This week sees the government move to cut short debate on the HST and in the same vein deny an Opposition motion to refer the HST to a committee for thorough investigation. With this as the backdrop Michael rose once again to question the logic behind the HST and describe its adverse effects on some.
Below is the draft transcript of his speech and as always the official transcript will be posted when available.
2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament
HOUSE BLUES
This is a DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections, and will be replaced by the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(HANSARD)
HOUSE BLUES
MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2010
Afternoon Sitting
HSE – 20100426 PM 001/PML/1330
MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2010
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 9 — CONSUMPTION TAX REBATE
AND TRANSITION ACT
(continued)
M. Sather: Well, I’m very pleased to rise to speak to the amendment, which says: “Be it resolved that Bill 9 not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be forwarded to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and further that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberation.” [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It’s getting curiouser and curiouser to listen to the members opposite, to the government side. It’s like they’re in some kind of alternate reality where they think now that this discussion is no longer…. And I guess maybe they thought it never was about the HST. In fact, listening to the members opposite, and the Minister of Children and Family Development for one, they think that this discussion is simply about getting rid of the PST. It’s all about getting rid of the PST. If the people of British Columbia…. In fact, they would suggest, and they do suggest, that we daren’t go and tell the people of British Columbia this fact. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, I really think that the members opposite ought to get out more, because the fact is that the people of British Columbia are very aware of what this bill is about. They’re not fooled by any nonsense about this being about the PST. They know, in fact, very well. And the members opposite. I don’t know if the members opposite know any more.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think they’ve gotten extremely confused, probably distraught. I mean, I can imagine if I was on their side of the House, I might feel a tad distraught about the goings on in this province right now, including the goings on in their own caucus. It must be disturbing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1535]
Nonetheless, it doesn’t really advance the discussion, and the minister said she wanted to advance the discussion. It doesn’t serve to advance the discussion at all to pretend that. The whole subject matter here is about the HST, which, of course, it is. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjection.
M. Sather: The member opposite says read the bill. Well, you know, Madam Speaker, I would suggest to the member opposite that she go out and talk to her constituents. They will tell her, one after the other, what this is all about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I mean, I’ve been collecting signatures from folks, and I’ll tell you they come from all walks of life, all political stripes, and they’re adamant. And they’re not confused. The members opposite, the minister said…. “Oh, well, they’re basically confused,” is what she is saying. The people of British Columbia are misled. Well, they have been misled, and certainly not by our side. I don’t think actually, notwithstanding the ham-fisted attempts by the government members…. They’re not misled. The people of British Columbia aren’t misled by them either. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It would behoove the members opposite, the government members, to recognize and accept that the people of British Columbia reject this tax. They reject it thoroughly. But I don’t see any indication, now that we’ve been going over this for a bit. This is my second speech, and other members have made second speeches, the member for Surrey-Panorama and others. There is no indication that the government is getting it. I can only suggest to them that they get out and go talk to their constituents if they want to find out what’s going on. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I know the member for Maple Ridge–Mission was talking to some of his constituents at the rally that Bill Vander Zalm hosted in Maple Ridge a while back. You know, I don’t think he was getting a very receptive ear. He wasn’t getting a receptive ear. Well, at least he was out there. I’ll give that for him, although I haven’t seen much of him since. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The other members have talked about this business about us not being in favour of reducing the provincial sales tax. The member for West Vancouver–Capilano mentioned that last week. In fact, he said that this is a subject that shouldn’t even be brought up in this House, that we shouldn’t even be discussing this. I’m sure the members opposite, including the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, would prefer that we weren’t discussing this issue. I imagine they would like to wave a magic wand and make all the bad things go away, but it isn’t about to happen, so they’ll have to grin and bear it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I know some of the members opposite, the member for Kelowna–Lake Country, are a bit touchy about the subject and the discussions that take place in this House. I guess that’s what you can expect when you’re on the wrong side of 82 percent of British Columbians. You would get a little bit touchy. You would get a bit concerned about the debate that you’re hearing, not only in this House but particularly out there in the community. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The other curious thing that I heard last week…. It was the end of the week, and the member might be forgiven for that. He is a learned member, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, a sincere individual, but he was saying that there’s been a flip-flop in the media over whether or not the Liberals told the truth about the HST. I thought that was a curious interpretation. He said that there had been a lot of briefings just after the election, and we’ve all heard about the discussions that took place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We found out through freedom-of-information requests that there were discussions that took place with bureaucrats and government officials some three days after the election. The member was, in effect, suggesting that the Premier had said during the debate, during the election, that $495 million was going to be the maximum deficit that this province was going to face. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is a good opportunity for the government to take the suggestion of the opposition. I know the minister was very disparaging about the suggestion to refer this to committee and is suggesting that we’re trying to avoid a vote, which I thought was one of the more curious interpretations, but I think it’s a very good opportunity for the government. You know, they’re always going on about how the NDP never has any positive suggestions. Well, here’s a positive suggestion for the government. We’re trying to help you; we really are. But what can you do for a government that’s beyond help? It’s very difficult. It’s very difficult for us to lend a helping hand for a government that’s so mired in the mess, so mired in the mud that they can’t even recognize help when they see it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjection.
M. Sather: Well, yeah, I know the member has some problems with some of the issues that are discussed, but that’s his prerogative, and I’m sure that he will continue to express his opinion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The line goes about this apparent flip-flop — in the media, if nowhere else — that an official says: “You know what? It appears that we have a problem. But we have a solution. Don’t worry.” The member for West Vancouver–Capilano said, you know, “That’s the thing about bureaucrats. They never want to give you bad news without a solution. So they came forward with a solution saying: ‘Aha, you can sign up for the HST, and you know, that can take care of this little deficit issue we’ve got going here.’” [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That would assume, then, that that member thinks the decision on the HST was made three days after the election. Okay. Perhaps not very believable in the minds of a lot of British Columbians — and I know the government doesn’t want to talk to them, but of course we are. I have been, and that’s one of the things that really upsets them about this tax. They do not believe the line that they’ve been given by this government about what took place preceding the election, during the election or after the election, and that’s going to hang around for a long, long time. This government is going to feel the effects of what took place at that time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So following along, again, the storyline regarding the flip-flop, there’s a presumption that the Premier and, presumably, the Finance Minister had no idea that the deficit was going to be like three and a half times — whatever it is, or around there — from what they said it was going to be. I mean, it’s the Finance Minister’s job to tell the Premier about the state of the province’s finances. I know that he’s the deputy Premier and, I guess, that he’s quite close to the Premier. One can assume that they have had some discussions both at that time and of course now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, getting back to the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, the member said that the argument is reduced to, “They made the decision too soon after the election,” and to that part he agrees. I’ve heard some of his colleagues express that same opinion that, you know, this rush decision was made too soon after the election, and that’s the problem. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But the fact is, the issue is that it’s not credible that the Liberals really believed that the deficit would be $495 million max, as the Premier said. That’s where the unbelievability factor comes in, and that’s the problem — one of the major problems that this government is facing. You know, they should at least stick to the matter of discussing the HST instead of kind of wishing — this wishing and hoping — that it’s going to go away. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What did the Premier and the Finance Minister say to those officials during the election, in the pre-election period? What did they tell them? “If you know there’s going to be a higher deficit, if it’s going up, don’t tell us”? Is that what they were told to do? Or did they just suddenly discover this magically out of the air, and it was a huge surprise to everyone? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Madam Speaker, there are sins of commission, and there are sins of omission, but they’re all sins. One’s as bad as the other. You know, it’s time…. Well, it’s like the members could think of this referral and this standing committee on Finance and Government Services is a kind of truth and reconciliation committee, you know. This would be the opportunity to come clean. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1545]
You know, it’s not like the Premier has never repented in his life. I mean, there was a little matter one time of a holiday he had in another country. He was able to do that at that time, so it’s not inconceivable, one would think, that he could do so again, maybe at the end of this week or during this week, as the government has clearly indicated that it’s not going to talk about this uncomfortable issue any longer than this week. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There are a number of days left. It’s only Monday. Perhaps the Premier will become contrite, or maybe it’ll have to be the Finance Minister on his behalf that will do some of the apologizing, I would suggest humbly, that it would be wise for the government to do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know, it’s interesting to hear what the former Finance Minister had to say —some very discouraging words about what this government knew and what they’ve done. I wouldn’t doubt, now, that some of the members on the government side had, at least — I’m not sure about currently; maybe even currently — a pretty good opinion of Carole Taylor when she was Finance Minister. You would think perhaps that her words might have some effect on the members opposite, particularly the Premier and the Finance Minister. But it would look bad for the Finance Minister, I guess, if he were to do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The committee is a good idea. The referral to the committee is a good idea. Witnesses can be called. It would be in order, certainly, to have the Premier come and be a witness. I mean, if he wanted to plead no contest, that’s okay. Whatever he prefers to do, it’s all right on our side, and I’m sure the people of British Columbia would find that better than the nothing at all that we’ve been getting so far, that they’ve been getting so far. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It’s not really a problem for us if the government annoys us or ignores us or anything like that, but it’s really a problem for them when they start really bothering the people of British Columbia to such considerable extent that…. The thing that they’re saying to me, as I collect those hundreds and hundreds of signatures of people that are upset with the government is, “You know, I voted Liberal, but you aren’t going to see that happen next time for sure,” and a lot of things that are much less kind and not repeatable, nor would I want to. Nonetheless, there’s a large degree of discontent with this government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, the government and some of the larger businesses say that the PST is getting passed on to consumers by being built into the price of the goods they produce. Another member, the member for Surrey-Panorama, mentioned Jon Kesselman, the economist, who recently wrote that “40 percent of the $5 billion in annual PST revenues falls directly on business rather than consumers.” [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It seems to me that any reasonable person would say that he’s saying, in effect, that if it’s being passed on to consumers…. He wouldn’t make that statement. He said that it falls directly on business rather than consumers, but he goes on to say that the $1.9 billion in PST currently paid by business gets built into the prices they charge consumers. In other words, he now seems to be saying it gets passed on to consumers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So which is it? Does the PST get passed on to consumers or not? I think this is one of the cruxes of the discussion, if the minister wanted to talk about the issues, because if it’s not falling on business, it is falling on consumers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It seems to me that business has two choices here. They can pass the PST cost on to the consumer, they can take the hit themselves in terms of their own revenue, or they can do some combination of the two. But if business is passing all its current PST costs on to the consumer, the argument that the PST is a big impediment to business is weak, because if they’re not taking the hit, what’s the problem? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1550]
My guess is that business is not currently passing on all their PST costs to the consumer, and therefore, they like the HST because the HST tax credits will allow them to get reimbursed for all their PST costs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So it’s a net benefit to them certainly, and it’s very kind of the government towards, you know, those mining and forestry companies. But when is the government going to extend that kind of kindness to the average taxpayer in British Columbia? That’s what people in my constituency want to know. Why aren’t we getting all this love and kindness that mining companies and forestry companies are getting? They don’t see it. They’re worried about it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One of the groups of people that I’ve talked to a fair bit in my constituency that are concerned about it is realtors. The government moved up the exemption on new houses to $525,000, but there are lots of houses in the newer areas in Maple Ridge, up in Silver Valley and north Maple Ridge, which incidentally, has considerably more Liberal supporters, or I should say did have considerably more Liberal supporters than NDP supporters. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But houses up there run around 600 grand easily. So they are going to be paying a new tax, around five grand. That makes a difference to people, even though the Minister for Mining, who told the House that he was a realtor at one time, said: “Ha, it’s no big deal — $20,000, $30,000. Prices go up and down. You make deals. Realtors are all flexible. It’s not going to have an impact on people paying their realtors.” [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I don’t know how the Minister for Mining, the former realtor, did business. But it seems it must be a little bit different than the way the realtors in my community that are talking to me are doing business, because they are concerned about the HST and what effect it’s going to have on their customers and on them as a result, because we know that people are…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There’s a bit of a bump right now because people are rushing out to make their deals for new houses before the July 1 deadline hits. They’re very worried. Sure, they’re glad for the uptick in business right now, but they’re very worried what’s going to happen in the weeks and months and beyond, after July 1, because people do look at the tax they’re paying, and the government will know — the transfer tax, additional tax — that people are very upset about that all the time. So this is going to be a real concern. A lot of the realtors in my community are banding together to sign the initiative petition to try to bring this government to their senses and to stop what they consider insanity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know, a lot of them, quite frankly, are not traditional NDP supporters. It’s fun and interesting to work with them. They have a lot of information and a lot of knowledge about the community. So again, I don’t know who, if anybody, the government members are talking to when it comes to the HST, but it doesn’t seem like they’re talking to realtors, certainly not in my community, and then there’s a whole host of other people that have been talked about before that this government surely also cannot be communicating. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As one realtor said to me, it’s not just the HST they pay on a higher-priced home in Maple Ridge. It’s not a higher-priced home in Vancouver. You couldn’t get a home in Vancouver for 600 grand or probably not a new home in the highlands in Coquitlam either. I’m sure you couldn’t. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1555]
But he says that they have to borrow that money as well. Very few people come with all the cash money in hand. They’ve got a mortgage, and they’re going to have to pay interest on that. It’s not just the upfront tax that they’re going to have to pay, but they’re going to have to pay the interest on the money they borrow to pay that tax. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know, of course, there’s the realtor’s commission tax that they’re going to have to pay and on and on — home inspectors, appraisers, notaries public, conveyances. All this stuff adds up, and it’s a real disincentive. Why the government…. I understand that they felt desperate after the election to come to some kind of…. There wasn’t going to be an explanation that it wasn’t $495 million max in terms of the deficit, but they needed something to try to ease the pain. It’s sadly ironic, on their side of the House, that the thing they chose to alleviate the pain is causing them maximum pain. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So you make some choices. It’s nothing to do…. Well, maybe it is to do with the polls. The Minister of Children and Family Development said that everything that is done on this side of the House has to do with polling. I guess that members opposite, the government, don’t look at those things. Maybe they don’t have to look at the polls. As I said, they just have to go out and talk to their constituents. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think a referral of this bill to the select standing committee is a really good idea, and it’s too bad that the government doesn’t share my enthusiasm for it. So they will continue in that vein as well, I guess. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One of my constituents actually…. I want to read what he had to say. He writes not infrequently to the local papers, and I see him from time to time walking the dikes. He’s a learned individual. He said: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
“Then comes the HST. The HST on the registered massage therapy that I use to control my fibromyalgia will come to a whopping $875 more for just that one item of my health care next year. So the government can not only claim how much more health care has gone up but justify even more cuts with a straight face.
“So next year I am looking at a personal increase in taxes on my small, fixed pension of between $2,000 and $3,000, and the government can claim what great financial wizards they are.”
That’s from one of my constituents who does rely a great deal on massage therapy. The minister opposite will know that for some strange reason this government chose not to give any break to registered massage therapists. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I understand the situation for those folks because it just so happens that I have a family member who is a registered massage therapist, and it’s tough for her. She’s just starting out in her business, and they’re not getting the same breaks that some other people have gotten for some reason. The government has certainly cherry-picked on what they’re going to give exemptions for and what they’re not. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think during question period today it might have come up about small businesses. Maybe it was the minister for whatever he is — I forgot what he is minister for over there — but the minister from North Thompson. He or someone was talking about all these businesses and how they’re in favour. We hear this refrain on and on. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Of course, if you’re a restaurant owner there’s a good reason. Not only is it a new tax for you and your customers that you didn’t have to face before, but restaurant owners, their costs primarily are buying food and paying their staff. Neither of those…. You’re not going to get any input tax credit for those. So it’s a dead loss for them. One of them I was talking to about the petition the other day, and he’s livid. He’s absolutely livid. I was talking to him on Friday. He’s got a good business going there. It’s been open a couple of years now. You know, he’s just expanded it. He’s worried. He’s worried about what’s going to happen, and the people that are working for a living doing the serving, too, are worried. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They tell me they’re concerned about…. They depend on their tips. Of course the wage is not that high, so they depend on their tips. They’re very concerned that people are…. People do look at the bottom line. We know that about the…. Looking at the gas prices, people check them very carefully. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So, Madam Speaker, I thank you very much. I guess I’m not quite out of time yet. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
People are very price-sensitive. They are. They look at every penny when the gas price goes up, and they’re going to look at that HST on their restaurant bill over and over and over, and they’re likely to be less generous on their tips. That hurts. That’s going to hurt the people that, you know, are working very hard to serve us in those restaurants, to serve the people of British Columbia, who need those tips. So they’re also very concerned about what effect this is going to have on them — this tax, which is really nothing, if you listen to the government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If the people only understood it more carefully, and if the opposition wasn’t so obtuse, it could easily be explained away as being the most wonderful thing. But it’s unfortunate for them, I guess, as they see it, that the people of British Columbia just don’t get it. They just don’t get it about the HST. They should be embracing it, according to the members opposite, but they’re not. They’re not about to. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I don’t know how much money, millions maybe, the Minister of Finance is going to spend to try to convince them that, in fact, they’re misled, which I think is only going to tick them off more and more. “Now the government’s wasting more of my money. First they’re going to take it away with one hand. Then they’re taking it away with the other hand. No give and take. All take.” [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It’s not going to be an effective tool. I don’t even know if it’s legal. I guess the government has checked that out, perhaps, or not. They go ahead and do these things, have done it in the past, and then they wait and see what the courts rule, because by that time, they figure…. They’ve done pre-election manoeuvres like this before. By the time the courts get around to it, it will be too late. But it’s not going to be too late. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
