2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th 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, JUNE 14, 2000

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 12

[ Page 16561 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

P. Nettleton: Much to my surprise, I have the pleasure of introducing to the House my wife's younger brother Espen Andersen and his bride Yvonne. They were married some 11 days ago in Fort St. John, and we had the privilege of attending that wedding. For some reason they've chosen to pass through Victoria and check out the Legislature, so I'm delighted to be able to welcome them here.

[1410]

E. Walsh: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House today a constituent of mine from Cranbrook. His name is Bob McWhirter. Bob is a hard-working constituent who works terrifically hard, actually, for those people with disabilities and also for those homeless and at risk. I would ask the whole House to please give a warm welcome to Bob McWhirter today.

Hon. C. McGregor: Today in the gallery are two friends of my staff member Debbie Hunt. Their names are Sean Barrett and Charlene Ross. I understand Sean and Charlene are getting married at St. Ann's Academy chapel this Saturday, June 17. I would ask the House to please extend their congratulations.

R. Thorpe: Today in the precinct we have the privilege of having 65 students from Summerland Middle School. They are accompanied by teachers Darcy Mullin and Jacquie Newton and nine chaperones. If the House could please make these students from Summerland welcome.

E. Conroy: Devon Windsor, who is a tireless worker on our floor in these buildings, has two friends here today: Jennifer Shore and Patti Haines, who have come all the way from Daytona Beach, Florida, to visit in Victoria. Would the House please make them welcome.

F. Randall: In the visitors' gallery today there are approximately 52 grades 4 and 5 students and a number of adults with them. They're from the Second Street Community School, and that's the school, of course, that's in the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds. We had a group here yesterday from the same school. They're accompanied by teachers Cathy Kirkpatrick and Naomi Murao. Again, as I mentioned yesterday also, this is a very community-minded school. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

B. Goodacre: In the gallery today we have some very distinguished visitors from the village of Burns Lake, representatives of the community forest in Burns Lake, one of the pilot projects that this province is putting together. I might add that the largest and probably the best proposal that came through was from Burns Lake. We have with us Ken Guenter, Cliff Manning, Bill Brinnen and Scott Miller from their board, along with the mayor of the village of Burns Lake, Paul Jean, and I'm sure everybody in this gallery remembers quite fondly when he visited us two years ago with his bed to deal with the rural doctors issue. I would ask everybody to make them welcome.

F. Randall: Up in the gallery there I just noticed former MLA Jim Beattie. Would the House please make him welcome today.

Hon. I. Waddell: Today in the members' gallery -- I just noticed that she has arrived -- we have a special visitor from the United Kingdom. She's Janet Anderson, a Member of Parliament for Rossendale and Darwen; I believe that's in Lancashire. Ms. Anderson is the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting at the British Department for Culture, Media and Sport. She's accompanied by her private secretary, Tom Owen-Edmunds, and Mr. Ian Kydd, the British consul general, who's based in Vancouver. I'll be meeting with her this afternoon, and I'm looking forward to that. Please join me in giving her a warm welcome to this House and to British Columbia.

L. Reid: Some of you will know that my little daughter is just four months old. Today she had a visit from a youngster, Mr. Ben Beatty -- an older man by just a month -- the son of the other Jim Beatty in the legislative gallery. I would ask the House to please make another very young member of this House very welcome.

[1415]

Oral Questions

DIRECTOR OF CHILD PROTECTION

AND DRAAYERS FOSTER CARE CASE

L. Reid: Yesterday this government decided to replace the director of child protection on the Draayers case because of his unwillingness to abide by a Children's Commission tribunal. However, Mr. Ross Dawson remains as the head of child protection for the 10,000 children this government has in its care. Will the Minister for Children and Families tell us today, in light of the Draayers case, if she still has confidence in Mr. Dawson's ability to oversee B.C.'s children in care?

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: Thank you, hon. member, for the question. I want to assure this House and I want to assure Mr. Dawson and I want to assure all the good and tremendous folks who work for Children and Families and all other ministries that I have full confidence in the ability of Ross Dawson as the director of child protection for the province of British Columbia. He remains the director of child protection for all situations in the province, for all children involved with the province.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond East has a supplemental question.

L. Reid: The children's commissioner said this about the director of child protection in response to the Draayers case: " . . . the response is misleading and inappropriate . . . . I am deeply concerned that the tone and content of this response raises serious concerns about the director's willingness to review this matter with an open mind." Those are the words of the children's commissioner. How can the Children and Families minister reconcile the children's commissioner's statements with her confidence in the director of child protection, Ross Dawson?

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: The report from which the member quotes is indeed the report from the children's commis-

[ Page 16562 ]

sioner. It is his report. It is his opinion, and that's fine. What occurred was an impasse, as the director of child protection had a point of view, as did Mr. Paul Pallan. The children's commissioner had a point of view. That created an impasse that needed correction, and we then appointed Ms. Cynthia Morton in order to make the decision. The decision will be Ms. Morton's to make, as a specially appointed director of child protection for this period of time to make this decision on this issue by June 23.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond East has a further supplemental.

L. Reid: With respect, this is bigger than a legislative knot. We have today an individual -- a Ministry for Children and Families official -- who has ignored a statutory order. That is the issue. Even though the director has been replaced on this file, how can this minister have confidence in an official who ignores statutory orders?

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I'm going to repeat it again, in case the member didn't hear what I said earlier, in this great way that she seems to want to celebrate Public Service Week. I have complete confidence in Ross Dawson as the director of child protection in the province of British Columbia. He has an unblemished career in the province in his whole history. In this one case where he had a disagreement, it was important that a decision be made, and we have undertaken a process to have that happen.

EARLY SUPPORT AND

PROBLEM PREVENTION FOR CHILDREN

V. Anderson: We all know that in individual cases, things go right. But we also know that in individual cases, things go wrong. The Children's Commission report has once again indicated that the recommendations that had been coming from the independent servants of this House -- the Gove report, the transition commissioner for child and youth services, the children's advocate and the children's commissioner -- have consistently demanded the creation of prevention and early support for our children, a program that will deal with the early support and prevention of problems with our children.

These recommendations have not been implemented by this ministry. Can the minister explain to us why there has not been put in place a consistent, effective program for early intervention for our children in this province?

[1420]

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: The member knows and others know that this government and this ministry are very much committed to early childhood development and early childhood education. We are working very hard in that direction. The member knows -- I'm sure he's perused the estimates -- that he will see there a good piece of money in the budget to respond to that very issue and some special programs for this year -- one on autism and one directly on early childhood interventions. I'm very pleased about that; I'm very proud of that. And I would hope the hon. members would be as well.

DRUG AND ALCOHOL

REHABILITATION SERVICES FOR YOUTH

V. Anderson: This ministry has existed as such for over four years, and yet there is this serious delivery . . . to the service of our children and youth in this province. Among other things, the commission points out that drug and alcohol rehabilitation services for the trauma and abuse that our youth have visited upon them every day are not being addressed. Will the minister tell us why there are so many serious deficiencies in programs dealing with addicted and high-risk youth?

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I want to assure the House that I'm very interested and pleased with the responses that we've had in terms of the various groups including the children's commissioner, who has pointed out some of the areas in which we need to do better. And of course, we all know that we always -- every one of us in this room and in this chamber knows -- need to keep working and moving in a positive direction.

There are plans in the estimates and plans in the works, always, to keep moving in a positive direction to support our young people with some of the very difficult situations that they find themselves in. We know that in fact extra moneys -- and the member knows this -- are going to many of the organizations that respond to our children with some very special developmental needs and issues, and I'm very proud of that.

MENTAL HEALTH PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

C. Hansen: Three Health ministers ago this government introduced something called a mental health plan, and it was a plan that was never budgeted for. On May 11 the latest Health minister promised this House that there would be a mental health implementation plan released, and he said: "It will be released within a month." The month is up, minister. Where is it?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Stay tuned. It will be released very soon.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena has a supplemental question.

C. Hansen: I am surprised at the minister's glib response to that, because the mental health community in this province has been waiting for three years for a mental health plan to be implemented.

The Mental Health Monitoring Coalition produced a report about a month and a half ago that they titled "Promises Made, Promises Broken." And here again we have yet another Minister of Health making promises to the mental health community and then not delivering on those promises that he made. Will this Minister of Health admit that he is just one more NDP Health minister that is continually breaking promises to the mental health community?

Hon. M. Farnworth: What I will tell that hon. member and tell the members of the opposition is that this side of the House takes mental health very seriously. That's why, over the last number of weeks, I have been meeting with groups in the mental health community to look at the best ways of bringing forward changes that meet the needs of the mental health community. We are committed to implementing the mental health plan and have taken steps to do that. We will be releasing that implementation very, very shortly, hon. member, and we will be addressing the issues raised by the mental health community in a way that will meet their needs.

[ Page 16563 ]

The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena with a further supplemental question.

ADDICTION PREVENTION AND TREATMENT

SERVICES FOR CHILDREN

C. Hansen: Actually, on a new question, hon. Speaker, this question is directed to the Premier, because in May the Kaiser Youth Foundation released a report condemning this government's inaction in dealing with youth addiction. The report states that there is no provincial strategy, there is no focus, and there is no leadership to address this issue.

Well, on May 19 the Premier put out a press release, and that press release is actually titled: "Action Plan for Substance Abuse Due in Two Weeks." It's been almost a month now. Will the Premier tell us: where is the action plan?

[1425]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: . . . in meetings with representatives of the Kaiser Youth Foundation, the government was advised that two weeks are not sufficient for us to complete the consultation required to complete the response. Here is the issue that the opposition benches would never, never realize. This government spends over $250 million a year on de-addiction -- substance abuse, drug and alcohol counselling and services -- in this province. I don't want a project that simply comes back and says to me: "Spend $20 million more." So I have ordered within government to look at . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. The Premier has the floor.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'll be happy to proceed; thank you, hon. Speaker.

So this government spends $250 million on all these services, and this opposition says we don't do enough. I agree that all of those services are not focused and directed properly. I have ordered within government to get someone of a stature big enough in British Columbia to come into government in an unbiased way, to collapse some of these services together, to refocus and redirect them and get full value out of the dollars that we spend.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena has a supplemental question.

C. Hansen: The Premier misses the point that what we see is this government continuing a legacy of nine years of making promises and breaking them. Why is it that this government is making commitments to some of the most vulnerable parts of our society and then failing to deliver in the timely fashion that was promised? If you can't deliver in time, then why is this government making those kinds of promises in the first place?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't recall all the words of the press release, but the hon. member should look at it carefully. What that press release said is that I have asked my ministers to provide me with an action-oriented response. A response came, and I rejected it. I rejected it because I was not satisfied with that response. It said: "Spend more money." I want to make sure that we spend the $250 million we spend in British Columbia more wisely, in a refocused, redirected fashion, so I have redirected government to do that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

ROYAL HUDSON STEAM LOCOMOTIVE

K. Whittred: Mr. Speaker, the Royal Hudson steam locomotive has been a symbol of B.C. tourism for 25 years. Unfortunately, this world-famous locomotive has been out of service since last fall, sitting in disrepair in a North Vancouver repair yard. Can the minister responsible for Tourism explain to British Columbians and visitors why the government hasn't been able to get the Royal Hudson locomotive back on the rails for the peak summer season?

Hon. D. Miller: The Royal Hudson is operated by British Columbia Rail, so I'm responsible, and I'll try to respond to the question.

Unfortunately, while the Royal Hudson is very unique and has been a very important contributor to the tourism development in that corridor, it's also a very old locomotive. There are some fundamental, serious problems with respect to maintaining its operation. B.C. Rail is looking at that very carefully and trying to develop a plan to deal with the locomotive. In addition to that, they are also looking at new opportunities to promote tourism on that line. The Pacific Skylight , the dinner train, has been a very, very successful tourism development brought about by B.C. Rail.

They are looking at, and I fully expect, the development of a higher-end tourism train between North Vancouver and Prince George.

So they've been fully involved. While it's a complicated problem, B.C. Rail is looking to find a solution with that very old locomotive.

[1430]

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

TAXATION REVIEW FOR NON-PROFIT

COMMUNITY REBROADCASTING SERVICES

Hon. P. Ramsey: I rise to respond to a question taken on notice on June 1. The member for Shuswap asked about a property tax . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I may have got the pronunciation wrong. Apparently the member got about everything else wrong in his question.

[ Page 16564 ]

The member said that the Enderby TV rebroadcasting society had received a property tax bill of "nearly $1,000." A review of the records shows that their property taxes on an annual basis have ranged from $420 to $430 a year and that the assessment of the property has not changed since 1998, when the property was first assessed. I'm also pleased to advise the member further that there are exemptions for non-profit rebroadcasting sites and that these exemptions are under the administration of the B.C. Assessment Authority, which reports to my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

There have been several appeals of assessments since 1998 that have been granted by the Assessment Authority. In this case there has been no contact by the Enderby TV rebroadcast society with the area office of B.C. Assessment and no appeal made of the status of their assessment.

I urge the member to have the Enderby TV rebroadcasting society contact the assessment office in Vernon. They're quite willing to work with the society to examine their eligibility for exemption, if the society chooses to initiate that discussion.

Reports from Committees

R. Thorpe: I have the honour to present the third report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the fourth session of the thirty-sixth parliament, entitled "1999 Follow-up Performance Audits/Reviews." I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion carried.

R. Thorpe: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

R. Thorpe: I move that the report be adopted. This third report describes the work conducted by the Public Accounts Committee with respect to three issues: the management of government travel, severance practices in government ministries and Crown corporations, and trucking safety enforcement programs.

The committee recommends to the Legislative Assembly that the government ensure full implementation of all recommendations contained in the auditor general's follow-up audits on these topics. Specifically, the committee encourages the government to take the necessary steps (1) to reduce government travel expenditures, (2) to review and disclose severance practices for senior executives in public service, and (3) to institute a program evaluation and performance measure framework to monitor trucking safety in British Columbia.

I appreciate this opportunity to move the adoption of the committee's report, and I would like to thank the Deputy Chair and members of the committee for their contributions and commitment to this report, as well as the office of the Clerk of Committees for their assistance and support.

R. Kasper: Speaking to the trucking safety portion of the report, I know that in 1997 the member for Kootenay, the member for Okanagan-Boundary and myself conducted a review in regard to the Motor Carrier Commission. We heard extensively from the trucking industry, both owners and operators.

What was stressed by that community was safety and the need for improvement in regard to safety issues. We also heard from the trucking industry -- and what is outlined in this report and the recommendations 9 through 12, which include the implementation of an incentive program for carriers that are conducting business in a safe, sound fashion . . . .

From this side of the House I lend my support to the adoption of the report.

[1435]

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the question is adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Lovick: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A. For the information of members, we are debating the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

In this chamber I call Committee of Supply, continuing debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Women's Equality.

The House in Committee of Supply B; T. Stevenson in the chair.

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

WOMEN'S EQUALITY

(continued)

On vote 47: ministry operations, $54,425,000 (continued).

L. Stephens: To begin the estimates questions around the Ministry of Women's Equality for this final session, my colleague from Surrey-Cloverdale would like to ask a few questions of the minister at this particular time.

B. McKinnon: My questions to the minister are going to be concerning a place in Creston, B.C., called Bountiful. I was wondering if the minister was aware of this place and the agreement that her ministry has with it.

[1440]

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm sorry to inform the member that our ministry does not have an agreement with this organization.

B. McKinnon: There is an

article that was put in last month's Province newspaper, from the Province 's Fabian Dawson; it was a special report on Bountiful. It talks about the agreement the Ministry for Children and Families has with Bountiful up in Creston and that they were meeting in the last part of May to renew this agreement. My question to the minister is: is this agreement not being renewed?

Hon. J. Smallwood: This is the Ministry of Women's Equality. It is our estimates. If you have a question for the

[ Page 16565 ]

Ministry for Children and Families, I would encourage you to ask that question during Children and Families estimates.

B. McKinnon: No, this isn't a question for the Minister for Children and Families. This is a question for the Ministry of Women's Equality. Okay, then I'll rephrase my question.

In 1993 the Ministry of Women's Equality asked a lady by the name of Ms. Palmer to do a research paper on the commune up in Creston. Her research paper that she did for the Ministry of Women's Equality, detailing the control and power exerted by the group's elders, cost $20,000 and is now apparently collecting dust on the ministry's shelf.

I have requested to have a copy of this research paper, and I haven't heard anything from the minister. Could I ask the minister, then, if she would see that I can get a copy of this research paper?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Now, that is a different question. The answer to that question is that I'm aware of your request; it's going through the FOI process. The legislation is clear about what is public information and what must be considered under the privacy provision. A freedom-of-information officer is looking at the report. Once that process has been concluded, then your request will be answered.

B. McKinnon: Is the minister telling me, then, that her ministry is not the one that is signing the agreement between Bountiful and the Ministry of Women's Equality?

Hon. J. Smallwood: That's correct. Our only relationship to this story has to do with the funding of a report back in 1993. We're addressing your request. Any other concerns that have been raised by that particular

article must be dealt with the ministry responsible, which is the Ministry for Children and Families.

L. Stephens: I just want to follow up on one item from yesterday that we discussed; that was the request for the Women Against Violence Against Women audit report. We had asked for an FOI request as well. We received a letter late yesterday afternoon to tell us that this report is in the custody and control of the Ministry of Attorney General and that we should apply there. As a matter of fact, the FOI department has transferred our request to the Ministry of Attorney General. My question is: why does the Attorney General's ministry have custody and control of this particular report?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I wonder if the member could advise the source of the letter.

L. Stephens: This letter has come from Debra Barr, acting director, information and privacy program, Ministry of Attorney General.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm sorry, I can't provide any information additional to what the member already has in the letter.

[1445]

L. Stephens: Thank you very much. Perhaps that will be part of the documents that we receive, when we receive them.

We're almost finished with the Women's Equality estimates. I want to talk a little about the policy and planning division of the ministry. I notice in the goals and objectives, which form part of the performance plan for 2000-01, that one of the goals, of course, is social well-being for women. One of those objectives is to advocate on behalf of all women to ensure their experiences are reflected in social and economic policy.

Part of the responsibilities in the policy and planning department, of course, is to look at the programs and policies of government and to do review and research. I'd like to begin by asking the minister: what federal-provincial-territorial initiatives is the ministry participating in?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Before we move to that piece, let me provide some additional information with respect to the letter that you have received. At the time that the audit for WAVAW was initiated, WAVAW was one of the Attorney General's programs. It was the Attorney General's ministry that conducted the audit, so it was just simply a routing issue. We were not the ministry responsible for the audit, so the FOI request has gone to them. Their freedom-of-information officers over there are looking at it. It's the same process, different ministry.

The question with respect to federal-provincial . . . . In my introductory comments I referenced a working group that we are chairing in this province, with respect to income security. There is a paper being worked up, and federal-provincial-territorial ministers will have an opportunity to review that.

There are a number of other initiatives that will be on the agenda. The federal-provincial-territorial ministers will be meeting in British Columbia in September, co-hosted by myself and the federal minister responsible. The other issues being dealt with have to do with women's health and violence against women, as well as an initiative that the federal government is recommending with respect to the gender lens. Late last evening I made the point that our province is leading.

Here's another example of how the federal government is now picking up on some of our initiatives, gender lens being one of them, and recommending that other provinces and territories pick up and learn from the initiative in this province.

L. Stephens: There were some other initiatives, as well, that I have been led to believe are happening with the federal-provincial-territorial initiatives. I am not sure if the minister was talking about the Canada Pension reforms in terms of the economic and income issues that she was just describing. Also, I understand that an economic equality framework is another initiative that is coming forward to this council. Could the minister describe whether in fact that is actually happening and whether or not those two initiatives, the Canada Pension reforms and the economic equality framework, will be on the agenda for the meeting in September?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I reference the working group that I am chairing; that is the economic working group. There is a paper, and it will be dealt with at the next meeting.

The issues with respect to Canada Pension -- my understanding is that that was on the agenda last year and that there has been some work done on that with the provincial and territorial ministers.

L. Stephens: Have there been any reporting from those meetings on that issue in particular, the Canada Pension

[ Page 16566 ]

reforms, and any other finalizations that have been done by that particular group -- and whether or not those findings have been made public?

[1450]

Hon. J. Smallwood: Again, my recollection -- and this was in conversations with the federal minister responsible -- is that the consensus of the provincial and territorial sections was that there should be a gender analysis applied to the pensions review that was underway at the time. The minister responsible, along with Finance ministers across Canada, was encouraged not only by the sections but also by the federal minister to involve women in the process and ensure that the outcome of the pensions review, as of last year, included the impact that the review would have on women.

One of the sections in particular, having to do -- I believe, and I'm really relying on my memory -- with time out to raise children, remained as an integral part of the pension plan. The women represented by the provincial-territorial meetings were successful in that endeavour.

L. Stephens: But just a short question: are those findings public information in some form, either from this provincial government or from the federal government? I'll repeat the question for the minister; there was some noise in the chamber, I guess. Are those findings available? Have they been made public either by the provincial government or by the federal government?

Hon. J. Smallwood: We'd be happy to follow up on that for you. I wasn't there at the time; it was simply re sharing information that was made available to me.

L. Stephens: There are a couple of issues I think are important that I would like the minister to address. One is custody and access. I know the minister is aware of the Senate subcommittee that travelled around the country a couple of years ago; it put together a report on custody and access and made recommendations to the federal Justice minister about this issue. Is this one of the areas that is currently under discussion with the provincial-federal-territorial initiatives in formulating the provincial response to this particular subcommittee hearing?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Let me first add some information, a clarification to the question with respect to the CPP. As I said, they did a gender analysis; it was a gender analysis of survivor benefits. That was in '99. I believe there is ongoing involvement in preparation for a next round in the review of the CPP, but we'll look for some public confirmation of that.

On the question with respect to custody and access, I don't believe that is on the agenda. However, our ministry has been in discussions with the provincial Ministry of Attorney General to ensure that proposed changes to the Divorce Act do not negatively impact on women's situations and that proposed changes address issues of violence against mothers and their children.

L. Stephens: I know the minister is aware that this is a very serious problem for many families, both men and women -- custody and access. It's one that I know the courts have been struggling with for quite some time. I would like to know whether or not your ministry or the Attorney General's ministry or the interministry committee has been developing a response to the federal proposals and whether or not those are public or when they will become public.

Hon. J. Smallwood: My understanding is that the federal government has a discussion paper out. There is a consultation process, and we'll look for an opportunity to have input through that process.

L. Stephens: Thank you very much. So the province at this point doesn't have anything that they're prepared to put forward publicly in this regard, for general public discussion.

[1455]

There are two other areas. One is the age of consent, and this, as I think the minister is well aware, is a particularly troublesome issue. With youth, some of the issues that we were talking about today in question period touch on that. Certainly the youth prostitution issue touches on that as well. Could the minister talk about whether her ministry and she herself were involved at any discussions along those lines, either in the federal-provincial-territorial ministers' discussions or within her ministry and within the government of British Columbia as a whole?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Again, I'm sure the member's aware that there's a federal consultation paper out -- November '99 -- to do with child victims in the criminal justice system. Any comments that would have gone into that process would have gone in prior to my taking this post.

L. Stephens: Yes, I'm well aware of that; however, the ministry does go on. I'm sure the ministry itself would have that kind of documentation. I would very much like to receive any of those kinds of reports that have been done on behalf of either this ministry or the province of British Columbia that deal with those issues that I've just outlined and are primarily a federal responsibility. But I will look for that federal paper from November '99 and have a look at that as well.

The other issue that deals with the federal-provincial initiatives is the new reproductive technologies. The federal government had tabled legislation. It's not before the federal House at this moment, although I know there has been significant consultation around this particular issue as well. I'd just like to ask the minister whether or not she or her ministry or one of the ministries of this government has been actively involved in formulating a provincial response to possible federal legislation around new reproductive technologies.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I have actually written to the federal minister responsible. I'm just getting a copy of the letter, which I'd be happy to share with you.

L. Stephens: I thought the minister was going to read the letter or tell me what it said.

Interjection.

L. Stephens: Thank you; I'll look forward to it.

The ministry itself -- this particular section, the policy and planning -- has increased by $83,000. I understand that it is the addition of a new staff member. If not, could the minister tell me where the increase of $83,000 is going?

[ Page 16567 ]

Hon. J. Smallwood: The increase that shows on the budget is simply an organizational change. One staff member that was previously in corporate services now reports to this division.

L. Stephens: One of the areas that some people are concerned about in this policy and planning is that it doesn't have a representative from one of the minority groups, particularly aboriginal women. Has the ministry brought on, in this particular branch, a staff person who is familiar with immigrant women, women of colour, aboriginal women and all of the minority groups that are quite represented in this province?

[1500]

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm very happy to report that not only do we have an aboriginal woman -- and this is a component of ten staff -- but we have a Japanese Canadian director and a South Asian man on staff.

L. Stephens: I know that we now have a new Ministry of Multiculturalism and that the Ministry of Women's Equality did quite extensive policy workshops and outreach to a number of minority groups and multicultural groups in the province. Is that still going to continue with this ministry, or are all of the multicultural initiatives being moved over to the new Multiculturalism ministry?

Hon. J. Smallwood: We recognize that women of multicultural groups, visible minority women and women representing other equity groups are doubly challenged in meeting their equity requirements in the province. So we are very aware of the need to continue to work with women of ethnic background and with aboriginal women as well as women with disabilities and lesbian women.

L. Stephens: I'm glad to hear that, because now I know where I can direct my questions or any information that I have around the multicultural issues. It's difficult sometimes to know which ministry is responsible for what, but I'm glad to hear that Women's Equality is still responsible for issues that directly affect multicultural women.

The Aboriginal Women and Treaties project, too, I understand, is ongoing. Perhaps the minister could talk a little bit about what is happening with the Aboriginal Women and Treaties project and whether or not there has been some headway made in trying to represent the interests of aboriginal women in the treaty-making process.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Before we leave the first question with respect to multicultural, aboriginal, ethnic minorities and lesbian women, my comment on inclusion and recognition for the double barrier that these individuals face is in the context of women seeking equality. I know this is a discussion that we have had throughout the estimates. I understand that it's one that the opposition has pushed from day one in this ministry.

Our mandate, fundamentally and firstly, is with respect to women seeking equity. There is a recognition that women seeking equity are doubly challenged if they are from an aboriginal background, from a visible minority background or whether they are disabled or they are lesbian women.

The focus here is on seeking equity. This is not a ministry of all things that touch women. There are issues that men and women face in the same proportion in society and have the same interests. We have a Health ministry and we have an Education ministry and we have a Multiculturalism ministry, as well as many other ministries in government. I work very closely with them on an agenda to promote equality for women, when they are the deliverers of a program that affects an equality agenda for women.

The Ministry of Education is a ministry and an agenda that we are very proud of in government. It has disproportionately had an effect on women's lives in their quest for equality in our society. But I want to be perfectly clear. When the member said, "I now know that I can direct all questions dealing with multiculturalism to this ministry," that is not a correct assumption. The responsibility we have has to do with women that are seeking equality in our society and the barriers to that equality.

[1505]

The member asked specifically about aboriginal women and the treaty process. Again, I would encourage the member, if she is seeking additional information about the treaty process, to ask those questions specifically of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.

J. Weisgerber: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Weisgerber: It's my very great pleasure to introduce 35 grade 7 students from Little Prairie Elementary School in Chetwynd, British Columbia. It's a long, long way from Chetwynd to Victoria. The students are accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Evans, and by their principal, Mr. Brian Bradshaw. Would everyone wish them a very warm welcome to this chamber.

L. Stephens: The minister misunderstood my question or my statement around the multicultural issue. I was just relieved to hear that her ministry was still going to retain the equity issues around multiculturalism and that not everything was going to go to the new ministry. So I want to correct that.

Also, the minister is talking about women seeking equity as her focus and her mandate. I couldn't agree with her more; that is her mandate. But, you know, women seeking equity is very broad. I think most people who are aware of the treaty-making process and the issue of aboriginal women would recognize that that is the fundamental issue for aboriginal women. It's the equity that they are lacking in their dealings with the band councils.

I can't believe that the minister hasn't had any conversations around this issue with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Again, the minister has said repeatedly that her ministry is an advocacy ministry that does consult.

Indeed, in the ministry operations estimates here, under policy and planning it says that the responsibility of that division is: " . . . review and research of issues affecting women; participation in federal-provincial discussions and initiatives related to women's equality goals; the review of governmentwide policy proposals and their impact on women" -- review of governmentwide policy proposals; I will repeat that -- and also "advice to ministries in their review and analysis of existing and proposed government policies, legislation and programs; and the evaluation of related programs and initiatives."

[ Page 16568 ]

In the ministry's description of its roles and responsibilities and the votes that are contained in the estimates process here, it's quite clear that the role of the ministry is to look at those other policies and programs of government ministries in an equity-seeking way for women. My question about the Aboriginal Women and Treaties project is one that her ministry undertook and has to my knowledge had an ongoing role in, in the development of those issues. Again, I'm just going to ask the minister what is happening. What can she tell me to bring me up to date on this particular project and how aboriginal women are participating in it?

[1510]

Hon. J. Smallwood: I may have to ask the member to repeat the last part of her question, but let me say this with respect to aboriginal women in the treaty process. Our ministry is in discussion with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, as we are with most ministries that have major portfolios in government. However, the member must recognize that the relationship around the treaty process is a nation-to-nation relationship. It is the provincial government, the federal government and first nations at the table.

It's been made very, very clear that this process is a government-to-government process, and I believe that it would be inappropriate of this ministry or any other ministry of government to interfere in that process without respecting the wishes of first nations themselves.

There are some aboriginal women's groups that seek an involvement with our ministry. They are often involved in issues that are off-reserve and separate from any treaty process whatsoever. We welcome that involvement and our ability to learn from and support their endeavours.

Secondly, the member asked me about the letter to the Minister of Health -- the federal Minister of Health -- with respect to reproductive technologies. The letter that we sent was in April 2000. We indicated support in principle of the need to regulate reproductive and genetic technologies on a national basis. However, we indicated that we wished to have a significant ongoing role in the activities of the national regulatory body because of the profound social, ethical, legal and health concerns raised by reproductive and genetic technologies, the rapid rate of technological change and the need to monitor cost implications on the delivery of health care generally.

The letter goes on from there. It is signed by myself and the Minister of Health.

L. Stephens: I have one final question. Has the ministry continued to monitor the issue of gaming and women? The ministry had commissioned a report. I know that the government has prepared gaming legislation and is consulting with various groups and organizations on that particular legislation. I wonder if the minister has made her comments and the results of that particular report known to the organization or the ministry that's responsible for the gaming legislation. Could the minister fill us in on what's happening with women and gaming?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I think that's a prime example of an area that I believe should be dealt with by the ministry directly responsible. I would encourage the member to participate in the estimates of Labour, because that ministry is responsible for gaming in the province.

With respect to this ministry's involvement in the past, I've asked staff if they can access that. I'm unaware of it.

L. Stephens: Well, I have a copy of the report, and I'd be happy to give it to the minister if she would like to have it. Again, I just want to reiterate that the policy and planning department of the ministry clearly says that the review of governmentwide policy proposals and their impact on women is a function of that particular program.

I really want to encourage the minister to perhaps put a little bit more emphasis or concern around issues that affect women. I think most of these issues are equity issues. I know she's trying to sort of put a box around her ministry and focus only on what she perceives as equity issues. But I think, when you look at . . . . Let's take health care. Access to health care is an equity issue. Access to legal aid is an equity issue. There are many, many areas of women's lives that need to have the light of day shone on them, and really, I think it's her ministry and her responsibility to do that across governmentwide initiatives.

[1515]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the help from the staff of the Ministry of Women's Equality. We have a new deputy minister; I wish her well. And I want to thank the minister for answering the questions.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm going to take from the member that we are concluding our estimates. I would thank the member and other opposition members for their thoughtful comments and assure the opposition that this ministry's role will continue in a strong advocacy across government, which we will, however, focus. I want to be sure that my time in this office is a time where we can show focused progress, and I will be very diligent in that. There is no end to the good works that can be done. But with the resources that we have, I think the women of this province are counting on us to be able to demonstrate that we have made good use of our time.

The critic made the point that issues around access to health care are equity issues. I would argue that they are equity issues for all of society, not specifically only for women. It is the same with respect to legal aid or gaming.

While we'll continue to be involved and provide a gender analysis, we will focus the majority of our time and energy on the priorities that are articulated by the women of this province. The women of this province have very clearly told us that their priority is economic security; that's where they want us to spend our time and energy, and they want us to be focused about it. So that is what we will do, because at the end of the day, we are accountable to them.

I would thank the opposition. I'm truly startled that we have gentlemen on the back bench here, on the opposition's back bench, enthusiastic about our agenda. I am so pleased.

The appropriate motion to make, hon. Chair: I would move that the committee rise and report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:19 p.m.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 16569 ]

Committee of Supply B, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

[1520]

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill Pr402.

THE BRITISH COLUMBIA INSURANCE

COMPANY, 1904 AMENDMENT ACT, 2000

(second reading)

V. Anderson: I move that the bill now be read a second time. This is a bill simply to change the name from British Columbia Insurance Company to the Optimum West Insurance Company, subject to a bill that was passed in 1904.

The Speaker: Is leave granted, members?

Leave granted.

V. Anderson: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. We needed leave for second reading. Now we'll have the motion for second reading; then we'll go to your motion. The vote on second reading . . . .

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Now, if the member could ask for leave to go to . . . .

V. Anderson: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr402, the British Columbia Insurance Company, 1904 Amendment Act, 2000, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

THE BRITISH COLUMBIA INSURANCE

COMPANY, 1904 AMENDMENT ACT, 2000

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr 402; T. Stevenson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 approved.

Title approved.

V. Anderson: I move the committee rise, report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill Pr 402, The British Columbia Insurance Company, 1904 Amendment Act, 2000, reported complete with amendment, read third time and passed.

The Speaker: I recognize the hon. Minister of Women's Equality.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Who has just completed her estimates, hon. Speaker. I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm just hoping that staff have hurried up to the galleries. The work that is done for our ministry is done by a fairly small contingent of staff that work very hard. The whole estimates process sees the ministry leadership in the House, and they're introduced, but often the folks that are backing them up are in another room providing information to the opposition.

Three of those people have just joined us, and I wanted an opportunity to introduce them and to thank them for all of their work as well: Janice Nakamura has joined us; along with her are Brian Price and Huguette Cyrenne. All three of these individuals are providing yeoman's work for the women of this province. I'd like to have the House welcome them and recognize their work. In a fitting week in recognition of the public service, I think it's appropriate for all of us to thank all of those that work in the Ministry of Women's Equality on behalf of us all.

[1525]

Hon. A. Petter: I call committee stage on Bill 23.

BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSIT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2000

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 23; T. Stevenson in the chair.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I still have staff in the process of coming to the building for committee stage on this bill. Perhaps I might suggest we take a ten-minute recess.

The Chair: Fine. This House is recessed until 3:40.

The committee recessed from 3:26 p.m. to 3:41 p.m.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

R. Thorpe: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

R. Thorpe: It's a real privilege for me today to have students and teachers and chaperones visiting from Penticton, British Columbia, from Holy Cross Elementary. So I would like to ask the House to welcome 14 students, their teacher Mrs. Beachamp and two chaperones travelling with them. Holy Cross is one of the great schools in the riding; they do a wonderful job in the community. Please, everybody make them welcome.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I'd just like to begin by introducing the staff I have with me this afternoon. To my left is Colin Smith, the chief financial officer for Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd., and to my right is Mario Pavlakovic, who is the manager for property for the Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd.

[ Page 16570 ]

section 1.

D. Symons: I think I have just one concern in

section 1, which describes the various ancillary Rapid Transit Project properties. I suspect that each of these are properties that could be expropriated -- come under this act. I assume that's why they're listed here.

My concern primarily was with

section 1(h), which describes: "facilities for storage, maintenance and repair of vehicles, parts, signage and related items." Now, most of the rest of the items listed in (

a) through (g), I can see, are related directly to the SkyTrain project and would involve right-of-way or driveways and stations and all the rest, where the need for expropriation is rather clear. You can't get the project without that particular expropriation of that property.

However, when it comes to facilities for storage, I'm not so sure that this would have to necessarily be contiguous to the project itself.

So I'm wondering if the minister might explain: will all of these things covered in (

h) be in the immediate vicinity of the SkyTrain project -- of this project we're building with Rapid Transit? Or indeed, as I read here, would it allow that if they decided that somewhere, say, in the Fraser Flats and Vancouver area and south Vancouver, they wanted to put a storage facility or something there for parts for the rapid transit project that they would be able to expropriate property under these revisions in order to do that?

I would think we want to make sure the expropriation is related to the right-of-way properties that are along the line of the SkyTrain, and this seems to imply there might be other properties, if they're any way related to the project, that could come under this act.

[1545]

Hon. G. Bowbrick: The purpose here is to provide for storage, maintenance and repair facilities for vehicles and the related parts, etc., that relate to the line, so it's relating to SkyTrain vehicles and parts and what have you. Because of the length of the line -- I mean, we're expanding the line quite considerably here -- it's important to have what we might call remote facilities along the line. So they would be located adjacent to the line. It would be difficult and expensive, for example, to remove vehicles far away from the line somewhere; it makes sense to have them right beside the line, presumably with some track into the facility.

D. Symons: I thank the minister for the answer. I would assume in most cases that that would be the case. It would be very nice, then, if the words "adjacent to the project" were somewhere included in there, because when I see the word "signage" in there, I'm not too sure whether you're going to have a sign shop that necessarily will be in it. If the minister will assure us that indeed any of the subsection (

h) facilities mentioned there would be ones that are adjacent to the project, I'll leave it at that.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: Yeah, I think I can offer a fairly high level of assurance in that regard, particularly because it's not just . . . . I mean, we're building the project, but at the end of the day, these are facilities that will be owned and operated by TransLink. Of course, there are the various member municipalities that have an interest in this as well. It's several levels of government that are having to reach agreements on these things, so it isn't going to be one level arbitrarily and unilaterally deciding that there should be a signage facility located far away from the system. I think everyone wants this to be close to the system; that would make it as efficient as possible.

G. Plant: This is really a general question, and it's just my way of following up on an issue that was discussed briefly in second reading debate, where I asked the question whether any aspect of this bill changed the obligations in respect of expropriation in terms of who pays. The minister, in his closing remarks in second reading, said the province pays. He said it carefully. And, fair enough, at the time he pointed out that we might end up revisiting the issue in committee stage debate.

He now has the benefit of staff beside him. I just want to make sure that we do revisit the issue again and that in this hopefully somewhat more informed context, the minister can nonetheless get up and assure us that in respect of this part of the SkyTrain project, the Millennium Line, it's the province that will be paying the costs of compensation for expropriation of property required for that line.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: Yes, I can confirm what I said yesterday in second reading debate. It's all in the $1.167 billion budget. The only possible minor exception to that is that there is an agreed-upon and approved $35 million -- we call it the MIF fund -- municipal integration fund. It's possible that there may be some items involved in that fund and some money could be cost-shared for expropriation, a particular item being paid for out of that fund. But that's a very minor part of the project.

I'm advised that's a possibility, but for the vast majority of the projects we have a property acquisition fund for the vast number of the properties, and it all comes within the $1.167 billion amount, which includes our contribution to the municipal integration fund. There's some possibility that there may be some municipal contribution as part of a cost-shared item.

[1550]

G. Plant: Is the balance of the amount required for that municipal integration fund -- if I've got it right -- funded? Is it money that the province's cost-sharing partners have committed to contribute, should the eventuality arise that the fund needs to be called upon for the purposes the minister described?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: The answer is yes.

I'll just add that we're now also joined by Jeff Pottinger, who's legislative counsel.

G. Plant: Last question on this issue. The minister was helpful enough to refer to a property acquisition fund which is apparently part of the budget for the Millennium Line. Can the minister indicate how much that fund is? What is the amount that the project has set aside for the purposes of compensating people whose property may be or will be expropriated?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: The total is $44.5 million.

Section 1 approved.

[ Page 16571 ]

section 2.

D. Symons: Just a short question. At the beginning of the sections repealed and the following substituted, it says: "Despite any provision of this Act or any other enactment, the authority may do any or all of the following . . . . " I'm just wondering, is that "or any other enactment" put there just as a safeguard in case there's something you haven't thought of, or are there indeed some other situations, other acts, that could allow some way around this particular act? Is there a specific purpose for which that's been included, or are you just using it as a safeguard phrase in there?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I'd point out that this is not a change in wording from the existing statute. What's happening here is that the subsection is essentially being split into subsections in order to expand it. But it's exactly the same wording. I refer to

section 8(9) of the current British Columbia Transit Act, which has exactly the same wording. It begins: "Despite any provision of this Act or any other enactment . . . . " So there's no legislative change happening in that regard at all.

D. Symons: Yes, and whether in this amendment act or the actual act, I suspect then that what it's there for is just as a safeguard in case there are other ways that people might get around the Expropriation Act as far as transit. Anyway, thank you.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

D. Symons: I gather that

section 3 is actually the meat of this particular bill, in that it's the one that will change the arrangements for the expropriation from what was previously done in the GVTA Act. The agreement -- the agency agreement -- was there as the previous way of doing expropriation for the rapid transit project. This is the part that makes that change. Would the minister confirm that I'm on the right track?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: The member used the term "arrangements." There is no change being made to the process by which expropriation takes place. What we're doing here is clarifying the legislative basis for the "arrangement," as the member puts it, that we have in place currently -- that being the agency agreement. So we're making sure that there's a very clear legislative basis for that agency agreement. But in terms of how it's felt by a property owner, they will see no difference in practice.

[1555]

D. Symons: The reason, I think, for the bill is the fact that there was some delay in the project because of a court case, which found for B.C. Transit and the Rapid Transit Project 2000. But it was felt that the way that it was set through the agency agreement allowed the possibility that people could challenge it -- although unsuccessfully. So this is an attempt to make sure that no more of that happens.

I'm wondering if you could give me just a brief thumbnail sketch of the procedures that were used before the court said, "Well, it was a rather cumbersome sort of arrangement before," and how this sort of shortchanges it and makes it a much clearer and more precise sort of arrangement, as far as expropriation goes. It seems to transfer, I would think from reading here, this authority directly on now to the RTP and sort of includes it in the B.C. Transit Act. Is that how it's operating? Anyway, I think you can explain it better than I.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: As I stated before, there will be no practical difference noticed by anyone on the ground. Someone who looks behind the process, as a lawyer would, to look for the legislative basis for what is happening, will see a difference, because prior to this it was done on the authority of an agency agreement. RTP was relying exclusively upon the legislative authority of B.C. Transit -- right?

What's happening now is that RTP, as the member can see, is in the legislation. It's much more clear what the legislative basis is for that agency agreement. It's made entirely clear in legislation. That's the only difference that anyone would see.

D. Symons: I would gather, then, that

section 3, sections 8.1(3) and 8.1(4)(

b) would basically be the items that do what you're suggesting.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: Yes.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

D. Symons: My apologies for being slow here. There's a 5 followed by a 6, but it's 6 that's part of 5, unfortunately, not . . . . I misread that. I guess the only concern I have here is a bit philosophical with

section 5, which brings in the transitional

part 6. It's parts (2) and (3) in there which are these retroactive phrases, all things done by Rapid Transit Project that "would have been validly done . . . . "

[1600]

The Chair: Member, I think you're in

section 6, transitional -- are you not?

D. Symons: It's just offset there, isn't it, in the copy. So yes, I think you're correct. Thank you.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

D. Symons: The layout on the page here is a little bit inconsistent, and it's confusing both ways.

As I was saying a moment ago, the transitional part --

section 6(2) and (3) -- basically brings in retroactivity. I dislike the concept of going back into the past and saying what we did then no longer counts; it's what we're doing today. We're saying it was valid back then. "All things done by RTP that would have been validly done had sections 1, 8(9) and 8.1 of the British Columbia Transit Act, as amended and enacted by sections . . . . " They are now deemed to have been in force. So it's just that concept, and it's unfortunate.

Could the minister possibly explain: are there other things out there that make it necessary to go back and do it retroactively? Have you other claims maybe or court cases

[ Page 16572 ]

pending, so that rather than going on from this point forward, you have to back-pedal and deem them to have been effective as of a year ago?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: The answer is no; there aren't other pending actions. But there is a total of 23 parcels of private property that we've acquired by expropriation. I should add that 25 have been acquired consensually, by agreement. But of the 23 that have been acquired by expropriation, we don't see any actions arising out of that. There's certainly nothing filed in any court.

But there is a limitation period. There is up to one year for an appeal or a challenge to take place. We're just trying to make sure that the law is completely clear as iterated by the British Columbia Supreme Court. I should add, as well, that I think it's now four months since the Supreme Court decision. So it doesn't look -- and I'm advised that it doesn't appear -- as though the other party in that particular case is proceeding with an appeal, but they've certainly reserved their right to appeal.

We're making this very clear, because as I've stated during second reading debate, we can't afford even the minor delay that could be caused by a challenge, which may be baseless but would be given the due process of even a hearing for an injunction, which could delay the project at all. It's too large a project to allow for that, when we already know that we're on reasonable legal ground. Now we want to make sure that it's absolutely clear to everyone involved, including those parties who've had land expropriated.

D. Symons: If I'm understanding the minister correctly, then the court case that went through and was not won by the plaintiff . . . . If they decided to appeal it and the time hasn't elapsed yet, basically by deeming this to have taken place a year ago, they would be denied the appeal. Is that true? Or would they still be able to appeal it, in which case you could again be dealing with an injunction that could slow the project down? Or are they still able to appeal even if this is passed today?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: It doesn't deny an appeal. What it does do, in terms of the context within which the appeal takes place, is that . . . . The law upon which they may be arguing is deemed to take the form of these amendments right back to the time their land was expropriated. That's the form it takes. They can still continue with their appeal, but I think it would be fair to say that in the end result, there would be little basis for an appeal. They've already lost at the B.C. Supreme Court level, and then the law has been changed retroactively to make it very clear that the B.C. Supreme Court was right.

[1605]

D. Symons: I guess the words that the minister could've used to shorten the whole thing are: "We'd have cut the ground out from underneath an appeal, basically, by having this there and making it retroactive." That's what I think you were saying in layman's terms. I guess I have some concerns about that.

Just one last question, then, on this: will this now clear the way for all the lands that may be involved in the project? Or will there still be some impediments or possible impediments through appropriation of lands that you need for the project?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: We're doing this on the advice that . . . . This is designed to absolutely minimize risk of challenge. I can't say definitively that there wouldn't be any other form of challenge to any expropriation. There may be very creative lawyers acting on behalf of some property owners, but this is what has come up.

This is what has been identified as a risk, albeit it's not a substantial risk in the sense of the chance of an aggrieved property owner actually winning, because we've already got a court decision on our side. This will minimize the risk of that form of challenge. It's designed to try to ensure that we don't have any other impediments that would cost the taxpayer. The member referred earlier to taking the ground out from underneath an appeal. I guess the flip side of that is making sure the taxpayer is absolutely protected on a $1.167 billion project.

D. Symons: There was another side to my question of a moment ago, and that was that maybe there would be lands that aren't still affected by this. When I was asked the question, I was thinking in the back of my mind of Burlington Northern. This clears the way as far as challenges to any expropriation that you may need to do for the program to carry on the rapid transit project. But you do still have some lands, I believe, that you need that are not subject to expropriation, so therefore you still could be held up with those negotiations. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I think the member is right to identify . . . . I think implicit in his question is that this doesn't give us expropriation authority over certain lands like federally regulated railway lands, which is the case with Burlington Northern. However, I can inform the member that we do have an agreement with Burlington Northern in place now, which we've reached through negotiation, so that we don't run that risk on any of the Millennium Line project. We don't anticipate any other problems in terms of property acquisition, in terms of any substantial delay.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

D. Symons: Just one comment actually, and then we will get on with it. It's

section 7(3) that I was amused by, I guess, because it says: "Sections 1 to 6 must not be construed as lacking retroactive effect in relation to any matter by reason that they make no specific reference to that matter." I think this seems to be, as I call it, a "just in case we forgot anything else" clause in the bill here. I'm not a lawyer, but if I'm interpreting it correctly, it seems to be that in case we left anything else out, this one's going to cover it, so your commencement is all right. I don't know if you want to respond to that comment or not, but from my viewpoint as a non-lawyer, it seems to be a pretty good lawyer term.

[1610]

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I'm a lawyer, and I think it's fair to say that the member who is a non-lawyer has an insightful

interpretation. I think that's an accurate

interpretation of what that provision seeks to do.

Section 7 approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 16573 ]

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 23, British Columbia Transit Amendment Act, 2000, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. H. Lali: I'd like to call Bill 19, committee stage.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 2000

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 19; T. Stevenson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

[1615]

R. Thorpe: I believe this to be the case, but I'd just like clarification not only for myself as a taxpayer but for all of the hard-working taxpayers here in British Columbia. In these various tax rates, whatever category you're in -- if you're in the middle category, for argument's sake -- is all of your tax based on that, or is it a stepped taxation? Do you pay the lower rate on the first amount? Then, whatever the carryover is, do you pay that higher rate? Am I clear on that?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, that is correct. It's exactly that; it's a step process as you move up.

Just before we get into this, I'd like to introduce the staff who are with us in the chamber: Pat Parkinson, who is the director of income tax, Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations; and Paul Flanagan, who is a tax policy analyst in the ministry.

I also wanted to advise the opposition that I have a floor amendment to introduce. It's to

section 17. It actually deals with -- when we get to it, I'll explain it -- the provisions in Bill 18 on the investment tax credit for machinery and equipment. It wasn't included in this act because Bill 19 was introduced before Bill 18. So we couldn't include it in this bill when we tabled it. I will table this now. You'll get a copy of it, and we'll have a thorough debate on it, I am sure, when we reach

section 17.

R. Thorpe: I'm just wondering if we'll have it in this session, the Income Tax Miscellaneous Amendment Act, at the rate we're going here.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: No such thing. No, it'll be one of the first bills, if that is the case.

In looking at the rates of taxation, some people from the government side would argue that they're not high enough, and some people from the opposition side would argue that they should be lower. In that context I'm just wondering if we could have the minister explain to us,

briefly, how they establish the various taxation rates that are in this section. How did they go about saying that it was going to be 8.4 percent, 12.4 percent, 14.35 percent? How did they arrive at those percentages for the hard-working taxpayers of British Columbia?

Hon. P. Ramsey: As we move towards having our own tax-on-income system, the tax year 2000 is sort of a transition year, because the federal government required, during this transition, that all the surtax structures essentially remain in place and that we pretty much use their brackets.

These rates were determined as follows. They are, with one exception, 50 percent of the federal rate for that bracket. So, for example, the federal government rate for the bracket of income under $30,004 is 17 percent. The federal rate for the bracket between $30,004 and $60,009 is 26 percent, and for over $60,009 it is 29 percent. So these are at 50 percent minus, as you can see, some tax reductions. The largest reduction, as we've said in our public comments on our tax structure in Budget 2000, is for middle-income earners earning $60,000 and less.

[1620]

[P. Nettleton in the chair.]

I. Chong: I do understand that with the federal rates we've got the 17, 26 and 29 percent levels. They are changing, as I understand it, which is why we have the variations. But where you have taxable income, I understood it to be income . . . . That $30,004; I thought it was actually on $30,335. Am I correct on that? Have you factored in some other areas such as the surtaxes? Is that the presumption I am making? Or are there other calculations? Similarly, on the next level of $60,009, I understand it to be $60,670. Clearly there are some differences from what we had calculated them to be.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The rates that the member quotes are our estimate of where those brackets will be after they're adjusted for inflation in the tax year 2001. So the member is quite right. Those are the estimated brackets that will be in effect after inflation adjustment occurs for the taxation year 2001.

I. Chong: When would those figures be formalized? When is the time of the year that we know we will have that amount so that people can rely on it as accurate information?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The inflation adjustment is based on the CPI through September of the year. Therefore starting in October, we'd be informing folks for payroll deduction what the new brackets are going to be and then, obviously, preparing the forms in December for the 2001 tax year, which would be then issued in 2002.

I. Chong: I'm just trying for clarification to ensure . . . . I'm sure many accountants and professionals out there are wanting to be clear on when these changes take effect, filing deadlines, etc., or when forms can be anticipated to come out, because that is certainly a concern. So these changes -- those figures I gave you -- are to be available for the year 2001. In the bill, these amounts are based on the 2000 taxation year. The forms can be drafted now and therefore available at the end of the year, prior to the end of the taxation year, for people who want to take a look at it -- or available now, I'm presuming.

How soon will they be available for those who are preparing estate tax returns? There are estate tax returns which

[ Page 16574 ]

have fiscal years other than calendar years. Can the minister advise when those forms might be available that take into effect these changes?

[1625]

Hon. P. Ramsey: The ministry is working right now with CCRA on draft forms. We expect that work for the 2000 tax year to be completed by September of this year. Typically, of course, the forms don't come out until early in the next year. Staff advise me -- and the member is more familiar with this than I am -- that for purposes of trusts and estates, typically the previous year's forms are used, and then you have an adjustment.

I. Chong: That is correct. However, sometimes there are instances for an estate where there's a date of death that occurs in the middle of 1999, and someone wants to do the first and final and wrap up the estate within a year. So they'll choose a May 31 year-end and do the wrap-up, and they do need those forms. I know that typically in the past they've used older forms, but accountants have crossed out those rates, knowing what the new rates are. This is an entirely new system.

So the question I have is that the software that's going to be necessary to make the changeover has to be implemented. For those fiscal years such as estates that have a straddle year, is there going to be a requirement to adjust for the '99 taxes and the 2000 taxes, or will it be all under the 2000 rates? Is that what's going to happen, or are we going to have a very complicated system? This is particular; it's not for individuals. I do understand. It will be for estates and trusts, for which there are a lot of returns that are filed.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I appreciate the member's interest in this. What we are doing, of course, is working with CCRA to make sure that we and the feds are moving in parallel on this, so that we don't have a lot of complications or areas where we differ from it.

I must say that this is an area that is rather technical and surely beyond the direct knowledge that I have. So I am serving in a lot of this as a conduit for comments of staff. If this is an area of particular interest to the member, I'd be more than pleased to have staff provide her with a briefing on the handling of estates and trusts under this act and how these provisions harmonize with what goes on in the federal income tax system.

I. Chong: I do appreciate the minister's candour in the fact that it is technical. I'm not trying to bait him in any way. I'm just wanting to get some assurance that their staff is aware. It is a complicated process. I know you have to work with CCRA, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency -- the new name for Revenue Canada -- and there has to be a proper integration. It never has been easy in the past to deal with estates and trusts with straddle year-ends anyway, and it will continue to be a problem. But particularly, when you are moving to a new system, it's so much more of a problem.

With estates and trusts in particular, many times family members attempt to prepare these returns themselves. They don't always go to a professional tax preparer or to a law firm to have these matters dealt with. My concern is that those people who wish to deal with it themselves are not going to be able to because of the complications.

I think it might be helpful, rather than myself having the briefing -- because I will follow whatever forms come out -- that maybe an information circular is available for the accounting bodies to have a look at, for them to circulate, and to request or solicit their assistance in providing that information. Not that it should cost a lot of money to do that. I'm not suggesting that the ministry spend money to inform professional accountants. Just as information, I think, it would not be harmful; in fact, it would serve the public well.

[1630]

I'd like to just ask, as well, in this

section 5, in the

definitions of

section 4 of the act, the question on surtax. It says: "'surtax' means the amount of the increase in tax referred to in

section 4.86 (2)" of the Income Tax Act. I don't have that with me, and I'm just wondering if I can get a clarification on that.

In the past, as I indicated in second reading today, surtaxes have been imposed for a specific reason. Years ago a surtax was imposed, I believe by the Socreds, called the health surtax. It was supposed to be a temporary surtax, but eventually it became a permanent surtax added on to the base rate. I'm just wanting clarification as to whether this surtax is any different than what has been done in the past and whether this surtax is simply a surtax for higher-level income. If that's what it is, then so be it.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The surtax rates for the 2000 tax year remain the same as for the '99 tax year and at the same levels. For the 2001 tax year, of course, there are no surtaxes in the scheme; it is simply a series of brackets and rates.

Excuse me, Chair. Before I sit down, I would say that I appreciate the member's observation that the accounting community would benefit from a circular on the issue of how tax-on-income meshes with federal tax and what might be a good way of doing a circular. Our staff will take that up with CCRA. Of course, they're dealing, as we discussed earlier in second reading on this, not only with B.C.'s tax-on-income changes . . . . But a number of other provinces are doing it as well this year. So I think you are quite right; this is an area that CCRA will have to work to make sure that the broad accounting community is up to speed on.

I. Chong: I hope the minister and staff will indulge me as I go through

section 5. I may not go through it in particular order, only because I'm looking at the narrative and the description as to what changes are being made to

section 5, and I may not follow the actual sections of the act.

I am curious, in the narrative explaining the changes of

section 5 of this bill, about the order in which certain deductions apply -- that is, a new ordering provision for individuals, which includes estates and trusts, and for corporations. I'm just wondering if the minister can elaborate further on the ordering and it being a new ordering. What specifically is being changed? Again, I apologize for having not attended the briefing; I was called out at the time.

Hon. P. Ramsey: For those who might possibly want to pursue this through Hansard , I think I'll reference the specific subsection of

section 5, which is actually on page 18, I believe, of the bill --

section 4.79.

Interjection.

[ Page 16575 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Page 18.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Thank you, hon. member. This is why we just didn't say aye to

section 5. It's a very long section. Okay?

The order of making deductions under this act is identical to the order under the federal act, and we are required to make sure that the order is the same. It's one of the provisions that the federal government put forward, as we moved to tax on income.

[1635]

Hon. D. Miller: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. D. Miller: In the gallery behind me are a group of grade 7 students from the Annunciation School in Prince Rupert. They are accompanied by the school principal, Flora D'Angelo; a teacher, Jennifer Juteau, and her husband, Jason; Pat and Tracy O'Connor; Leslie Bateman; Valerie Paolinelli; and Bev Mark. I want to take the occasion to single out young Master McNish, with a shock of reddish-orange hair. I know his grandfather very, very well -- John McNish.

The children asked me outside whether we have arguments in this place. I said that yes, we do. Sometimes they're silly, but that there was a purpose for them. And I explained that we are debating a piece of legislation. I would ask the House to make the students and their teachers most welcome.

I. Chong: I hope the students find the debate as interesting as we do. But I'll excuse them if they don't, because it's about income tax, and many of them are too young to even file income tax returns.

Interjection.

I. Chong: Well, they might not have to file them; I think their parents may still be able to claim them. But I hope they will enjoy the debate that we have in this House. We're not having arguments; we have debates -- a correction I'll make, to the minister.

Hon. Chair, I appreciate the reference to the page. As I said earlier, I do apologize for having missed the briefing; it may have been made clear to me. I was just curious, however, because it referenced it being a new ordering, and I'm wondering why we had to specify a new ordering. Were there some specific changes that required certain credits to be moved up?

I'm also curious as to why these credits are referred to as credits, unless in the definition side there is something else. Generally, these are referred to as non-refundable tax credits; that word seems to be missing throughout. I don't know if we're going to have a miscellaneous amendment to ensure that these are all referred to as non-refundable credits; it's just a minor issue. If not, then I guess we won't see that change. In particular, I was curious as to why we had to specifically set out the ordering if our ordering was always the same as that of our federal counterparts?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff pointed out to me, actually,

section 3 of this bill repeals the ordering in the previous act. So now we are putting this provision in. The reason for it, of course, is that for some of these credits we didn't have any reference to them previously, because in a tax-on-tax regime we simply did a proportion of the federal.

I. Chong: That does make sense. I did see the repealing provision. But again, not understanding why you had to repeal and restate it, that certainly makes sense, because of the changes and the requirements to make that change.

My other question -- I didn't mean it to be lighthearted -- maybe the minister or staff can provide clarification on. Through here you see the word "credits," these credits for personal credit, age credit, pension credits, etc. However, on tax forms you will always see them referred to as non-refundable, in a category as non-refundable tax credits. I do want to get that clarification from this minister, that all these are in fact non-refundable tax credits. They are not credits in any other way, or our system is not intending them to be refundable credits in other ways.

I would hate to see this end up in the court system somewhere where someone says: "They're credits. I'm entitled to them, and they don't say they're non-refundable. I should receive them." The federal forms may have that clarification; we don't seem to have that. I just want to canvass the minister in this area to see if this might be a problem, in an effort to assist him.

[1640]

Hon. P. Ramsey: All the ones that have the same name, same title, as a federal credit are non-refundable -- no change, no intent to change. There are a couple here at the very end. The small business venture capital tax credit -- it's partially refundable. So there are some variations. I would refer the member, though, to page 4 of the bill,

section 4.2. That actually outlines the treatment as deductions and how they are applied to income. This is actually the controlling section. The other

section we were looking at, 4.79, is the ordering.

I. Chong: I appreciate the assumption that all the credits that we name would parallel those of the federal credits. Again, you can appreciate that, but if you don't so say, people aren't going to necessarily agree. And you'll always have someone who may take up the cause that it hasn't been clarified and challenge that. I'd hate to see this being taken to a court where we spend a lot of money, and it just takes one individual to do that.

But that raises another question, which the minister stated in his efforts to clarify this. There are some credits, he says, which are in fact refundable, such as the small business venture capital credit. How would someone know? It wouldn't necessarily be an individual, but it could be. How would they know that those aren't?

I guess there will be some clarifications on forms or schedules that are printed, if that is the case, so that people who prepare their own tax filing forms don't make a mistake of not claiming everything to which they are in fact entitled. I presume they would go out to a professional tax preparer, but again, some don't. I would hate to see it be so complicated that people don't get what they're entitled to in terms of a tax credit.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Thank you very much, hon. Chair, and through you to the muttering members opposite about my experiences as an accountant.

[ Page 16576 ]

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Minimal.

Let me say this: the non-refundable credits will be clearly indicated as non-refundable on the form. The treatment of refundable credits such as the family bonus or sales tax credit will also be clarified on the form.

R. Thorpe: With respect to the order of the credits, we've established that that is the same as and was part of the arrangement with the feds. Has there, for provincial purposes, been any change in any of the treatments for any of the deductions outlined here? Has anything changed for a taxpayer of British Columbia with respect to deductibility for any of the categories that are now going to be imposed, as prior to this bill?

[1645]

Hon. P. Ramsey: There are two issues that I want to try to separate very clearly. First, eligibility for credits is taken straight from the federal tax act, so there's no difference between what we're doing and what they're doing as far as credits and eligibility for them. However, the ability to now go to a tax-on-income system in British Columbia does enable us to set our own rates or amounts for those credits.

The one that has changed for the 2000 tax year -- and that's the

section of the act that we're debating right now,

section 5, 2000 tax year -- the name of the deduction is contained in 4.79. It starts on page 18 and continues on page 19. On page 19 under sub (3)(

a) it points to

section 4.72, the supplementary credit for the 2000 tax year. That is the additional tax credit that we are providing in British Columbia.

If you go to 4.72 which is on page 15, it specifies what that deduction is: "$600, if the individual deducts an amount in respect of a dependent spouse or other dependant under . . . or (b) $300, in any other case." So this is the additional credit that we have provided in the British Columbia tax system this year. As the member knows, doing this sort of credit benefits those at the lower end of the income scale proportionately greater than those at the upper end of the scale.

R. Thorpe: I thank the minister, one, for his patience as we work through this, and two, for being very deliberate in making these linkages. I just want to make sure. I appreciate that he pointed that one difference out. But with respect to all of the other credits, the formula, the deductibility, all of the things that were in place beforehand stay in place after.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, that is accurate.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise how many low-income earners did not pay tax in British Columbia in the year 1999?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me try this. First, we obviously don't have the figures for the '99 tax year. For the '98 tax year, the rough figures are these. Out of a population in B.C. of around four million, there are 2.7 million income tax returns filed. Approximately 1.8 million pay some tax.

[1650]

R. Thorpe: So that means 900,000 don't pay tax.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Or 2.2 million, when the population of the province is four million. Look, I mean that it is a little difficult here. I mean, a lot of this 900,000 difference between those who file and those who pay has to do with children filing tax returns or people who file and then have extraordinary deductions and don't pay taxes for the year. I can give you the figures. I think a further analysis of it could consume us some time in this chamber.

R. Thorpe: It could. You're right: I wouldn't argue with the minister on that. But what I want to know, then, is: how do you arrive at that -- 100,000 low-income British Columbians will no longer pay taxes? How do you arrive at that number?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, the way it's done is . . . . I think the member probably can assume how it's done, and he's right. You take the range of people who filed income taxes and those who paid income taxes, those who only paid a few dollars right up to those who paid quite substantial amounts, and figure out or project what the changes in the tax regime will do. Obviously if you're increasing personal amount, as we're doing, and providing additional non-refundable credits, as we're doing, there's a significant number of people who fall from those who are required to pay some taxes to those who are required to pay none.

What the officials in the ministry sought to do was to be quite conservative in how they estimated that number; it could well be more than that. I'd be pleased to provide the member with the detailed calculation and breakdown if he wishes; I don't have it available to me in the chamber. But we did walk through in some detail, saying: "Here are people who are obviously low-income earners, obviously paying small amounts of income tax -- hundreds of dollars, not thousands. But by the time you take into account the changes we've made, they will wind up paying no British Columbia income tax."

R. Thorpe: I appreciate the minister's answer to that, and I realize the answer is directional in nature; it can't be exact at this point in time. I understand, and I accept that. How many of that 100,000, though, are not paying tax because of the provincial changes alone? In other words, how many of the 100,000 are not paying tax because of the federal changes?

[1655]

Hon. P. Ramsey: This estimate was based only on provincial measures; it took no account of the federal measures.

R. Thorpe: The minister made an offer earlier, and I'd like to take him up on that offer so that we can move this debate along. If the minister could provide the official opposition with a detailed breakdown on how this 100,000 number was arrived at, and if we could have the minister's commitment that we would receive that analysis before the end of June, that would satisfy the official opposition. If the minister would like to move the debate along, I'm sure he'd make that commitment to us.

Hon. P. Ramsey: My staff will have no problem in providing that information to the member by the end of the month.

I. Chong: For clarification purposes, prior to staff developing this list, the term that low-income people will not

[ Page 16577 ]

be paying taxes . . . . I would just like to ensure that what we're talking about is the calculation, where you see whether a person in fact is paying taxes, prior to the tax credits being applied, because in some cases you may have someone, for example, paying $50 taxes, but as a result of tax credits -- whether the personal basic sales tax credit or because of B.C. Benefits or GST tax credits or whatever -- those credits which are refundable offset that amount. You then in essence have a return that says that this person is not paying tax.

I would not want those returns to be skewed in the 100,000 that this minister is estimating to be a part of those who are not paying taxes. Provided we are looking at the right line, of those who will actually have taxes eliminated before the refundable tax credits kick in, I think we will have a more meaningful

schedule provided to us. If I can have that for clarification, or that staff understands what it is that we're requesting, I would appreciate that.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think we're quite clear on what's being requested. I appreciate the opposition's interest in making sure that apples are being compared to apples. I'm quite satisfied with the work that staff has done. I'm quite convinced that they have estimated conservatively the number of British Columbians who will, as a result of the measures in this bill, be relieved of paying income taxes.

R. Thorpe: At what level of income will British Columbians not have to pay taxes?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not sure what the member is asking, because it's quite obvious that there is no one gross income amount. Given the great variation in deductions and credits that individuals may have, that number could be . . . . The range of the level of gross income at which a person starts paying taxes is really quite large. So the range of the level at which an individual would start paying income taxes is really quite large. That range is quite large, because you have to take account of differences and what credits they're claiming, other deductions. There are huge variations, really.

It really is not very easy to say: "This is the gross income that results in somebody starting to pay taxes."

R. Thorpe: The amounts in 4.3, the personal deductions -- how were those numbers arrived at?

Hon. P. Ramsey: In

section 5, sub 4.3, which I think the member is referring to, on page 5 of the bill, these are for the 2000 year. They are identical to the federal amounts for the 2000 year. When we get to the 2001 year, you will see adjustments to these, either by rate of inflation or, for some, more than the rate of inflation.

R. Thorpe: How do those deduction amounts compare for our closest two neighbours, Alberta and Saskatchewan?

[1700]

Hon. P. Ramsey: For the year 2000 these are identical to what our neighbours would be charging. It's really right across the country. For the year 2001, once people get to move to tax on income, there's a real variation. Alberta has chosen to do quite a significantly higher personal reduction, though staff are unsure whether that has actually passed the Legislature or whether it's subject to amendment. We're not quite sure. And we're not quite sure what Saskatchewan is doing for 2001 either. Information of staff is that it looks like the majority of provinces are choosing to do what we have done and what the federal government has done, and that is to index those credits to inflation.

R. Thorpe: Yeah. Actually, I don't know whether it has received royal assent in Alberta or not, but I understand that amendments to Bill 18 in Alberta will increase personal reductions to $12,900. I understand that in Saskatchewan they are being increased above these amounts too.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: No -- for 2001, as the minister said.

I don't know that I have any more questions in this area. My colleague does.

I. Chong: The narrative provided in the description

section of the bill, where the establishment of a variety of provincial tax credits paralleling those under the federal act . . . . We've discussed these. But there is also the creation of a new provincial supplementary credit for the 2000 taxation year in sections 4.3 to 4.72 of the Income Tax Act. Rather than going through and looking for it quickly, perhaps the minister can direct staff to advise me what that provincial supplementary credit is.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Actually, this is what I was just discussing with your colleague. It's on page 15 of the bill,

section 4.72 of

section 5: "Supplementary credit for the 2000 taxation year." Okay? It's $300 for people not claiming a dependent spouse credit and $600 for others.

I. Chong: My apologies to the minister. I was reading something else at that time.

I just also wanted to ask on another matter dealing with this change to this new tax structure. That is in the calculation of taxable income, which I don't anticipate will change, but I just want this for clarification. There have in the past been transitional rules applied sometimes in calculation of taxable income. For example, where we've had changes to the inclusion rate for capital gains tax, there have sometimes been transitional rules provided, not so much in the inclusion of the tax but in the inclusion of those losses.

Where losses have been sustained in previous years and carried forward, it's never been a problem to carry forward those losses on your tax return, because we've been consistently completing tax returns in the same manner. With these new tax structure changes, do we anticipate there will be any problems with carrying forward those losses? Can they be applied to income for the calculation of taxable income in the same manner? I presume they should be, but I don't want to make that presumption without clarification from the minister.

J. Wilson: I'd like to make an introduction.

[1705]

Leave granted.

J. Wilson: It's my privilege today to introduce Mr. Seimens and 20 grade 7 students from Parkland Elementary

[ Page 16578 ]

School. They're accompanied by several parents. Today is a very special day for one of the students. Her name is Jessica Meade, and today is her thirteenth birthday. I ask that the House make her welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Just for clarity here, what the federal government has said and what the Ministers of Finance across the country have agreed to is that as we move the various provinces to their own tax-on-income systems, we will adhere to the definition of taxable income that is contained in federal legislation. As the member knows, anything sort of above that line, before you get down to taxable income, remains exactly the same. It is not included in these provisions. It is a federal matter, and we simply apply the rules to it.

As the member does know, the federal budget this year did contain changes to treatment of capital gains -- beginning in February, I believe -- and they will have to put in place transitional measures. But that's their problem and their doing and not this bill or the provincial ministry.

I. Chong: I would also like to canvass the minister in the area of the transfer of certain unused tax credits to relatives. I am familiar with transfer credits, and in particular, tuition and education tax credits usually being transferred to parents and, I see also now, to grandparents. I understand this is consistent with federal regulations, but I'm wondering whether this minister made any considerations to transfer of other credits and whether we might engage in that possibility in the future.

I know it's future policy and can't be discussed, but whether that is an area that the Ministers of Finance discuss . . . . Clearly if a grandparent is providing support to a grandchild and you acknowledge that by allowing for a transfer of education and tax credits, or if that grandparent is in fact supporting a grandchild and that grandparent has no spouse, even a personal credit is permitted. There seem to be inclusions in certain areas. I'm just wondering whether a number of other credits would be allowed to be transferred to grandparents, if that debate has taken place and if it's something that we can look forward to hearing more about in the future.

[1710]

Hon. P. Ramsey: In the year 2000 tax system that we're debating right now, there are no changes. It is identical to the federal system, and as the member knows, there are some circumstances under which an individual can transfer the tuition or education credits to a grandparent.

The other thing the member asked, though, and this is new ground for British Columbia . . . . Starting in the year 2001, there is the ability of the provincial government to change transferability provisions for credits. The current bill doesn't contain any of those, but there is that ability to do so. That is one of the advantages of moving to tax on income. As we said in second reading debate, it does allow British Columbia to start setting its own tax policy to really support its own priorities.

I. Chong: Thank you for the clarification.

I believe I'm through with

section 5. I believe my colleague still has another question on

section 5, after which we can probably move right through to

section 13. But I'll let my colleague ask.

R. Thorpe: Just very, very quickly, with respect to 4.82 and 4.83, both of them having to do with pension provisions, I just want to make sure that taxpayers of British Columbia, with respect to pensions . . . . Things are hard for the average person to read and fully understand, including myself. Are any pensioners or anyone having . . . ? I get a little concerned when I see the word "retroactive." Are people going to be paying more taxes, the same taxes or less taxes with respect to the provisions of 4.82 and 4.83?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Sections 4.81, 4.82 and 4.83 are all similar in that they do the following. They add to tax payable 49.5 percent of the additional federal tax payable by persons who receive Canada Pension Plan or Quebec Pension Plan disability benefits for prior years -- that's 4.81 -- pension payments in 4.82 and pension payments for prior years in 4.83. So there is that provision.

However, what this is, is a federal mechanism to reduce the tax payable on a lump sum payment. Obviously if you take the lump sum in one year, you're going to be paying a higher percentage. Under the federal act, the lump sum payment is then excluded from the income for the year, distributed to the years for which it applies, and tax is then recalculated for each of those years. So that's what these three provisions mirror.

[1715]

R. Thorpe: So the answer to the question is that these three are intended to minimize the tax to the taxpayer.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member has got it. What we have here is a . . . . You look at the technical stuff here, and in a way it looks like you're increasing taxes in order to lower them. I will let the accounting community explain how that works, but it does.

I. Chong: I did miss another area here in

section 5 which refers to the Income Tax Act:

section 4.85 on page 20 of the bill, "Apportionment of additional taxes." I just wonder, to be brief, whether staff can assist the minister in providing clarification. I'm not clear as to whether this has been done in the past. This is where a person has filed their tax return in the past and declared their residency on the last day of the year and thereby filed their tax returns in the province in which they reside. This appears to be a deviation from that, and I just want clarification that it is not.

Hon. P. Ramsey: There's no change in the treatment of multi-jurisdictional taxpayers in this act from the previous year.

Sections 5 to 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the amendment to

section 17 that I tabled in the Legislature today.

[SECTION 17, in the proposed

section 18.1 by deleting paragraph (

h) and substituting the following paragraphs:

(

h) section 105 [manufacturing and processing tax credit];

(

i) section 99 [scientific research and experimental development tax credit].]

On the amendment.

[ Page 16579 ]

R. Thorpe: What is the purpose of this amendment? Is this for order purposes? Is that why this amendment has been put in?

Hon. P. Ramsey:

Section 17, which amends

section 18.1 of the act, is the ordering provision for corporate deductions. What the amendment does is insert between (

g) and the current (h), between the "mining reclamation trust tax credit" and the "scientific research and experimental development tax credit," the provisions for the new manufacturing and processing tax credit that are being introduced in Budget 2000 and are contained in Bill 18.

I. Chong: I'm not sure whether I should be questioning this in the amendment or perhaps when we get to the as-amended section. But in the ordering of 18.1, I was curious as to why paragraph (d),

section 19(7), the "Nisga'a royalty deduction" -- this being a new deduction -- happens to appear before a number of other previously standard corporate deductions. If this is not where I should be questioning this, then I'll wait until the amendment passes first.

[1720]

Hon. P. Ramsey: It was inserted where it is in the order because it is the equivalent to the royalty deduction, which is in (

c) of that section.

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

Sections 18 to 47 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the committee rise and report Bill 19 complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 19, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2000, reported complete with amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. P. Ramsey: With leave now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 19, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2000, read a third time and passed.

Hon. H. Lali: I call second reading of Bill 22.

COST OF CONSUMER CREDIT

DISCLOSURE ACT

(second reading)

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill be read a second time.

I am pleased to be able to speak to Bill 22, the Cost of Consumer Credit Disclosure Act, on behalf of the Attorney General, who will join us later. This bill, the Cost of Consumer Credit Disclosure Act, represents a major advance in consumer rights both here in British Columbia and across Canada. The major advance is, of course, accomplished in a way that respects the needs of business and allows for improved business efficiencies.

This bill is harmonized with provisions that the federal government will introduce through an amended regulation pursuant to the Bank Act and with provisions all provinces and territories will introduce through legislation. Alberta and Ontario have already introduced similar provisions; Saskatchewan, Quebec, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia will introduce similar provisions by the year's end. The remaining jurisdictions will follow in the year 2001. The result will be one uniform set of disclosure provisions that will apply to all credit grantors, whether they're provincially or federally regulated and regardless of their physical location within Canada.

[1725]

Before speaking to the bill directly, I would like to provide a bit of background on the reasons for harmonization and the process that led to the harmonized bill we have before us today. Changing patterns of credit use amongst Canadians prompted the need to modernize laws governing credit. The myriad of credit and leasing options available result in only the most financially astute consumers being able to make valid cost comparisons and informed credit decisions. I mentioned leasing options since this bill will apply to the leasing of consumer goods.

This inclusion is because consumer goods are increasingly being marketed with some attractive leasing terms to compete with more traditional credit options.

The federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for consumer affairs agreed to implement the harmonized provisions that we have before us today. This will allow regulation to keep abreast of the rapidly evolving consumer credit market, to reduce compliance on business and to provide a higher standard of consumer protection.

In late 1993 cost-of-credit disclosure was added to the agenda of the talks that eventually led to the agreement on internal trade that was signed by the first ministers in 1994.

Chapter 8 of that agreement addressed consumer-related measures and standards, with

article 807 encompassing the commitment to harmonize credit disclosure provisions. The agreement on internal trade established a consumer measures committee of officials from each jurisdiction to begin the process of operationalizing commitments made in the agreement and to act as an ongoing forum for national cooperation on consumer issues.

Members may recall the legislative amendments to the Consumer Protection Act. That was Bill 61, which the former Attorney General introduced last year, that concerned direct sellers. That legislation, like this bill, came out of the agreement on internal trade and subsequent work of the consumer measures committee.

Between 1995 and 1998 the consumer measures committee drew upon extensive legal and technical expertise from across Canada and conducted broad consultations with business and consumer groups, including representation from British Columbia, in negotiating a harmonization agreement for consumer credit disclosure. The resulting harmonization agreement was then developed into a harmonized legislative template.

[ Page 16580 ]

What are the principles?

There are four principles that the harmonized agreement and the bill before us today contain: first, that consumers receive enhanced, fair, accurate, timely and comparable information about the cost of credit in order to obtain the most economical credit for their needs; second, that disclosure requirements and subsequent disclosures be as clear and simple as possible, given the inherent complexity of the matter; third, that business benefit from fairer competition under a uniform set of rules governing all provincially, territorially and federally regulated lenders and lessors; and fourth, that there be no derogation of pre-existing consumer protection measures -- that harmonization be the highest, not the lowest standard.

Like many jurisdictions, British Columbia has had cost-of-credit disclosure provisions in our Consumer Protection Act, and these are now repealed and updated with this new legislation. Let me just take a few moments to speak to the specifics of Bill 22, the Cost of Consumer Credit Disclosure Act.

This bill is of general application, applying disclosure rules to all consumer credit agreements -- that is, credit to an individual primarily for personal, family or household purposes. This bill applies to both fixed and open credit, to both mortgage and non-mortgage loans, to lines of credit, to credit card agreements and to credit sales offered by retailers. This bill applies to the lease of consumer goods but does not apply to residential tenancy leases.

This bill places consistent disclosure obligations on all credit grantors, requiring all to provide consumers with financial information calculated using prescribed methods. With the same regulations applying to federally regulated institutions, the result will be comparable requirements applying to banks, trust companies, credit unions, credit card issuers, retailers, lessors, loan brokers, and so on.

[1730]

With disclosure required prior to the borrower being obligated under the credit agreement -- two days prior in the case of mortgage loans -- the borrower will be able to consider the cost implications of specific credit agreements in order to shop accurately and comparatively between credit options. This bill achieves comparative disclosure requirements by mandating comprehensive lists of financial terms to be disclosed. The result is no hidden costs and therefore no unpleasant surprises for the consumer.

Central to these lists is the calculation and disclosure of the total cost of credit expressed both in dollar and percentage terms. The total cost of credit of a specific credit agreement is the total of all interest and non-interest finance charges. It can be expressed as the difference between all payments made by and all advances received by the borrower in connection with that credit agreement. Expressing this total cost of credit as an annual percentage rate, or APR, will provide consumers with a figure comparable to an interest rate but inclusive of all non-interest finance charges.

The formula for calculating the APR will be prescribed by regulation, with that regulation consistent with the APR calculation as agreed to within the harmonized agreement. The APR, when read within the context of other information required to be disclosed, provides the consumer with an easy-to-understand comparison of the costs associated with different credit options.

The APR can be used to directly compare the cost of loans at different financial institutions. For example, a mortgage at bank A, which may offer low interest but high fees, can be directly compared to the same mortgage at credit union B, which may offer a higher interest rate but lower fees. The APR can also be used to directly compare the cost of different forms of credit. The use of a personal loan to purchase a car can be directly compared to leasing that same vehicle.

The consumer can then take this total cost of credit along with other required disclosure terms and assess this information against his or her financial and other circumstances in order to make the best decision regarding his or her credit options.

This bill, being primarily concerned with disclosure, identifies specific instances in which the credit grantor will be required to disclose specific credit items. These are in advertising, in initial statements pursuant to specific credit agreements, in applications for credit cards and in ongoing statements in the case of an amendment, an interest rate change, an open-credit agreement or a loan renewal.

Let me speak very briefly to each of these instances. There are disclosure requirements in advertising, since the credit information that consumers receive often begins with advertising. Consumers require certain combinations of information to make informed choices. The credit grantor is required to include specific terms in advertisements where other specific information is included. For example, where an advertisement contemplates a fixed-credit arrangement, mention of the interest rate will trigger the requirement to disclose the APR. Advertisements related to other forms of credit or to lease arrangements have similar disclosure requirements.

Initial disclosure statements provide consumers with detailed cost information on specific credit agreements. Though comprehensive, disclosure requirements can be summarized into (1) the nature and timing of all payments and advances, (2) calculation and disclosure of the total cost of credit and APR, and (3) other items which may impact on the final cost of credit but are not factored into the APR, such as default charges and prepayment rights.

There are differences in the initial disclosure requirements for different types of credit arrangements -- mortgage loans, other fixed credit loans, credit card agreements and other open credit agreements. Initial disclosure requirements for leases differ from all others due to the specific nature of leases, such as who retains ownership of leased goods, residual obligations, options, estimated residual values, and so on. Despite any differences, the end result is that consumers receive detailed cost-of-credit information prior to being obligated under a credit agreement or lease.

[1735]

There are disclosure requirements on credit card application reforms. Credit cards can only be issued upon application. This bill adopts the prohibition of unsolicited credit cards, which is currently in the Consumer Protection Act. Since credit cards can only be issued upon application, the application form provides an ideal location to situate required disclosures. Despite these application form requirements, complete initial disclosure statements must still be issued upon credit card issuance.

Note that the nature of credit card agreements -- no term, no way to project total advances over the life of the agreement, etc. -- means that this is the only form of consumer credit for which no APR calculation is required.

There are situations in which an ongoing credit agreement will generate the need for further or ongoing disclosure.

[ Page 16581 ]

Any grantor of open credit, such as a line of credit or a credit card, must provide the borrower with a complete statement of account at least monthly. Any grantor of fixed credit has an ongoing disclosure obligation in relation to any amendments to the credit agreement or following an interest rate increase which exceeds the threshold amount. Any grantor of credit for which there will be an outstanding balance at the end of the term, such as a mortgage, has an ongoing disclosure obligation concerning renewal terms.

The disclosure requirements outlined in this bill are generally the responsibility of the credit grantor. When a broker is involved in the transaction, some or all of the disclosure requirements may fall to the broker. In addition to the disclosure requirements, this bill contains two elements which, although discussed during the harmonization negotiations, were left to the discretion of each jurisdiction rather than included in the harmonized agreement. These relate to mortgage discharge papers and acceleration clauses.

Consistent with Alberta's Law of Property Act, this bill prohibits a credit grantor from withholding a registrable mortgage discharge or from charging a fee fo