are telling us. I can't imagine that's what British Columbians, the vast majority of them, are telling them.

I mean, the member for Maple Ridge–Mission was at an anti-HST rally the other day. I'm sure he heard from the hundreds and hundreds of people who were there that they're not impressed one little bit with the HST, and these are not all New Democrats by any stretch of the imagination. This government must know that, and these members opposite must know that, and yet they continue with this facade.

[1445]

How about this one — the "This tax wasn't on my radar, but I was converted on the post-election road" act? It's never too late, and there have been conversions on the road before. You know, it could happen this time.

[ Page 4280 ]

The members opposite might want to suggest to the Finance Minister, if he ever comes to his senses — which I doubt, from what I've seen so far…. They might want to suggest to him some way that they can resurrect this bill — some way that they can resurrect, I should say, their careers, as a matter of fact, and their reputations, because their reputations have been badly, badly sullied by this classless and bad act.

I don't mean just this bill as a bad act. I mean the bad act that this government has been engaged in since the election last spring. It's been horrific. So one last shot for them at redemption.

How about the "Lord, we ask your forgiveness for bringing in this tax" act? You know, it's never too late to ask for forgiveness. It's never too late to repent. This is the chance. It's not too late. It's not the end of April yet. You still have an opportunity. It's for your own good. Trust us. It's for your own good, and it certainly would be for the good of British Columbians.

I can imagine that the discussions behind closed doors with the government caucus, if they're allowed to have those discussions, must be contentious. They must be contentious. The government members are putting on a game face, if you will, in question period and at times during this debate. But they know. They know that they're completely up against it with this act and that people in British Columbia are not going to swallow it.

I want to address some things that were said earlier today, particularly by the Finance Minister, when members on this side of the House brought up the fact that condo owners are going to be paying more as a result of the HST. Some incredible response, I thought. I thought it was a remarkable response from the Finance Minister to say, in effect, that government members were lying. He had to correct that, of course. It's unparliamentary language. But I'm scratching my head and wondering where on earth the Finance Minister is at.

I wouldn't have thought that a minister of his experience could not know his file. But I've seen his act before, and I'm not surprised. When it came to the TILMA agreement, after months and months of debate and discussion about the bill, the Finance Minister did not know that the agricultural land reserve is not exempt from TILMA. He didn't know it. In fact, when I said it, he got up and said: "That's wrong." He was wrong, and he's wrong again. But he has the opportunity, and surely he's going to clarify it at some time.

Condo owners and their association are saying: "Look, the fees themselves don't go up." We're all agreed on that, but the things that the fees pay for do go up — things like landscaping, janitorial services, maintenance and renovations. Those are the things that condo owners pay for, and they're going to be paying more for this.

The minister says no. He says that it's not the case. He needs to clarify that, then. Is it not true that they are going to be paying more for those services? It is true, and yet to hear the Finance Minister earlier today…. It was appalling.

You know, I think it must leave the government members privately with a sense of absolute hopelessness, because there's no defence of this bill.

[1450]

There's no cogent defence of this bill that is being made by the government members, particularly the Finance Minister. So it's a bad time to be a Liberal. They're heaping one catastrophe on the other. If it's not the Solicitor General stepping down, if it's not the brewing scandal over the casino, it's the fiasco of the HST — the absolute fiasco.

I want to talk a little bit about the HST in other provinces because that's been mentioned a few times. There are some differences between this one and those in those provinces. For example, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland — they had reduced their HST, the combined tax, in the process of bringing in the HST. More importantly than that, I think, is that the Maritimes consulted with industry and other business before bringing in the HST, and this government did not.

This government did not. And why did they not? They didn't because they knew right from the get-go. I think they knew. They must have done some polling. I don't know. They must have known.

Interjection.

M. Sather: No, they didn't know? Lambs to the slaughter, I guess. I would have thought that they would have known, Member, but perhaps I'm mistaken on their acuity around these matters.

The fact of the matter is that it's a totally unpopular tax, and they're suffering as a result. They didn't bother to discuss with anyone, not before the election, and then they dropped the bombshell on British Columbians.

You know, even if British Columbians accepted the tax, which they by and large do not, they would not accept something that is dropped on them like that, and the government knew it.

Why did they do it? Various theories are out there. They wanted some of that slush fund money from Ottawa, which incidentally they've kind of messed up for British Columbians too because they're not taking it now. They're reducing the amount of that transfer money that they could get. But when you put off taking the money, it's not a freebie because then you've got to pick up the slack. We know we've got another large deficit this year brought forward by this government.

Financing a deficit costs money. There's a lot of interest that's going to be paid; $70-some million is the estimate that I've seen. As I say, it's a tough time right now. It's a tough time. I'm not so concerned about the tough time for the government, quite frankly. I'm concerned about the tough time for British Columbians and

[ Page 4281 ]

how this is quite frankly a very, very bad time to institute a new tax.

We're trying to rise out of a recession, and now consumers are going to be hit with another tax that's going to make them less likely to go out and spend their money. So it's not good for British Columbia in many, many ways.

The Finance Minister says the HST will improve investment in the province, and the government in that respect is putting all their trust on the marginal tax rate on capital and that the HST will lower that measure.

Now, it's not clear if that will in fact be the case. It's arguable, I think, perhaps either way, but the Finance Minister has trotted out quite a few…. Well, not many studies, actually. There's the Jack Mintz one. Anyway, he's trotted out quite a few organizations that are supportive.

But a number of economists don't agree on this factor — that the marginal effective tax rate on capital is a very good dependable measure. Some of those are Queen's University's David Chadwick Smith Chair in Economics, Prof. Robin Boadway, I believe it is — and an individual who, although I'm sure the members opposite are not fond of him, does his homework. That's Marc Lee from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

[1455]

Now, supposing on that particular issue, in terms of investment being improved by the HST…. What would happen if that were the case? Well, if we look at the forest industry, for example, we see that a lot of their investment has been going south of the border. So is there any assurance that investment, if it were to improve…? I don't think there's a heck of a lot of great evidence that it will as a result of this tax, should it be passed. Mercifully, let's hope it is not. We're going to be doing everything we can, certainly, to do our best to see that it isn't.

Ultimately, it always depends on the government as to whether or not…. They will have to make the decision whether to continue with this very unpopular tax.

If you look at some of the forest companies out there…. TimberWest says they're officially realtors now. So what is the confidence that we can have that…? The government, of course, is greasing the skids there monumentally to turn forest companies into realtors in various parts of the province.

We don't have a lot of confidence that the supposed benefits that the Finance Minister says will happen will in fact happen. He also says that the HST will increase B.C.'s tax competitiveness. However, Manitoba, which looked at and rejected an HST for their province, said that an HST would only increase the tax competitiveness of their manufacturing sector by all of 1⁄10 of 1 percent. So hardly worth their while was what Manitoba decided. But government has great faith, I guess, in its vaunted capabilities, which seem to me to be markedly diminished as a result of this ill-considered and ham-fisted attempt to bring in an unpopular tax.

Also, the minister says that the HST is going to help exports. You'll remember that in his speech in second reading he talked about sending all those 2-by-4s over to China. More properly, he should probably have been saying "those raw logs over to China," because that's….

Hon. C. Hansen: That's not true.

M. Sather: That's what in fact is not true.

Hon. C. Hansen: Very few raw logs.

M. Sather: Here he goes again. "Very few raw logs go over."

There's been an unprecedented export of raw logs from this province over the past few years. And they believe that. Better believe it. They know what the truth is. There again, the Finance Minister never fails to make these incredible and unbelievable statements. There you go.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. There is a member who has the floor.

Please continue.

M. Sather: A report for the International Monetary Fund by writers Alan A. Tait and Krugman and Feldstein said:

"Many VATs" — value-added taxes, and the HST is one of those — "exempt and zero-rate important sectors of the economy, especially food, housing and many personal services."

There are some exemptions for food and housing under this bill.

"Therefore, this type of VAT raises the price of tradeables relative to non-tradeables and encourages the substitution of food, housing and services for tradeable goods. This implies that both imports and exports would be reduced. 'The most likely effect of the introduction of a VAT would thus be a decline in exports.'"

The same author writes in the publication for the International Monetary Fund:

"Overall, the VAT is not thought to have contributed significantly to improved export performance in the European Community. The VAT makes the customs union possible but is not the agent that creates international trade."

[1500]

So you see, Madam Speaker, it's by no means a uniform belief that trade in…. Certainly, the Finance Minister wants us to focus on 2-by-4s rather than those raw logs, but whatever it may be, exports thereof.

The sad part about the HST, despite what the government says — which can only make me believe they don't get out much — is that people on the ground and the small businesses are upset about this tax. You go into any restaurant, almost, and they will tell you that they're very, very upset about the effect that this tax will have on them.

[ Page 4282 ]

The government talks about input tax credits all the time. Wow, businesses get input tax credits. But the biggest drivers, the biggest cost factors for restaurants are labour and food, and they don't get any input tax credits on those. They are going to hurt and hurt big, and they know that. I don't think the government even knows that. I just don't think they're getting out at all. They should get out, because I think if they had gotten out and taken the time to talk to some of those individuals in the first place, this never would have happened.

Hairdressers. Government likes to talk, reel off the business organizations that support the HST. However, a lot of the businesses are not supportive. Go in and talk to hairdressers. They're appalled. They're furious. They're ready, willing and able to sign the initiative petition that's going around to try to prevent this ill-considered tax from happening.

It's tax time right now, and a lot of folks, myself and my wife included, have their taxes done by accountants. It's interesting that the government lists several, or two or three, accounting organizations that purportedly support the HST, but when I talk to my accountant about it, he's freaked out. He's concerned that he is going to have to charge the HST if this government passes this bill, and he'll have to do that next year. He's wondering and asking me: "What can I do about it?"

It's the people on the ground that this government needs to talk to, not just the people in the corporate boardrooms. Quite frankly, from a purely political point of view, they need to remember that the people who do most of the voting are the average British Columbians. The people in those restaurants, the people in those hairdressing shops — the people that are small, that don't have the access to power — have great concerns about how they're going to be affected by this bill.

I mentioned the initiative petition that Bill Vander Zalm is driving. Bill is driving the bus that's going around to most towns in British Columbia. What is the government going to do if that initiative were to pass? Initially everybody, I think most people in British Columbia, thought: "Nah, it doesn't have a chance." Now a lot of people are saying that it may very well have a chance.

If in fact that initiative is successful, what is this government's response going to be? Are they going to bring in a bill that allows for a referendum? Well, they should, but I think they know very, very well where that would go — a resounding defeat. Or are they going to bring in legislation that would effectively end this HST debacle? Some people have suggested that they could bring it in but then not call it for debate. I dare the government to do that. I dare them to bring in a bill to this House and then let it die on the order paper.

I wonder, really, what this government is going to do. I'm sure they're shaking in their boots, hoping at least one constituency somewhere in this province is not going to sign up the required number of people so that that initiative will pass.

[1505]

You know, Madam Speaker, a lot about politics is about branding, and this government's brand is suffering big-time. It's coming, I think, to a tipping point for this government. You can only endure so much damage to your brand before it becomes unredeemable, before you're stuck with what you've got.

I don't think the Liberal Party of British Columbia wants to go there. I don't think they want to ruin themselves for the future. Then why not take the hit now, that you made a big mistake, and cancel this bad experiment right now?

Why not say to British Columbians: "You know, we are fallible human beings. I know we didn't tell you what we were going to do, but we're saying now that we hear what you say. We've talked to you, we've listened to you, we know that you are not happy with this tax, and we are going to cancel it, get rid of it right now"?

That's what this government should do. That would be, in my opinion, in their best interest to do that, because this is not going to go away. I guess that's what the government is hoping. They're hoping, of course — hoping against hope, praying — that the initiative campaign will not succeed. Even if it does, I guess, they're hoping that somehow the huge anger that British Columbians have towards this government as a result of this deception that brought in this tax and as a result of the tax itself….

Notwithstanding what the Finance Minister says, they know that this tax is not good for them, and they're going to punish this government. They're going to punish this government unless they come to their senses. But that's up to them, Madam Speaker, and I can only hope for the people of British Columbia that they will come to their senses.

Look at tourism. They're going to be suffering. Tourism services are going to go up another 7 percent. These folks are really worried. I mean, they depend largely, to a considerable degree, on tourists coming over from the U.S. to Canada — to British Columbia specifically. The Canadian dollar is right around parity with the American dollar at this point. That is not good for tourism. To have this on top of it, it's going to be a very hard blow. It's going to be a tough time for tourism as a result of this.

The government just goes on talking about all the benefits to business. Where are they when they're looking at the tourism industry? Where are they when they're looking at the restaurant industry? Where are they when it comes to all the little people?

I talked to somebody the other day, and he's a winemaker. They're uncertain about how or if this is going to affect them. It shows that there's not enough information out there. The juice that they pay for to make their wine…. The member opposite is a vintner. Although it's

[ Page 4283 ]

not his business particularly, he knows all about wines. They're worried about whether or not it was considered an agricultural product. They understand, some of them at least, that it no longer will be and that it's going to be subject to a tax.

I talked to another person. I went into a floral shop, and she started talking about a friend of hers who is a wedding planner. My wife and I used a wedding planner. It was great — an absolutely wonderful service. They're going to be subject.

These are little people. They're going to be hurt, and I guess this government doesn't talk to those folks, because they would know that those kinds of people are going to be hurt.

I talked to another individual who has a courier service. She picks up pets in Vancouver from the airport and takes them to their owners — stuff like that. She's going to be hit by this. They're trying to get their businesses going, they're trying to make a living, and they can't afford this kind of hit.

[1510]

It's totally ironic for a government that brags all the time about the tax reductions that they've made for businesses, by and large, and yet they're so ready to adopt the tax, to embrace a tax that puts the burden on the average British Columbian, and that's not right. It's simply not right at all.

So we see this for what it is. It's a tax shift. It's a tax shift from business to the average British Columbian, and they're concerned about that. The government needs to get a lot more concerned about it. Their level of concern, certainly as indicated by the remarks of the Finance Minister, is…. The disparaging remarks by the Finance Minister are worrying, quite frankly, because I think it shows a complete disconnect with the reality that's out there, and this government is proceeding at their own peril.

I don't think I've got too much time left, so I just want to add a few more words.

You know, you can't even go green now. Remember how proud the government was at going green? Now your tax rebate on your hybrid that you could get before to help you go green is gone with the repeal of the PST. The ability is lost. The flexibility is gone.

This is one of the things that — remember? — Rick Thorpe and Carole Taylor, when they were part of this government, said was so bad, because you lose capacity to adjust and to have ownership over your own taxes in British Columbia. They said it was bad. Now it's curious. They're not in government anymore.

Hon. I. Chong: I, too, rise this afternoon to take my place in the debate of Bill 9. I know others who have spoken before me have certainly offered their opinion and have read into the record a number of quotes. I will give everyone fair warning that I will likely be offering some of those quotes as well, albeit from a different perspective.

I do want to begin by saying, however, that when Bill 9 was introduced by the Minister of Finance, he said the primary objective of this goal was to repeal the provincial sales tax. We're getting rid of a tax, and to hear members opposite not support getting rid of a tax just goes to show that, once again, they're not about tax reduction. I know, because I have been here for close to 15 years, that each and every time this side of the House, our Minister of Finance, has ever introduced a tax reduction or a tax measure that actually made an impact on people's lives, each and every time it was rejected by those NDP members opposite.

When we wanted to start eliminating taxes and introduce one of the single largest personal income tax reductions in the history of British Columbia, when we were first elected in 2001…. In June of 2001 we introduced the largest personal income tax reduction ever: a 25 percent income tax reduction. What was the NDP position? Well, they didn't like it. Why did they not want individuals and families to have more disposable income, more discretionary spending available to them? Because they do not, have not and will not ever understand what tax policy is about. That has been shown time and time again.

We just have to take a look at the history — the ten years that the NDP had to make significant changes to tax policy. Every time they were given an opportunity to do that, they couldn't do it because they could not understand it, because they were pulled each and every way by some of the people telling them: "Well, it may not work this way. It may not work that way."

You know what? It takes bold leadership to make a tax policy change, and that's exactly what is happening with Bill 9. That is exactly what we're going to do to ensure that British Columbia continues to be a leader in economic growth here in Canada and recognized around the world.

[1515]

That's something foreign to the NDP. I know that because I've seen that. When we wanted to make other changes to our tax policy, they rejected them because there was always something negative about it.

Well, I can tell you that like all tax changes that take place, there will not be an identical effect on individuals or on businesses or on industries. No tax can possibly make the exact, identical impact on everyone. So that's why you look at those changes, and that's why you also bring in other incentives and other mitigating measures.

We've heard members opposite talk about the impacts that a harmonized sales tax will have on low-income individuals and low-income families and fixed-income families. So what is it that we did to address that problem? We brought in tax credits: $230 a year for individuals earning up to, I believe, $20,000, which is a

[ Page 4284 ]

low-income measure. We all accept that. That will more than mitigate any incremental cost that an HST may bring to those individuals.

Are they going to accept it or reject it? Well, I think they actually did reject that, because in our budget…. They rejected the budget. So they also, once again, rejected a mitigating measure that the harmonized sales tax would bring.

Members on this side of the House have said this on a number of occasions, and I know the NDP refuse to listen or make a choice not to listen, and that's fine. There are leading economists — and they'll quote economists that they know as well — well-published economists, who are respected around the world, who are reviewing this change and measure and saying: "You know what? Actually, we're going to take a look at exactly what is going on in British Columbia, and we're prepared to publish a report."

Dr. Jack Mintz. I'll start with quotes from Dr. Jack Mintz from the University of Calgary, the School of Public Policy, who specifically wanted to take a look at British Columbia's — not Ontario's, not Newfoundland's, but specifically British Columbia's — harmonized sales tax. In essence, he says this: "British Columbia's harmonization of its sales tax with the federal goods and services tax, GST, will result in a giant leap in the province's competitiveness, both domestically and internationally."

What members opposite, the NDP, fail to acknowledge is that we are a small trading jurisdiction in a small trading country. One way that we can ensure that we grow our economy and that we have jobs for people is that we do have to trade with other jurisdictions.

The fact that this measure is going to have a giant leap in our competitiveness to allow us to do well internationally in itself should provide some comfort to the NDP members. If they care about jobs, which I think they do; if they care about investment, which I hope they do; and if they care about British Columbia coming out of this global economic recession faster than any other province, which we should all be proud to do, then, they should support the harmonized sales tax. They should support Bill 9. But it is quite the contrary.

M. Sather: Quite the contrary.

Hon. I. Chong: Absolutely. The member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows said that it's quite the contrary, because he doesn't support new jobs. He doesn't support investment. Obviously, you don't support the economic growth that we're going to be seeing. It is a shame. That is where the contrary lies, which has become very evident.

You know, Dr. Mintz goes on to further analyze…. His report isn't very long, and I'm sure some of the members opposite, and even their research department has perhaps committed it to review. They may wish to disagree, perhaps, on the surface of what they see.

[1520]

But I am comforted knowing that this renowned economist, who has been publishing papers, will have done the incredible amount of work necessary to put this to paper, to suggest and to come up with figures such as the harmonization that will account for an increase of $11.5 billion in capital investment and a net increase of 113,000 jobs by the end of the coming decade.

Now, those are pretty incredible numbers. Those are pretty staggering numbers — $11.5 billion, not million, but billion dollars of capital investment. Why would anyone want to invest in a jurisdiction if they did not feel that that investment would be secure and that it could be recovered?

If you are looking to find a jurisdiction to do business in, create jobs, to help grow a particular sector, you want to come to one that is going to allow you to see those future prospects as well as create jobs as well as have your investment protected. I can't imagine why anyone or any business would be prepared to see $11.5 billion of investment at risk. Another good reason for the harmonized sales tax.

He goes on to talk about a more complicated area, and I'm not going to get into details because I know it will take some time to explain it. While I may have had the benefit of training and the use of seminars in my background as a professional accountant, I know some members opposite haven't. I won't get into detail, but suffice it to say they should understand that there is something called the marginal effective tax rate.

The marginal effective tax rate really does speak to why people make certain decisions — where they choose to live, where they choose to invest. The report that Dr. Mintz published talks about and highlights that. It is very, very important that we understand how that, in effect, will provide an opportunity for people to do well in this province.

We are living in a changing world. We said so last year, or about a year and a half ago, when the global economic recession took hold of British Columbia. Like every other jurisdiction, we were not in any way shielded from its wide-ranging impacts. We were affected like every other jurisdiction around the world and like every other jurisdiction in Canada. All the provinces and territories were going through the exact same difficulties and challenges, yet through all of that people were pointing to British Columbia and saying: "What is it that they're doing that will get it right?"

Well, first of all, we know that the Olympics was one of the factors that they said that British Columbia was going to come out of this global economic recession faster. Everyone said that's the great big economic shot in the arm they all wish they had. And for quite a while the NDP rejected that, disparaged the Olympics at

[ Page 4285 ]

every opportunity until, after it was over, they each rose in their places and talked about how wonderful it was in the unification of the Canadian spirit and pride — which none of us disagree with, but they did take their opportunity to disparage it.

So here we have, again, a contrast of sides, a contrast of opinions. With that, the Olympics being a shot in the arm for economic rebirth, I guess, if you could call it that, the harmonized sales tax has now been touted as this giant leap forward. Once again, the members opposite, the NDP, would again start to disparage it, bringing in a considerable amount of misinformation.

I find it astounding that they could carry on with that misinformation and the fearmongering that they have provided out there. When they talk about how people are concerned and upset, it's because they have given inaccurate information.

[1525]

One of their own members — I think he's from Delta North — in his own brochure puts out that there's an additional 7 percent on top of the present PST. That is an absolutely false statement — completely. And yet it's published. I can't hold it up and show you the picture because I know that would be a prop. But Madam Speaker, that's an absolutely incorrect piece of information, I'm sure paid for with taxpayers' dollars, because it's a constituency brochure.

Obviously, incorrect information is being published out there. If people were to read this and to believe that this was an MLA constituency brochure, they would honestly think that this was something that they had to rely on.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Minister.

Members.

Hon. I. Chong: I just want to say that that's just one example — one — of misinformation being touted out there.

I've heard member after member get up and talk about things, and they throw it casually in their speeches about: "Oh, this will be included, and that will be included." And we've said no. There are so many items that we currently pay for that have both the PST the GST, and harmonization means the addition of both. It also does mean that those current items that have GST on them will be subject to HST. And yes, I know that some of those items did not have PST on them, so there would be 7 percent on that.

That's one of the reasons why there were tax credits that were introduced to help mitigate that. That's also why a variety of areas that people fundamentally would like to see shielded from any increase would be exempted. That's why groceries will not have any additional tax, which some people think there would be. Children's-sized clothing will also be exempted — and a number of things, as members will know as they check the website.

It is disconcerting that we are living in a changing world and that, when given an opportunity to introduce such a significant change in tax policy, the NDP want to continue as they have in the past, have their heads buried in the sand and say: "Let's stay with the status quo." It's not because I think they don't…. Well, I think it is because they don't understand it, or they're choosing not to understand it, because if they were to really look into how the impacts of this will take shape and what it will ultimately do, they will have to support it.

Job creation is key to this, and I've mentioned it a couple times. I cannot stress the importance of that.

When people talk about what we were going through in the last number of months in our economic climate, when we saw one-industry towns buckle because that industry was no longer able to be competitive, and as much as 30 percent of the workforce in that town were suddenly out of a job, do you know what was affected then?

Well, it was the restaurants, it was the retail shops, it was the grocery stores and it was the gas station. You know what? It wasn't even taxed at that time. It was that someone didn't have a job. They didn't have a paycheque. They couldn't spend any money anywhere other than making sure they made their mortgage payment.

This Bill 9, this repeal of the PST that allows us to implement a harmonized sales tax, means jobs will either be retained or jobs will be created by those very businesses in those towns that I know members opposite who represent rural communities are highly dependent on. It's pretty incredible when a member represents a rural town and they've seen the devastation of a mill being shut down, of a mine not starting, and they're coming into this House and demanding from this minister or that minister that they do something.

We said: "Well, you know what? We just heard from ministers who have been talking to those sectors, who have said: 'Well, you know what you can do? You can bring in something to help us to stimulate our sector.'"

[1530]

What does the forest industry say? They say $140 million — $140 million — of savings in that sector alone will allow them to not only reinvest in equipment but also allow them to re-equip their plants, to modernize their plants, to make them more competitive so that they can sell their products and therefore hire people, have some people back in those jobs.

If members opposite are saying no to that, then they're saying no to jobs in their own ridings. I would really ask them to go back and ask those forest-dependent towns that they represent and ask those employers whether they will be able to continue to be in those towns without

[ Page 4286 ]

that. I'll tell you, the forest employers will say: "No, we need this."

Mining was devastated under the NDP. I was here, and I watched, and I heard. Not a single mine opened up while the NDP were in office because every time that sector tried to move one step forward, the NDP kept pulling them back — every single time. But we have encouraged exploration. Exploration means people are at work. Exploration means people invest in equipment. Exploration means jobs — once again, more jobs.

The mining sector and the energy sector say that as much as $80 million can be saved. The NDP suggests that these are not dollars that will be passed on. That is ludicrous because when a sector is able to save money, do you know what they want to do? They want to keep that investment that they've already made whole. They want to continue to ensure that the investment they've already made in that town thrives. They need to protect that investment. They need to help it modernize, and they need to have people working there. And that's what the HST is going to do for them.

As I say, it's very, very disconcerting when the NDP do not understand those very basic principles of what it is to turn an economy around. That should not come as any surprise, because they weren't able to turn an economy around when they had ten years to do so. We all know that when they formed government, they inherited one of the best-performing economies in Canada and within ten years took it to the worst-performing economy in Canada. They took it from a have status to a have-not status. We saw credit downgrades, one after another.

I was here, hon. Speaker, as were you, and we saw each and every year when the credit-rating agencies came out with their report, and we all rushed to get that report. What did it say?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, please take your seat.

Members — North Coast, Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows.

Minister, please continue.

Hon. I. Chong: Those credit-rating agencies — what did they say? They never gave you an upgrade, I can tell you that for sure. Never once did I see an upgrade with the NDP when they were in government.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

But we were able to get a credit upgrade, not just once but several times. We have a triple-A credit rating. Some people might not think that means anything, but I can tell you that if you personally had a great credit rating and you had a mortgage or you had a business, you would want that. You would not want to give it up, because every percentage or quarter percentage drop that you would have in terms of rating would mean you would be paying more in interest costs, which would not allow you to be competitive.

It goes back to being competitive. Everything you need to do to create a competitive, productive climate means you look at your taxation policy. You take a look at your economic growth potential. You take a look at your job creation policy. That's what you do to protect British Columbians to make sure they have a good quality of life so that education and health care dollars are there. That's what you do to make British Columbia a leader. That's what we're known for.

We were not known as any leader of any kind back in the 1990s. I can assure you of that. We, in fact, were the laughingstock back in the '90s. Many times economists wrote in their journals, their magazines, how British Columbia was just not even on the radar screen for any investor.

[1535]

That was in the '90s, and it was very, very disconcerting then, as well, because we all want to be proud. See how proud we were when we had the Olympics, how proud we were to be Canadians? Well, you know what? We wanted to be proud as British Columbians too. We wanted to say we were leaders in a whole host of areas, but there was nothing we could be proud of in British Columbia in the 1990s when the NDP were in office because all they did was drive people and jobs out of British Columbia.

I saw firsthand how that happened. I saw my friends, my young friends, have to leave this province to find work elsewhere because nobody cared to invest in British Columbia. At the end of the day if nobody cares to invest, there are no jobs. If there are no jobs, there's no spending in the community. If there's no spending in the community, there are no other small businesses where other jobs are.

You know, the members opposite talk about the small businesses. Well, that's great, because we all do support small businesses. The small businesses need to know that they've got customers. That's number one: customers. If you don't have customers, what will the tax do?

You'd better take a look. The members opposite should really have a look at those small businesses in their community and ask them: would they like to see a 30 percent drop in their customer base? I think that will more than take over. If you want to go back to a have-not status…. Do they want to see all those shops closed and all those papered-up and wood-boarded-up stores throughout their towns?

I remember driving through Port Alberni, in fact. I think it was 1998. There were shops boarded up. There were brown bags all over the windows because people just didn't even want to invest anymore because there

[ Page 4287 ]

were no customers. As I say, a challenge for those communities, and it was not good news for British Columbia. It was not good news.

People need to, when they take a look and listen to these debates, really take the time to seek out the facts. There are facts out there — real facts about the impacts to understand each and every area that may affect them. Then also take a look at the corresponding tax mitigation measures that are in place.

Our basic personal exemption. I heard members opposite earlier talking about doing income taxes. Yes, we're all in that. I haven't done mine yet, but I'm about to do it. Your basic exemption is going up from about $9,376, I think the minister has said — as I say, I've got the book; I haven't flipped to the page yet — to an $11,000 basic exemption. That means everybody who has more than at least $11,000 at that point will in fact have a saving there, based on the personal exemption rate going up and the taxes not being applied to that. That's a mitigating measure that's available.

Specifically for low-income individuals, as I say, with the $230 additional HST tax credit that's available to them, they will see it will be divided up into quarters so that every three months they receive a cheque. They don't even have to wait till the end of the year. They will receive a cheque every three months to help them pay for, perhaps, any incremental costs that they have.

When I take a look and focus on those low-income individuals, if they're earning $20,000 or $30,000, the majority of their spending, the disposable income, will likely be on their groceries. That is the major cost you have. On groceries there is no HST. If they're going to also have home heating fuel — another concern — well, again, that has either got a rebate or a point-of-sale rebate, so no cost on that.

No cost on prescription drugs. Again, another area where the members opposite have perpetuated this misinformation and, therefore, fear not only amongst young taxpayers but amongst seniors as well, and it's not true.

Day in and day out the members opposite are, unfortunately, preying upon the fears of a number of individuals because they're giving them misinformation. I do hope that people, now that the debate is certainly here in the Legislature, take the time to find out the real facts, because there are real facts out there.

[1540]

There is real information that is available. When you have people take a look at that information, I know they will come to understand why this is occurring today.

When I take a look, as well, in the report, I know that the economists have said one of the reasons why we must make this move now is because we do want to remain competitive. The fact of the matter is that with Ontario moving towards this, with a number of the Atlantic provinces going to this, it will not be a question of if. It would be a question of when.

We do not want to see another province such as Ontario take advantage of the investment opportunities that we know are here in British Columbia. We know we have some of the best and brightest people here who can compete on an international level, but they're not going to be able to do that if the investors and the investment don't come to this province.

Once again, I see that my time is about over, but I just wanted to quote a couple of quick notes. The flyer that I see from the member for Delta North. He wanted to quote the B.C. Business Council and something about a report in 2009 that they had.

If he wants to quote the Business Council, he should also quote the most recent

article written by the Business Council, by Jock Finlayson and Ken Peacock. In it they basically said quite clearly that if B.C. did not adopt the harmonized sales tax on the same timeline as Ontario, we would be at a huge disadvantage when it came to attracting the investment that we need to create jobs in this province.

That is the crux of why this legislation is so important. That's why….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. I. Chong: That's why, if they don't want to listen to me, they can at least listen to some of these renowned economists who they from time to time quote as well.

There was another

article that was written, and they quoted two UBC economists. Even if they don't want to go too far and take a look at someone from Calgary, take a look at two University of British Columbia economists who have reported on this.

I thank you, hon. Speaker, for my time. It's been a pleasure. I hope I have the opportunity to once again talk about this.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

M. Mungall: I rise to take my place in this debate on Bill 9 and to speak against Bill 9. This bill paves the way for what simply is the wrong tax at the wrong time — the HST. In repealing the provincial sales tax, the B.C. Liberal government puts the final nail into a tax shift that was conceived and planned behind the backs of British Columbians. The clandestine nature of this tax shift is appalling. But what is more disgusting is that during the

[ Page 4288 ]

election, the B.C. Liberals promised to not implement the HST, to not do what they are effectively doing right now with Bill 9.

I've read those words during the election over and over again, and here they are for the record. "A harmonized goods and services tax is not something that is contemplated by the B.C. Liberal platform."

Looking at these words, technically they read as though it is only in the platform that they don't commit to an HST. Perhaps it's because they were contemplating it elsewhere, like next to a coffee machine while talking to the federal Minister of Finance. Yet it is in the platform where they need to make their commitments, their plans for government. That's a platform.

Let me be clear that a chat at the coffee machine is not the place that gives any political party the mandate to implement a major tax shift so quickly after a general election. It is the statements committed to in a platform and the promises made to citizens that give a political party mandate for action.

[1545]

It isn't just me saying this. In fact, Wikipedia, on-line resource — everyone has access to it; I invite members opposite to go look it up — says that these two things, platforms and promises, are "an essential element in getting people to vote for a candidate." It's what we say to people: "Vote for us. This is what we're going to commit to you, the voters, when we make government. This is our plan."

So here we are. The B.C. Liberals used a platform sans HST to get themselves elected. It wasn't in there. So if it's not there, the assumption voters have is that it's not going to come forward here, because it's a major item that should be in a platform.

Not only did they not put it in their platform; they wrote to both the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association and the Restaurant and Foodservices Association and said that the HST wasn't in their platform on purpose, implying that it wasn't there for the very reason that it wasn't a tax they would implement — for that very reason. That's why it wasn't there. It was on purpose.

This is where they misled the public. I've heard several members across the way talk about how members on this side are misleading the public with misinformation. Well, the biggest misleading that has been going on by anybody was the giant statement or lack thereof during the election.

Then two months later, without any consultation about the details on implementing an HST, the Minister of Finance made his announcement that in just under a year he and the B.C. Liberals would complete a tax shift of $1.9 billion called the harmonized sales tax. This announcement blindsided everyone and showed the extent to which the B.C. Liberals are completely incompetent when it comes to being upfront with the public.

So the shockwaves went out. Former B.C. Liberal MLA and current Coquitlam Mayor Richard Stewart, along with his council colleagues, sent a letter to the Finance Minister strongly opposing the HST. The letter said that the HST will "greatly impact an already faltering economy" and that Coquitlam "does not support the HST because of the negative impact on the residents of British Columbia."

Stewart isn't the only B.C. Liberal to break rank from the Premier and the Minister of Finance, questioning the timing of the decision and its impact on consumers.

Former Liberal Deputy Premier Christy Clark on CBC radio on August 14 said that she doesn't "think it's possible that the minister and the Premier only considered implementing the HST after the election," saying it was quite clear that British Columbia was going to be faced with this decision in March, a few months before the general election, when Ontario adopted it.

The largest province in the country adopting the HST, and yet the Premier and the Minister of Finance said it wasn't on their radar. Christy Clark said it's just sneaky all around. That's what she had to say about their comments when they said it wasn't on their radar.

Former B.C. Liberal MLA John Nuraney said there were ongoing talks about HST while he was a member of the B.C. Liberal caucus and also said that the new tax will be a significant blow to his restaurant business.

Cariboo-Chilcotin MLA Donna Barnett admitted….

Deputy Speaker: Member, no names.

M. Mungall: My apologies, hon. Speaker. Thank you for the reminder.

The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin admitted that consumers will see a price rise, saying that for her that is a concern and that she has some concerns. Well, we'll just see what kind of concerns she has when we all vote on this bill that paves the way for the HST.

[1550]

We will see if she heard the pleas of the eight constituents who represent literally thousands of people in her constituency when they took the long trek from Williams Lake to here on the steps of the Legislature, asking, begging, pleading with her to vote with them, vote against the HST, vote with her constituents and not the Premier. Come spring 2013 I dare say they will remind her that her boss is her constituents and not the leader of her political party.

Former B.C. Liberal candidate for Vancouver-Kensington Syrus Lee said flat out that he opposes the HST, asking: "Why would the government do this?" Why would they do it? That's a question I've heard all over B.C.

I remember when a local Nelson accountant came up to me last summer professing that he is a card-carrying

[ Page 4289 ]

B.C. Liberal member. He carries his membership card in his wallet. He was livid with this move to an HST. He felt betrayed. And recently the Nelson Daily News reported that he is spending time with former B.C. Premier Bill Vander Zalm. I wonder what he could be doing.

People felt blindsided by this major decision that happened so abruptly, at least for the public. Not able to trust the minister's reassurances that the HST wasn't on his radar screen prior to May 12, 2009, the public at least, at the very least, wanted the evidence for this decision.

Where were the studies, the research, the analysis that said how an HST would impact B.C. and what would be the best ways for implementing it? What kind of studies had the B.C. Liberals done? There was none to be had.

No good, solid research backed up this decision before it was made. One political pundit calls the Premier's admission of his lack of study on the HST's impacts and what they would mean for B.C. an "admission of incompetence." This comment reflects the thoughts of millions. The lack of analysis is incredible.

In contrast to what has happened here in B.C., something different happened in Manitoba. To facilitate good decision-making, the Manitoba NDP government went and did its research before committing to repealing its provincial sales tax, before announcing any commitment or plan to implement the HST. They went to find out if this was going to be good for their citizens, and that's exactly what they should be doing. That is the role of government.

If they're going to make a decision, make it based on good, solid information. Do your research. Find your facts. Do it before you make the decision, not after.

So the NDP government in Manitoba went and did its research before committing to repealing its provincial sales tax, the retail sales tax, before committing to even contemplating the HST. This is what it found. With an HST in Manitoba, consumers would pay $405 million more in provincial sales tax. So there's no savings going to be here. They're going to be paying more.

How members opposite magically think that people in British Columbia are going to be paying less because of the HST, despite studies saying exactly the opposite…. They must be pulling that one out of a hat, because it's simply not being pulled out of any facts.

The Manitoba report also acknowledges that even items not directly affected by the introduction of an HST, such as residential rent, could cost more. The Minister of Finance has said: "No, that's not the case." But here we have a study which said that that's absolutely the case — not to mention the people who are in the real estate industry saying that, yes, that is going to be the case. Indirect costs from the HST are going to cost people more.

[1555]

Manitoba has chosen, as a result, to not go ahead with an HST right now because they know exactly what 82 percent of British Columbians know, and that is that the HST is the wrong tax at the wrong time.

Let's talk about what British Columbians know. They know that the HST is going to cost them more. They know that they never got the chance to debate this new tax during an election. They know that the HST shifts $1.9 billion from big businesses and puts it right onto the backs of everyday citizens. They know that they are going to be paying more and getting less from this government, and they know that they can no longer trust the B.C. Liberals. They know.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again because it's a message worth repeating over and over and over again. British Columbians know that the HST is the wrong tax at the wrong time. This is what British Columbians know all over the province, including the vivacious, wise, little old ladies in Kelowna and the entrepreneurial and intelligent bike shop owners in Nelson. Contrary to the member for Comox Valley's statements in this House, the seniors in Kelowna and the cyclists in Nelson are convincing British Columbians about the negative impacts of the HST. Why?

Why are they so convincing? Just like the Canadian-Independent Group of Funeral Homes, Condominium Home Owners Association, practitioners of alternative medicines, hairdressers, restaurateurs, hoteliers, theatre producers, and the list goes on and on and on…. So why are the senior women and the cyclists in Nelson so convincing, along with all their friends in British Columbia, when they say that the HST is bad for B.C.?

They are convincing, hon Speaker, because they're the ones telling the truth. They are telling the truth about how the HST will impact them. It's a shocking concept — the truth. I know it's shocking members opposite, but it's actually happening. People out there throughout British Columbia are speaking the truth, and they are telling the truth that the HST is going to cost them more.

Annette Kazmar, a lively, vivacious Vernon senior, is telling the truth when she says that she cannot afford the new costs that the HST is going to give her on her fixed income.

Ross McNamara, owner of Gerick Cycle in Nelson, is telling the truth when he says that the HST is bad for business and it's bad for the environment.

Interjection.

M. Mungall: I heard a message coming from the opposite side of the floor, accusing my good neighbour Ross McNamara of being in the minority of retailers who think the HST is bad for business and bad for the environment. Well, let me remind members opposite that my good friend and my good neighbour Ross McNamara is, in fact, not a minority in British Columbia.

[ Page 4290 ]

He is with 82 percent of British Columbians who oppose the HST. That is who he is with.

[1600]

That, by any math, is a clear majority. I know that they might have trouble with the mathematics, but it is a majority, and he is with millions in this province who don't like the HST. He has hundreds, thousands of customers coming in, complaining about the HST.

He's concerned about losing customers to Alberta, where they won't have to be paying the tax. That's very important for our communities over in southeastern B.C. The reason is that many of our tourists come from Alberta, and what do they do? They mountain-bike. They enjoy the extreme sports that we have to offer in the Kootenays.

They're not going to be looking to the communities they're visiting to purchase the equipment that they need to do their recreational activities, because it's going to cost them more. Members opposite don't get it.

They don't get it, and every time a British Columbian stands up and says, "I don't like the HST," all they are confronted with is condescending attitudes and patronizing words, and that is shameful. That is inappropriate.

That is exactly what the member for Comox Valley delivered the other day when he spoke of little old ladies in Kelowna and bicycle shop owners in Nelson, along with countless others in British Columbia. He delivered patronizing words, condescending attitudes, and British Columbians, including those in his constituency, are going to have none of it.

Unlike the member for Comox Valley, I've spoken to countless British Columbians about the HST, and I haven't met one person who likes it — not one. Senior women have legitimate concerns, and bike shop owners have been loud and clear. Like I've said, they are not alone. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs has said: "The HST will benefit many businesses by creating access to input tax credits to offset the full amount of HST spent by the business in conducting its activities." Cue applause, but they're not even applauding any more.

"However, the burden of the HST will be felt by consumers. Consumption taxes such as the HST are regressive, as they disproportionately affect lower-income households, and proposed HST rebates for low-income individuals and families will not offset the increased taxes. B.C. First Nations communities already experience high amounts of poverty and will, therefore, be detrimentally impacted by the proposed HST, further increasing economic marginalization and hardship….

"UBCIC strongly opposes implementation of the HST because it stands to increase the poverty of our people and of all poor British Columbians, and because there was no consultation with B.C. First Nations on implementation of the new tax regime."

So I'll continue in this vein, because why say it myself when there are countless people in B.C. who have said it so eloquently when it comes to opposing the HST and its detrimental effects on this province? Garth Whyte, president of the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, writes in an open letter to the Premier…. This letter is found on the website. I'll say the URL for members opposite so they can go to it and actually start to maybe engage with what people are saying in this province: nomealtax.ca — a very simple website. I encourage everyone to go to it.

Garth Whyte, the president of the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, writes in his open letter:

"The new tax comes at the worst time for the struggling food service industry. The drop in sales resulting from a new 7 percent tax, while competitive food products in grocery stores remain completely tax-free, will have an enormous job-loss effect.

[1605]

"Our low-margin food service industry will have to reduce work hours or lay off thousands of our 173,000 employees. This includes 80,000 young people who rely on their jobs to help pay for their education. With a youth unemployment rate of 15.8 percent, we can't afford to jeopardize the jobs of the largest employer of youth in the province."

Absolutely right.

"Food service operators from every community in B.C. have been overwhelmed by the support they have received from their staff and customers. They are looking to your government to mitigate the negative impacts of the HST on our industry as promised in your September 1 budget speech."

Just to look at this letter, food service operators from every community in B.C. have been overwhelmed by the support that they have received from their staff and customers, overwhelmed by the support that they have received for No Meal Tax, their campaign against the HST. This should be indicative of the opposition that's widespread. It should be so obvious to members opposite of the incredible opposition to the HST, of the results of blindsiding a public when they make a major tax decision. But it's not. They ignore it, and all we get are condescending attitudes and patronizing words.

An entrepreneur named Amy commented on the No Meal Tax website. This is another reason why I encourage everyone to go and visit this website. There are an incredible number of comments from British Columbians from all over the province engaging with this debate on the HST because they didn't get the opportunity to engage in this debate during the election like they should have. So now they're engaging in any venue they possibly can, including on line.

Amy, an entrepreneur, commented on the website No Meal Tax just a few weeks ago on March 22, saying:

"As a small business owner in a small town on the border of Alberta, it is already a challenge to keep the taxmen happy and encourage customers to stay in B.C. rather than skipping over to Alberta to spend their money and to feed ourselves. The HST on food service and other services which were previously exempt will likely cripple our business, forcing us to close up shop. If this happens, we will join many of our friends and move to Alberta, where we can enjoy a similar lifestyle with lower taxes. While the financial implications to relocation would be beneficial, it would be a sad day to…leave our hometown."

And indeed it would. Indeed it would.

What is important to note here is that Amy's real-life experience and her real-life concerns are valid. They are legitimate, worthy of respectful response. Yet all she gets

[ Page 4291 ]

from the B.C. Liberals, like I've said many times — and hopefully the repetition will drive the message over to the opposite members — are condescending words, patronizing attitudes and now a paid-for, after-the-fact, 12-page report from a guy who lists the wonders of HST after he sends his $12,000 invoice to the B.C. Liberals.

Convenient. What's more convenient is that he wasn't as optimistic about the HST a couple of years ago — September 2008. Here is what Jack Mintz said in the report he co-authored less than two years ago: "These more positive results would come at the cost of a longer and deeper period of short-term loss, including, for example, an estimated reduction of just under 38,000 jobs in the second year."

That's 38,000 jobs, according to Jack Mintz, the guy who's charged the B.C. Liberals $12,000 for a pro-HST report. What he said is that we can anticipate a 38,000-job loss in the second year of the HST.

[1610]

Anybody worth their salt trying to make a good decision and do their research on the opposite side of the House would then ask: "Is this on top of the 10,000 jobs that the tourism sector has identified that they are going to lose because of the HST, or does that include the 10,000? How many jobs are going to be lost because of the HST?" That's what people in my constituency want to know.

Jack Mintz also said that the HST would drive down real wages. The HST is not only going to cause job loss; it's going to drive down wages. "After several years of somewhat higher unemployment, however, workers come to accept the real wage losses." This is what he says on page 9 of his report from September 2008. "After several years of somewhat higher unemployment, however, workers come to accept the real wage losses." How is the acceptance of wage losses at all acceptable to anyone who truly cares about their community? How is it, hon. Speaker?

I hear members all the time say: "I really care about my community." Well, if you really and honestly care about your community, you would not implement a tax that is going to create a situation where people are used to getting paid less and where they have fewer jobs. That's if you really cared about your community.

He also said that it would lead to a long-term reduction in government revenue — a long-term reduction. There might be some short-term costs in GDP and employment, with a long-term reduction in the provincial budget balance. That's what he said before invoicing the B.C. Liberals for $12,000, and now he says something else.

You know, if what he says now is in fact the tr