Dawn Black in Question Period
Here are the transcripts of Dawn Black's questions in Question Period during the Spring session of the Legislature. Full Hansard transcripts can be found at www.leg.bc.ca.
On Government-Funded Advertising Against the HST - Thursday, April 15, 2010
D. Black: The only misrepresentation there's been is the misrepresentation in the B.C. Liberal election platform that said they would not bring in the HST.
My question is a very simple one. I want to ask: will the minister report to Elections B.C. how much this propaganda is going to cost before he sends it out?
Hon. C. Hansen: I've said it before. I will say it again. We will ensure that all of the communications material is totally in compliance with the Elections Act.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Just take your seat for a second. Continue, Minister.
Hon. C. Hansen: I think that we need to ask 18 members of the official opposition why they signed on as canvassers. I think somebody should ask them: is it because they are simply trying to collect names and data that they're going to use to fight an election three years from now? What we see are 18 members of the official opposition using their positions as MLAs to collect data on citizens in British Columbia. I think they need to stand up and come clean on what their real motives are.
On the Appointment of Special Prosecutors in the Kash Heed Case - Wednesday, May 5, 2010
D. Black: Clearly, the Liberals knew that this investigation was tainted, just as the election in Fraserview had been tainted. The Liberal Party received tens of thousands of dollars from this law firm. In fact, the special prosecutor himself made a personal donation to the Liberal Party just last year.
Can the Attorney General explain how this could happen and why no one — no one on that side of the House, no one in the leadership of the Liberal Party — raised a red flag? Why didn't someone on that side blow the whistle on this?
Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I'm going to recommend that the member for New Westminster leave this chamber and review the Crown Counsel Act. If after reviewing the manner in which an independent special prosecutor is appointed, if after reviewing the severe and absolute restrictions that exist on contact between the special prosecutor and the Attorney General's office and the Attorney General she still has that question, she can come back tomorrow and ask it again.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. The member has a supplemental.
D. Black: Clearly, the Attorney General, the Liberal Party, this government know well this law firm. They have a long history with them. In fact, this law firm has donated more than $50,000 to the B.C. Liberals since 1998, including a $1,000 contribution to the election campaign in Vancouver-Fraserview. The special prosecutor himself donated a thousand dollars just last year to the Liberal Party.
Again to the Attorney General: why didn't the Attorney General take the appropriate action to ensure the investigation would not be tainted? Did he really think that no one would notice this record of support for the Liberal Party from this law firm?
Hon. M. de Jong: I think when I listened to the submission and the question made by the member for New Westminster, she is in a not so veiled way attempting to suggest that I or some member of the government was aware of this before it became public yesterday. Since that seems to be a widely held view on the opposition benches, I will encourage them to step outside this chamber and make that assertion out in the hallway.
On the Government's Handling of the Kash Heed Case - Thursday, May 6, 2010
D. Black: The Attorney General spoke to the Premier at 6:30. The Solicitor General was not sworn in until several hours later. It is ridiculous for anyone to expect the people of British Columbia or members of this side of the House to think that the Premier could not stop the swearing in of a new Solicitor General with several hours to spare.
We have asked repeatedly: what advice did the Attorney General give to the Premier, and why did the Premier not stop the swearing in of the Solicitor General?
Hon. M. de Jong: I told members yesterday that we found ourselves in a position where we were assessing the significance of what had taken place, that we found ourselves….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. de Jong: The members ask the questions and then don't want to hear the answers, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry about that, but I'll try to give the answers as best I can.
We found ourselves in an extraordinarily unusual situation where at the same time a reinstatement was taking place, something very unusual landed in everyone's lap. In fact, it landed in our lap around about the same time it landed in the lap of the opposition, and the member for Nanaimo, in particular.
The government made decisions. The member for Vancouver-Fraserview made decisions. And I will say this: in circumstances that were difficult, that were unusual, that required a time to consider appropriately, the member for Fraserview made the appropriate decision and put the status of the office of Solicitor General ahead of his own interests, notwithstanding his desire to serve the people of British Columbia.
On Government Spending on the new BC Hydro Ad Campaign - Wednesday, May 26, 2010
D. Black: The only reason the minister is withholding this information is because it's shameful. It's shameful that the B.C. Liberals spend millions of dollars on ads while telling British Columbians at the same time that there's no money in the cupboard for vital services for their families.
There's absolutely no reason, no reason at all, that the minister cannot release this information right here in this House today. Why won't he make this information public?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: We have a Crown corporation in B.C. Hydro that is the envy in North America of any Crown corporation. We have amongst the lowest electricity rates in North America, and you're against that. You're against clean energy development.
Not only are you against enshrining the public ownership of B.C. Hydro for all British Columbians. We enshrined it in legislation. You opposed it. But more importantly, when we have the ability to become electricity self-sufficient, to create jobs and economic opportunities in every region of this province, to develop the electricity not only to meet our needs but to help others meet their needs with reduced greenhouse gas emissions, we're going to do it. We're going to do it well, and British Columbians are going to be proud.
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
D. Black: Well, perhaps I can help the minister calculate what it's costing his government for these ads, because each and every 30-second ad during the playoffs on CBC cost $7,000 — each and every 30-second ad — money that could have been spent to help B.C. families in a critical time. Instead, this money is being wasted on government advertising.
So again to the minister: what does it say about a government that can find millions of dollars for an ad campaign while at the same time cutting critical supports for B.C. families?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: The reason we're able to invest in the programs that British Columbians enjoy is because of job creation, because of opportunities we have in this province. In order to have a strong social foundation for the programs that we have to deliver, to ensure the less fortunate in this province can maintain a quality of life and be looked after, is to ensure that we have, actually, an environment where the private sector wants to invest. That's who creates the jobs. We're going to do that. We're proud. I'll put our budget against any one of your budgets from the 1990s.
On the HST - Thursday, May 27, 2010
D. Black: Well, the quote is: "I'm not a big fan of direct democracy." These are troubling words from the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, and he's also the prospective Chair of the committee charged with deciding the fate of the HST initiative.
I want to ask the Premier: does he agree with the member and his comments, or is he prepared to actually honour the citizens' initiative, if passed, and put the issue to a vote either here in this House or by referendum?
Hon. G. Campbell: I want to be clear for the member opposite. This is challenging, I know, but she should read the bill. The bill is very straightforward. "The select standing committee must…(a) table a report recommending that the draft Bill be introduced at the earliest practicable opportunity, or (b) refer the initiative petition and draft Bill to the chief electoral officer."
There are two choices. The committee must make their own decisions and deliberations should the initiative be successful. Again, let me reiterate: this government will follow the law.
D. Black: In spite of the patronizing comments by the Premier, the remarks that were made by the member for Kamloops–North Thompson show just how far this government intends to go or thinks it can go to try to contain the mess they created for themselves with the HST. But the public has spoken. They don't want the HST, and they expect this government to honour that and to honour the signatures that have been made to that petition.
So will the Premier commit today to honour the will of the people and, if this initiative passes, put a question to a vote either in the House or by referendum?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, there is a select standing committee of this Legislature which will review the initiative, should it be successful. The members of the select standing committee of the Legislature include the convener, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson. It includes the House Leader for the opposition, and it includes two other MLAs from the opposition.
They obviously don't agree with the position that the government has taken to strengthen the economy, to encourage literally tens of thousands of jobs, to encourage billions of dollars of investment. That's their choice. But it's part of an all-party committee. It's part of a legislative committee. They have responsibilities. I expect the legislative committee to meet their responsibilities and follow the law. I can guarantee the members opposite that government will follow the law.
On Wedding Costs under the HST - Wednesday, June 2, 2010
D. Black: This government's flimsy defence of the HST is simply infuriating the public. With the wedding season just around the corner, B.C.'s brides and grooms, who've been planning their big day for months, are now being forced to pay much more with the HST. Venue rentals, catering, wedding planners, air travel, tailoring — all of them will cost more under the HST, and the list goes on and on.
Brides and grooms are just one group who will be hurt by this betrayal, but they are part of the hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who've said no to the HST. So my question is to the Premier. Will he finally do the right thing, just say, "I do," and scrap the HST now?
Hon. C. Hansen: What we saw in the 1990s, actually, was young married couples who had no job opportunities in British Columbia. That's why in the late 1990s we saw 50,000 young British Columbians leave this province in search of job opportunities elsewhere.
What we actually see today, because of the tax changes that this government has made, is more job opportunities for young families in British Columbia so that they can actually have more money in their pockets and they can build a future in this province.
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
D. Black: Well, clearly British Columbians can see now what the Liberal election vows are worth — nothing.
The B.C. Liberal HST was concocted in the middle of summer only days after the provincial election, when they promised not to implement the HST. As soon as the election was over, it was sprung on the people of British Columbia without any warning or any consultation.
Now it's clear that the B.C. Liberal HST betrayal will spare no one, not even the couples who are preparing for their weddings, not even their families who are supporting them in one of the most exciting but expensive undertakings of their lives. Again to the Premier. Across B.C. hundreds of thousands of people have rejected the HST. Will he finally do the right thing, stand up in the House today and say: "No, cancel the HST"?
Hon. C. Hansen: This is coming from a member of a political party that actually taxed young families out of this province in the 1990s.
As opposed to the NDP, which actually turned British Columbia into a have-not province, we have made British Columbia into a have province. We have made sure that tax rates have come down for those young families. Every young married couple in British Columbia today is paying thousands of dollars less in taxes than they would have in 2001 under the NDP.
On the HST - Thursday, June 3, 2010
D. Black: Another day and another piece of information on just how much more the HST is going to cost British Columbians. The city of New Westminster's parks and rec department has announced that all children over the age of 15 who use their drop-in services, take out a membership, rent equipment, register for a sports program will have to pay HST on all those programs after July 1.
My question is to the Finance Minister. Why is it that the B.C. Liberals want to make it more difficult for the people of British Columbia to be healthy and active?
Hon. C. Hansen: I want to share with the member some numbers I shared earlier, and that is if you look at the total taxes paid by a B.C. family of four earning $60,000 a year as family income, the total amount that that family would pay today compared to 2001 is literally in the thousands of dollars less. Let me actually give you the number here. That family would be paying about $3½ thousand less in total taxes today than they would have in 2001.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
D. Black: Well, nothing that the minister has said in this House from the time this controversy started can take away the fact that during the election campaign the B.C. Liberals put in writing that they would not be implementing an HST, and only three days later they were into negotiations on how to foist this onto the B.C. people.
This is the last day of this sitting of the Legislature. I ask the Minister of Finance to stand up in this House, come clean, make a commitment to the people of British Columbia and withdraw the HST.
Hon. C. Hansen: I think that member knows that what she just phrased in that question is not factual.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Continue, Minister.
Hon. C. Hansen: What we on this side of the House will commit to B.C. families is that this is a government that's going to continue to generate jobs. This is a government that's going to continue to make sure that the taxes those families pay will be among the lowest in all of North America and in Canada. What we will commit to is economic policies that are going to ensure that we have job creation so that the families in British Columbia have good, family-supporting jobs that are going to ensure that they can enjoy a quality of life in British Columbia like never before.