Hansard -- Volume 20, Number 11 -- Tuesday, June 13, 2000

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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2000

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 11

[ Page 16491 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Hon. D. Miller: Today in the members' gallery we do have a special visitor from the United Kingdom: His Excellency Sir Anthony Goodenough, the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom to Canada since 1996. He's in Victoria making his farewell visit. The high commissioner is accompanied by Ian Kydd, the consul general of the United Kingdom in Vancouver. It was my pleasure to meet earlier today with both gentlemen, and I would ask the House to join me in giving them a warm welcome and to thank His Excellency for the outstanding service he's provided as the high commissioner and to wish him bon voyage.

I. Chong: In keeping with the tradition that was established yesterday in offering congratulatory messages, today I would like to wish the former CRD chair, the former mayor of Saanich and the current member representing Saanich North and the Islands a very happy birthday. Would the House please wish him a very happy birthday.

Hon. S. Hammell: As part of Public Service Week, I have the pleasure today of introducing some public servants who represent various employee associations and have among them more than 100 years of service in total: Beth Lyle, 32 years of service, representing the B.C. Excluded Employees Association; George Heyman, 22 years of service, president of the B.C.

Government Employees Union; Tom Volkers, 20 years of service, representing the Professional Employees Association; Jeet Rana, 25 years of experience, here on behalf of the Visible Minorities Employees Association and the Provincial Employees Diversity Alliance; Niall Maloney, 11 years of experience, representing the Association of B.C. Government Employees with Disabilities; and, finally, Cynthia Callahan, five years, representing the Lesbian and Gay Provincial Employees Association.

Accompanying them are two of the PSERC employees who have worked so hard to make Public Service Week a success: Karen Hallam and Julie Spiteri.

I would ask the House to please make all of these people welcome.

[1410]

Hon. I. Waddell: At noon the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara and myself went out to see a beautifully restored logging truck that's at the front of the Legislature today. That truck is from the McLean Mill National Historic Site, which will be opening in Port Alberni on July 1.

Since the member from Port Alberni is unable to do so himself, I'd like to introduce on his behalf the people who have accompanied the truck on its promotional tour. In the House today are Jean McIntosh, the director of the Alberni Valley Museum; Kevin Hunter, the president of the Industrial Heritage Society; society members Jaime Bracht and Lorne Bratt; volunteers Judith Cicon and Darwin Generous. And from the Tin Pants Theatre Group are Miss Vera Little, a school teacher circa 1934, and Mr. Yardley Pond, who works at the mill. In real life they're also known by the names of Melissa Robertson and Luke Mayba.

Would the House please make these folks welcome.

C. Clark: Given that it's Public Service Week and as the critic for the Ministry for the Public Service, I'd like to add the official opposition's welcome to the members of the public service who are here today, congratulate them and the thousands of civil servants who work so hard in British Columbia and let them know that after the next election, we're looking forward to working with them.

Hon. J. Kwan: I have the pleasure to make two introductions today. Earlier this morning -- and later on this afternoon -- the Premier, myself and the member for Victoria-Hillside had the pleasure to meet with a number of special guests and people in our community. They are the people who are operators -- the backbone really, if you will -- of a government program called Bladerunners. Bladerunners is a program that will provide employment training initiatives for young people who are faced with multiple barriers in our communities.

In fact, last year Bladerunners was so successful that they actually won -- one of eight groups that won -- an international program award called PEPNet. This program, which is called Promising and Effective Practices Network, recognizes excellence in youth employment and development programs.

Today we celebrated and honoured two participants who were the first Bladerunners participants who got their trade certifications. These two individuals are Chris Cardinal and Dan Haydan. They're exceptional youth in our communities who graduated the program and excelled and went on and got their trade certifications.

I should also mention that along with them are a number of the coordinators within the program. From Vancouver are three Bladerunners coordinators: Gary Jobin, Al Laird and Mark Dohaniuk. From Victoria the two Bladerunners coordinators are Ron Winn and Phil Turpin. From Nanaimo the Bladerunners coordinator is Glenn Boyda, and from Kelowna is Arnie Wentland, along with the executive director of KEREDA, Barry Longeway.

I should also say that from the ministry itself we have ministry staff working with the Bladerunners program. The provincial Bladerunners coordinator is Jill Porter, along with Stephen Learey, Lisa Jacobsen and Paul Clairmont.

Would the House please help me welcome them and also congratulate them for their hard work in our community and their successes to date.

[1415]

Hon. Speaker, I'm also delighted to introduce to this assembly Mr. Wang Jun, who leads a delegation of 30 senior financial officials from the central, provincial and municipal governments of the People's Republic of China. The visit is sponsored by a CIDA program that enables officials from key institutions to study Canadian expertise in analysis of public policy alternatives. This mission supports the PRC's interest in reforming the fiscal expenditure framework to support reform of the PRC's economic system. Please join me in welcoming our visitors to this House and our Pacific province and in wishing them well in their endeavours.

D. Symons: Earlier I met with a group of 25 students, their teacher, five parents and Mr. Arnot, from Dogwood Elementary School in Richmond. I'm not too sure if they're in the Legislature right now, but they were certainly asking insightful questions earlier. Would you please make them welcome.

F. Randall: In the visitors' gallery today are up to 51 grades 4 and 5 students and adults from Second Street Com-

[ Page 16492 ]

munity School in the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds. They are accompanied by teachers Mr. Barton Lim and Ms. Kirsten Dillon. Kirsten is an exchange teacher from Australia, and I would just like to add that Second Street School is a very community-minded school. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

C. Clark: I've just been informed that we are also joined today in the gallery by the head of the B.C. Foster Care Support Network, Mr. Kim Dupont. I hope the House will make him welcome.

Hon. I. Waddell: Last year the Association of Book Publishers of B.C. honoured Gray Campbell with the Gray Campbell Distinguished Service Award. It went to B.C. Bookworld publisher Alan Twigg, who was the first recipient. I went there and saw Mr. Campbell, and he showed me the first book that he had published in B.C., in 1962, with $225 he won from a TV game show.

Mr. Campbell passed away on Saturday. He was really the father of publishing in British Columbia. He lived to see an industry that produced last year 700 titles and $60 million worth of sales, and he was the one who started it.

He started in a stockbrokerage; he worked for the RCMP; he was a pilot in the Royal Air Force; he was a cattle rancher in Alberta. Then, after all that, he came to British Columbia to start the publishing industry in British Columbia.

On behalf of this House -- I believe that I'm speaking for all the members -- I say to his wife Eleanor and his four children: Thank you. We can celebrate together a wonderful life, a full life -- he died at age 88 -- and he contributed so much to British Columbia. We thank them for that.

Introduction of Bills

SENIOR CIVIL SERVANT REMUNERATION,

ALLOWANCES AND PERQUISITES ACT

(SCRAP ACT) 2000

R. Kasper presented a bill intituled Senior Civil Servant Remuneration, Allowances and Perquisites Act (SCRAP Act) 2000.

R. Kasper: I move that the bill, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

R. Kasper: Overseeing our provincial public service is an important job, one that requires highly skilled, dedicated senior civil servants. They deserve fair compensation, and the public they serve deserve a fair and open process in determining what that compensation will be. This bill will create a citizens panel to review recent salary increases awarded to senior civil servants earning in excess of $100,000 and will review such annually.

The panel will be made up of representatives from the business community, labour and the general public and will be chaired by an arbitrator from the Ministry of Labour. The panel will consult with the public, have the authority to review all employment contracts and agreements of senior civil servants and make recommendations according to criteria they develop to evaluate appropriate remuneration levels. The panel will report to the Minister of Finance on or before November 1 of each year, and its recommendations will be binding and made public.

[1420]

This bill establishes an open and transparent process. It eliminates the current practices where there is no public input or scrutiny and no full public disclosure on how the decisions on remuneration are made. This bill provides an opportunity for government and future governments to scrap the backroom decision-making of the past.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: On the motion, members. There's a motion on the floor.

An Hon. Member: Point of order.

The Speaker: I'll deal with the motion, and then I'll take a point of order.

Motion approved.

Bill M205 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

The Speaker: The hon. Opposition House Leader has a point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: Knowing how difficult it is to get private members' bills through this House, if we have unanimous leave, I'd be prepared to move it through all three stages today.

Oral Questions

DRAAYERS FOSTER CARE CASE

L. Reid: On June 6 the Premier told us the decision would be made on the Draayers case by yesterday. The Children and Families minister said her ministry would reach a decision by June 12. But yesterday the minister said it would be another two weeks before she got around to telling these two girls whether they can go home. How can anyone have confidence in this minister, when she said a decision would be made by yesterday?

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: There is no question for all of us in this House that our first priority is settling the long-term accommodation for these girls. There's no question about that, hon. members. We are all hon. members, and there is no question about that. We are at a situation in this complex issue where I think we've hit a bit of an impasse. A bit of a complication has arisen, and I want to tell the House that I, with the Premier and others, am looking at some options, and we may have something to say shortly.

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

[ Page 16493 ]

L. Reid: Here's the problem. Two hon. members did make a promise to this Legislature. One is the Premier, and one is the Minister for Children and Families. These two girls thought they would have an answer yesterday, but it would appear that this minister and ministry are, frankly, just stalling. The Premier might say, "Good for Ross Dawson," as he has in this very Legislature, but the only thing we've seen from this ministry is six months of delay -- six months. And now these girls are being told they need to wait another two weeks. Will the Premier tell us why these girls must continue to wait and why his government is making promises it does not keep?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I am dumbfounded at the accusation made by the hon. member. And I say with the utmost disappointment that the hon. member chooses to distort the response provided by me, which was very clear -- that it was a decision to be made by Ross Dawson and Ross Dawson alone, that there was no process available for interference legally by the minister or anyone else. In the context of that, in view of that, for the hon. member to stand up and conduct herself in such a dishonourable way, I find that amazing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I would ask members to be careful with their use of language and the tone of their language in this question period.

[1425]

C. Clark: I'm sure the Premier can forgive everyone in British Columbia for feeling a little bit cynical about his ability to keep his promises, when last week he said that they would have a decision, and now we don't have a decision. And last week he said that they couldn't intervene in the process, that there was nothing they could do. Now we hear the minister saying: "Well, maybe there is something we can do."

The fact is that this government is in receipt of a 66-page exhaustive document that says that those girls should go home and that this government is wrong. This government has the authority to act. My question is this: when will the government find the courage to act, to do the right thing and to send those girls home?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would ask the hon. member to check the Hansard and check it very carefully. Check it very carefully before an hon. member stands up here and misleads the House and the entire population of British Columbia. Because when we say . . . . When we stand up in this House and make an allegation that a particular member made a promise, then we should be able to prove that promise.

Here is what I said when I last spoke on this issue, and I stand by it. I said: "Ross Dawson will make that decision." Ross Dawson has made a decision, obviously, to postpone his decision for two weeks.

Interjections.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. Absolutely.

Hon. Speaker, we have hit an impasse in the legislative scheme that's currently entrenched for this purpose. There is a legislative scheme that says Ross Dawson makes the decision; it can be reviewed by the children's commissioner. At the end of it, it is his decision again to decide on the issue. The opposition was in the House when this legislation was debated. That aspect of it was never debated. So what we are currently looking at are some options. One of them is to immediately amend that legislation to deal with this impasse.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: This minister has the authority to act, and she has the authority to do something to end this impasse. She's got two sets of bureaucracies who are fighting with each other, and she has the ability to step in and do something about it. And now the Premier stands here and says that he wants a little bit of wriggle room -- a little bit of wriggle room. Well, those girls and that family can't afford any more wriggle room. It's been six months of wriggling and indecisiveness and failure to act by this government.

My question is this: when will the government use the authority that it has, the power that it has, to step in and end this tragic mess that the government has created and send those girls home where they belong?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have made the position very clear. There is very, very little room for anyone to act, given the context of the law. The right-wing mantra emanating from the opposition benches is, "When you don't like the decision, unduly interfere in a legitimate process," which we refuse to do. But we are trying to find a solution in the context of that law.

FAIR SHARE PROGRAM AND

REVENUE TO NORTHEAST COMMUNITIES

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Finance. While soaring natural gas prices are becoming a burden for consumers, they're also a boon for provincial coffers and for northeastern British Columbia. The Fair Share program was designed to compensate municipal governments in the northeast who provide services to the industry but who are unable to tax them.

Given that provincial revenues are up from a previous high of $360 million in 1998 to a whopping $660 million today, has the minister decided to share this windfall and increase Fair Share payments to communities in the northeast?

[1430]

Hon. P. Ramsey: The Fair Share program is something that we're very pleased to have implemented, from this side of the House. We think it does give communities in the northeast a chance to get some ability to increase their municipal infrastructure from industry that operates beyond their boundaries. I must say that we're pleased to have brought it in, because the government that that member was part of ignored the northeast and refused to do this for decades. This is a good program. It serves the northeast well, and I think it will in the future too.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River South has a supplemental question.

J. Weisgerber: I think I'll have a supplemental for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, given the touchy nature of the Minister of Finance today.

[ Page 16494 ]

Industry experts are predicting that as many as 1,300 wells will be drilled in the northeast this year. That's more than twice as many as were drilled in 1998, the highest year previously -- 652. As the members know, I've given the government credit on many occasions for doing a good job with the gas and oil industry.

While the benefits to the local economy are substantial, so are the demands on local government. Will the minister agree -- the Minister of Municipal Affairs -- that municipal governments deserve a fair share of the money coming out of that revenue to the province? And will the minister in fact agree to renegotiate the Fair Share agreement in view of this unexpected windfall in provincial revenues?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We're always interested in working with municipalities to enhance infrastructure. The Minister of Municipal Affairs will be announcing cost-shared municipal works this weekend and in coming weeks.

I must say, though, that we have also invested considerable infrastructure in the northeast to make sure that what the members rightly praises as this government's initiatives to enhance the oil and gas industry in the province continue. We have announced a five-year program to invest some $100 million in roads in the oil and gas patch of northeast B.C. to make sure that what he describes appropriately as record levels of exploration continue and that the people of the northeast and the people of the province benefit from that economic activity.

ICBC RULES FOR

SMALL AUTOBODY REPAIR SHOPS

G. Plant: A year ago ICBC tried to impose all sorts of goofy rules on small autoglass shops which regulated everything right down to the toilet paper. Well, Mr. Speaker, ICBC is at it again. This time they're targeting small autobody shops with the same sorts of rules, ordering these small businesses to, for example, change the outside colour of the building from beige to white, dust the blinds in the office, replace the lino on the office floor with ceramic tile and put customer signs in a frame.

Can the minister tell these small autobody shops: why does ICBC all of a sudden have neat police harassing them with threats to strip them of their accreditation if they don't follow their onerous rules?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Given that the last time the Liberal opposition raised this matter around autoglass shops and misrepresented the facts completely, I think it important that I actually take the question on notice so the real facts are demonstrated.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston has a new question.

G. Plant: I do, Mr. Speaker. Penney King is an individual who has been in business for over 25 years, running five autobody shops in the Vancouver area. When the c.a.r. shop accreditation program that the minister apparently doesn't know anything about was implemented four years ago, Mr. King spent $125,000 to bring his shops up to ICBC standards. But now ICBC is threatening to pull the accreditation from his Pender Street shop because the exterior had been tagged with graffiti when ICBC's neat police showed up.

Can the minister also go to the trouble of telling Mr. King: where does ICBC get off threatening someone's livelihood just because they don't clean their graffiti fast enough for them?

[1435]

M. de Jong: On the one hand, we've got ICBC threatening to pull accreditation from small shops because there's dust on the blinds and the toilet paper is in the wrong place and there's graffiti on the walls. And when you go ICBC's Victoria claim centre, guess what you find: graffiti.

G. Farrell-Collins: But it's government-sanctioned graffiti.

M. de Jong: Who'd have thunk it? But as my friend points out, it's government-sanctioned graffiti, so it must be okay.

Mr. Speaker, the question is this: doesn't the minister see a certain degree of hypocrisy in the fact that ICBC has targeted these small autobody repair shops and is threatening to pull their accreditation for having graffiti on the walls at the same time that ICBC is confronted by exactly the same problem?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I took the previous question on notice. In fact, if anything, the member for Matsqui has detracted from the previous question by being so silly. But I promise to have all of these available as soon as possible and certainly in estimates as well.

M. de Jong: Let's try a different minister, who surely would be aware of something that is having this kind of impact on small business. Let's try the Small Business minister.

These autobody repair shops, these owners of these small shops, are . . . .

The Speaker: Is this a new question, member?

M. de Jong: It's not only a new question, Mr. Speaker; it's to a new minister. And if members of the government have so little confidence in his ability to answer, then I guess maybe I won't ask the question.

The Speaker: Perhaps the member could state his question.

M. de Jong: The question is this: where was . . . ? Remember the business lens, minister? Remember the so-called small business lens? Where was that, and where is that business lens, now that small autobody dealers are being threatened with deaccreditation by ICBC? We always hear the words; we always hear the titles; we always see the marquee value of these NDP policies. But today's small businesses are being driven out of business. Is there too much dust on the small business lens, or has the government simply abandoned that policy altogether?

The Speaker: I'll ask the Minister of Small Business to give a short answer, please.

Hon. I. Waddell: The minister responsible for ICBC has already said that she would take this on notice and look at it and get the facts straight.

[ Page 16495 ]

Now, I'll put on my Culture hat, and I'll go down as Minister of Culture and check out the graffiti and make sure it's okay. The business lens is doing very well, and there's no dust on it. Small business is growing the fastest in B.C. -- the fastest growth in the country -- mainly through policies of this government.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Lovick: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply, the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. In this chamber, I call committee stage of Bill 20.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 2000

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 20; T. Stevenson in the chair.

section 1.

D. Jarvis: I wonder if the minister could . . . . There's not many questions I have here. It's pretty straightforward as far as they're concerned. But there's a few clarifications that have to be brought up, and I've been asked to look at them as well.

[1440]

For example, in

section 1 it says that motor-assisted cycles are excluded from the

definitions of motor vehicle and vehicle. Again, in

section 2 it says the same thing, and in

section 5 and

section 6 and

section 7. But in

section 8 it says that they're included in the waste management end of it. I wonder if you could clarify to me why that is in there.

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's in order to take care of a question that I think was raised by the opposition about concern around the two-stroke engine. It's included under the Waste Management Act in order to allow us to regulate the emissions of the engine.

D. Jarvis: Sorry, I'm not going to be five minutes; I'm going to be a little longer. That's the way we're going.

There again, it's a matter of

interpretation, and during the second reading we did bring up the two-stroke engine, etc. But it was more or less said to us that there wasn't going to be any motor per se where you'd have a combustible engine or anything like that involved in this situation -- these cycles. This was dealing ostensibly with a type of so-called motor that could be tied to the vehicle -- electric -- and that would work off the wheels of the bicycle as you pedal them along the street. So why would that be involved in the waste management end of it?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The nature of the engine will be determined by regulation. We're going to have public consultation on the regulations. It's certainly our government's intent to have a zero-emission engine. In the event, though -- and I certainly hope public consultation will not lead to this point -- that there is some engine that the public wishes that has emission, we want to make sure that that engine is governed by the Waste Management Act. But the intent is clearly to go to zero emission.

D. Jarvis: That leaves it pretty well quite open in the event that . . . . Things can change after you sit down and rewrite the rules and regulations on this.

Again, in

section 1 the definition of motor vehicle in the Motor Vehicle Act is straightforward, but it does not include a motor-assisted cycle. The cycle that is in the Motor Vehicle Act, the description of a cycle, is somewhat different from what is more or less laid out here with regards to a vehicle having pedals and hand cranks, etc., attached to it.

In the Motor Vehicle Act, the cycle means, "a device having any number of wheels that is propelled by human power and on which a person may ride, but does not include a skate board, roller skates . . . " and all the rest of it. But that does leave it open to a lot of things. We were talking about the scooters that they have now. You can attach the same type of electric motor to the scooters, and you'll have any number of 12-year-olds, 14-year-olds, and 10-year-olds running around with motorized scooters and, again, with motorized skateboards that are being used as scooters.

[1445]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The definition of motor assisted cycle clearly states that it has to have pedals or hand cranks that are attached and that will be propelled by human power. That, by definition, excludes skateboards, etc. It's quite clear.

D. Symons: There seems to be a hole in here which the previous member, I think, alluded to, and that's the fact that in the Motor Vehicle Act, we have things that are not human powered. They're engines or motors. As far as a motor vehicle is concerned, then we have the cycle definition which just talks about a wheeled thing that's humanly propelled. You've introduced now an intermediate stage here where we have a motor-assisted cycle, which is something that has a crank on it and can be assisted by an engine or a motor of some sort. We're getting down to this business of going back to the cycle.

We can now have a scooter that fits the definition of cycle; it's wheeled. I'll read the definition. The minister is shaking her head no.

I'll read the definition of cycle -- on cycle; not on your motor-assisted cycle, just on cycle itself. In the act,

part 3,

section 119, it says: " . . . 'cycle' means a device having any number of wheels that is propelled by human power and on which a person may ride, but does not include a skate board, roller skates or in-line roller skates." So that's a cycle -- tricycle, bicycle. There's a cycle there.

Introduced recently on the market, though, are little scooters of the type that you go along and push with your foot and scoot along. They fit the definition of cycle. As soon as you put a motor on it, where does that fall in here now? It isn't covered anywhere in the act, from what I understand. Once you've got a motor on it, it doesn't fit under cycle. Because it doesn't have a hand crank or a foot crank or pedals on it, it doesn't fit under your motor-assisted cycle. It is a cycle with a motor on it, but it's not a motor-assisted cycle, and no longer is it a cycle. Where do those vehicles, or those implements, now appear? How are they going to be covered?

Hon. J. MacPhail: If the vehicle that the member describes, a scooter, has a motor put on it, it's a vehicle and is subject to the regulations under the Motor Vehicle Act as a vehicle. There is no hole. This clearly states that a motor-assisted cycle -- and we did this deliberately, because we're

[ Page 16496 ]

adding a motor but we want it to be treated as a cycle -- has to have pedals or hand cranks and has to be propelled by human power.

D. Symons: Then I'm to understand -- because I saw somebody on the street with one of these very small aluminum frames; I suspect they are very light -- that they are going to have to be registered as a motor vehicle and carry through the whole thing? There are going to be an awful lot of people out there who are going to be quite surprised at that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, the member is correct.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

D. Jarvis: I'd just like some clarification on the aspect of the designation here when it says a motor assisted cycle on a designated path or way. Are they going to be allowed to operate on . . . ? In a lot of cases, bicycles aren't allowed, really, on sidewalks in different areas. There are a lot of restrictions on that. So therefore they'll be up and allowed to go on the sidewalks. Is that going to be clarified in the rules and regulations -- that they are restricted to the roadway itself?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The motor-assisted cycle will be treated exactly the same as a cycle, and the rules and regulations governing where they can work are by municipal bylaw.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

D. Symons: I just have one concern about

section 4 and it's

part 3 of

section 4, where it says, "The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia may make regulations respecting motor assisted cycles including, without limitation, regulations prescribing . . . "-- and let's go down to (c) -- "restrictions on what may be attached to or carried on a motor assisted cycle." We're looking at

an act here that's going to change the Motor Vehicle Act and allow these motor-assisted cycles on the road. But we're told, really, very little about exactly what will be allowed on the road. This is a rather open expression, saying: "Later on, ICBC will make regulations related to . . . . " I would rather have one that says the motor vehicle branch, because ICBC is the insurance arm. The motor vehicle branch as a portion of it would be probably more correct to have in there. But that's not the argument.

[1450]

The argument here is: why aren't we given more specifics so that we know exactly what sort of vehicle . . . ? You have implied that there may be gasoline-powered engines allowed versus electric motors. We don't know what you're exactly talking about here when you talk about a motor-assisted cycle. We don't know, because your act leaves everything to the regulations later on. It would be very nice, when we're discussing a bill, to understand exactly the sort of vehicle we're allowing on the roads.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The regulations determining the size of the wheels, the nature of the motor, and the speed at which this motor-assisted cycle will be able to go all are encompassed in the intent that it is to be the same as a bicycle -- the normal powers of a bicycle. It will be within that context that public consultation will occur, and I'd be very happy to put the members of the opposition as part of the public consultation.

D. Symons: It's just my concern, really, that since you're bringing in

an act, and you haven't really quite decided how this act is going to apply -- what the size of the wheels will be or the power of the motor and all the rest -- it would have been nice if you had thought the whole thing through first, rather than running

an act through quickly and then later on saying:

"Now we'll figure out what we mean by the act that we passed." So that was the concern I had.

I don't suppose the minister will want to respond to that, but I think that's really the nub of the problem here. We're talking about something where it's unclear what the end product is going to be, and you're saying: "Well, we'll work it out later on." Well, then why not work it out first, so we can see the whole thing, rather than looking at a portion now, rushing it through prior to understanding, even yourselves, what the outcome is going to be?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, hon. Chair, it's unfortunate that the Liberal opposition is so out of touch on this issue, because there has been lots of public input on this. The concept is very clear -- that it's to have all the regulations, have the motor-assisted cycle, within the context of the regular powers of a bicycle. But there's lots of interest, as well. I don't think that there's anything wrong, whatsoever in the world, with this breakthrough legislation and having public consultation on how we achieve that important goal. Clearly there's an offer in the spirit of cooperation to involve the Liberal opposition in that. And I would really hope that they would take us up on it.

D. Symons: I thank the minister very much for that. I have no problem with that at all. In fact, I rather think it's a good act, to be honest with you. But what I'm saying is that if you're willing to go out and consult, the usual process is that before we're getting to this stage of something, the consultation has been done. Then you can design the act related to the consultation that you've done.

Right now, we seem to be doing the act first, and we'll consult after to find out what exactly those regulations would be. I would have thought that all those other things would have happened first. I haven't really seen, at least not in my community, any notices of public consultation relating to motor-assisted cycles at all. So I think the idea of where the input's coming from -- from the biking associations, I suspect. That may be one of them, but you certainly haven't gone out to the general public on this issue.

And I think, from what you said a few minutes ago, there are going to be quite a number of people out there who have bought these motorized scooters who are now going to find that they're part of the Motor Vehicle Act and considered a motor vehicle.

So we've learned one thing here today. But it certainly would have been nice, I think, if you had done the consultation and put together the idea of the act, based on those consultations, rather than the other way around, where you've got the act, and now you're going to consult about it to see what the regs will be to go with it.

D. Jarvis: Just to conclude what the member for Richmond Centre was saying, we are quizzing the minister on this

[ Page 16497 ]

bill only because so often this government has brought forward bills, and then the next year we've had to come back with amendments to amend the amendments. And in some subjects, we're now in our second and third readings in the past few years with this new government.

[1455]

But I just wondered . . . . The other day the Minister of Environment was describing this bill as to how she felt it wasn't . . . . I sort of gathered that she brought it forward into the cabinet. Her eyes just glowed when she sort of thought of the aspect of no one ever driving a car anymore and we'd all be out pedalling our bikes around the city. Has the minister considered the fact that we may be having a sudden revolution as the Minister of Environment would like?

She said that the bicycle shops are just waiting for this to come on, because they have a market for it. If it comes on that we would be seeing a lot of the teenagers using this mode of transportation . . . . If she had her way, the visualization of thousands of children or early teens using this type of motor bike, in the sense, roaring down the sidewalks, which they're allowed to do in a lot of municipalities, or the streets . . . . Is there any kind of governance going to be made as to requirements to operate a cycle like this? Could the minister answer?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The act restricts the use of a motor-assisted vehicle to someone who is 16 years or older. And of course, there is no change to how one operates a bicycle with this legislation. It's up to the municipality.

D. Jarvis: I appreciate the fact that you have to be 16 or over -- the same with operating a motor vehicle. But this is one way to get more power into a bicycle and move along, whether it be for delivery purposes -- maybe they're working for a local grocery store -- or something in that vein. There is the potential down there, so is there any question that there may be something in the rules and regulations to make a 16-year-old responsible for their actions with a vehicle like this, roaring down the road -- thousands of people and little old grannies using it as well?

Hon. J. MacPhail: All of those factors have been taken into account in great detail by the executive council of government. In fact, after great deliberation we know that the rule that will guide this legislation is that the motor will assist only to the normal speed of a bicycle. The rules of the road that apply to bicycles will be absolutely enforced on this motor-assisted cycle as well.

D. Symons: Just two clarifications. I think they're included -- but just to make sure that that is the case. Particularly elderly people find that tricycles sometimes suit -- a big one, not a child tricycle; a big one with regular bicycle wheels at the back . . . . I assume that motors could be attached to them just as easily as to a bicycle. So they would be included, and it'd be a possibility that those could be motorized to assist them as well.

The other one is that we find, particularly around Victoria, a lot of motor scooters. The minister said earlier that scooters now come under the definition of motor vehicle. So these motor scooters the elderly use -- are they supposed to have a license plate on the back and be licensed through the motor vehicle branch?

Hon. J. MacPhail: To the latter point, nothing has changed with the application of law to the scooter chairs; the rules remain the same on those. And a motor-assisted cycle does include an adult's tricycle.

Sections 4 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[1500]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 20, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2000, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Lovick: I now call second reading of Bill 19.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 2000

(second reading)

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm very pleased to rise today in second reading debate on Bill 19, the Income Tax Amendment Act, 2000. Bill 19 implements significant tax cuts for all British Columbia taxpayers. It implements a made-in-B.C. income tax system. This new tax system for British Columbia gives the government choices. This government chose to use the new tax system to provide tax cuts for all British Columbia taxpayers.

Bill 19 implements the tax cut plan announced in Budget 2000. The tax cuts consist of increases to the basic and spousal credits, reductions in the rate of tax payable across the middle-income range and increases to the income levels at which higher rates of tax apply.

The amendments in Bill 19 provide a new structure for provincial personal income tax. Starting with the 2000 tax year, British Columbia's personal income tax will be calculated on the basis of taxable income, rather than on the basis of federal tax. Making this change will make the province's tax structure much more clear to taxpayers.

As part of this new tax system the bill defines a set of non-refundable credits to reduce B.C. taxes. The credits include a basic credit, spousal, age, disability, education, charitable donations and medical expenses credits. These and other credits will be available to taxpayers on the same basis as the equivalent federal credits. However, under our new tax system, British Columbia will set the level of support for its own credits. And as such, the amendments include provisions to end bracket creep by indexing most of the non-refundable credits to inflation, starting with the 2001 taxation year.

Now, I'm sure the opposition will note and point out that the indexing does not apply to basic and spousal credits for 2001. The reason is clear: the province is going to set those credits at higher levels than would have been required under indexing. Under this new tax system, British Columbians will continue to file a single federal-provincial tax return. I know there's always a concern about additional burdens on taxpayers of filling out forms. I believe that while the calculation of provincial tax will be different, it will not be terribly complex. We will continue to have, in British Columbia, the bene-

[ Page 16498 ]

fits of a single tax administration system for both federal and provincial income tax and a consistent definition of taxable income in both federal and provincial income tax schemes.

[1505]

Bill 19 also includes a number of technical measures that the federal government required provinces to implement if they wished to move to tax on income. I would say for the chamber that we are one of, I think, five provinces that are moving to implement tax on income in the year 2000. The remainder of the provinces will be moving to tax on income in the year 2001. The province of Quebec, of course, already has its own income taxation system.

The technical measures that the federal government has required include a minimum tax calculation, an overseas employment tax credit, taxation of income earned in more than one province, taxation of trusts at the top marginal rate, tax on split income calculated at the top marginal rate and two others: adjustments to reduce taxes for persons who receive lump sum pension payments and inclusion of the federal term "common-law partner" in measures that apply to spouses.

Hon. Speaker, with the amendments in Bill 19, the rates of provincial tax levied on income, as well as provincial support through non-refundable credits, will be transparent. Everybody will be able to see exactly what percentage they're paying in tax on certain income levels. In addition, the new tax structure will allow the income tax system to better reflect provincial priorities.

The tax cuts in Bill 19 will be of particular benefit to low- and middle-income earners. By the end of next year -- by the end of the taxation year 2001 -- 100,000 British Columbians will no longer pay any provincial income tax. A single-income family with $45,000 annual income will pay 10 percent less in provincial income tax. The tax cut plan will reduce personal income taxes by $310 million in the 2001 tax year. If we include not only the tax cuts in this bill but tax cuts in personal income that have been implemented by this government since 1996, personal income taxes will have been reduced by $750 million annually -- about a 13 percent reduction in tax.

There's been much debate, and I suspect we'll hear it in the chamber today, about the level of taxation in British Columbia compared to other provinces. And there are some who take the view that B.C. is a high tax jurisdiction. However, I would ask the chamber to consider the facts. What's the cut-off we want? Well, let's take a very high one. If we take $90,000 in personal income, over 98 percent of British Columbia tax filers have an annual taxable income under $90,000. That's a pretty high income level.

Estimates published by a major accountancy firm, showing personal income taxes for provinces for the 1999 tax year at various levels of taxable income, show that at $30,000, British Columbia taxes are the third-lowest in Canada. This is income taxes, hon. Speaker. At $60,000, British Columbia taxes are the third-lowest. And -- wait for it -- yes, at $90,000, British Columbia personal income taxes are the third-lowest in our country.

The personal income tax burden in B.C. is among the lowest in Canada, and the tax cuts introduced by Bill 19 will mean that the vast majority of British Columbians will continue to enjoy very competitive levels of personal income taxes. I would also mention that the government is following through on our commitment to reduce the top marginal rate paid by the highest-income earners, and that's done in Bill 19.

[1510]

In closing, I'd point out two big purposes of this bill. The amendments in Bill 19 make the rates of tax clear, provide focused tax cuts and give British Columbians greater control over their own tax system. I'm very pleased to now move second reading of Bill 19.

I. Chong: I am pleased to rise and offer second reading comments on Bill 19, the Income Tax Amendment Act, 2000.

I note that Bill 19 deals specifically with Budget 2000 but, unfortunately, has apparently ignored any promised changes for the 2001 taxation year. It would appear that there is no long-term outlook that seems to be available with this legislation, and I suppose that's because this government's not sure whether they'll be able to be around when that happens, if an election were to be called tomorrow.

Hon. Speaker, the bill is rather administrative, in that it does merely implement those measures introduced in Budget 2000. I anticipate that members on this side of the House will allow it to pass, because that is effectively what this legislation is all about. However, that's not to say that we do in fact support Budget 2000. Quite the contrary; when we were debating the budget speech earlier this year, all of us here disagreed that this government was going to produce yet another deficit. It was producing its ninth consecutive deficit.

I would like to speak about that for a moment, because we are dealing with a piece of legislation that incorporates our budget. If we were to compare this legislation to another province . . . . Let's choose Saskatchewan, for example, because Saskatchewan is a province that is governed under an NDP administration as well, so I think the comparisons are rather interesting.

In Saskatchewan they have introduced seven consecutive balanced budgets,

whereas we've had nine consecutive deficit budgets. In fact, in Saskatchewan in the year '99-2000 they were able to report a surplus of $53.1 million. Sad to say, here in British Columbia we weren't able to do so. Also in Saskatchewan, for the year 2000-01 they're forecasting a surplus of $9.4 million. I think this province is definitely nowhere near any kind of a surplus. So those are some stark differences between our two provinces.

I do have to say, though, that the tax cuts introduced in Bill 19 are obvious because of Budget 2000. But those tax cuts are minor. At least what we do see in this legislation is that this government is not attempting to claw back those tax reductions that the federal government has provided. That was certainly a worry amongst many taxpayers -- that this government would scoop up that tax break that the federal government was passing down. So the bill is supportable in its transparency, strangely enough, because it offers the outlook that in fact there is no clawback there.

I'm also appreciative that the bill does ensure that the tax credits follow the federal system, because the last thing we want to do is create more complexity in the preparation of one's personal income tax return. All too often we hear that people are having to seek out tax preparers or accountants to prepare their tax returns -- not that I mind, because they also have to have a business. However, the average citizen should be able to prepare their tax returns with some ease, and the fact that this legislation allows for those tax credits to mirror those of our federal counterparts is supportable.

[1515]

[ Page 16499 ]

I'm also glad to hear the minister mention that there will be one single federal-provincial return, because to do otherwise would create more paperwork and would create more of a burden on small businesses and would also create more of a burden on households. However, I am very cautious about being overly optimistic, because it still remains to be seen what kind of calculation, what kind of schedule, will be introduced to reconcile some of the tax credits that this government wishes to target. There in fact needs to be consistency with the definition and the determination of taxable income.

And provided that definition and that determination is easily understood, then taxpayers in this province will more than likely be supportive of these changes.

But again, hon. Speaker, back to the budget and back to the comparisons. What we also see in Bill 19 is that there are five levels of taxation being proposed here, as opposed to three levels of taxation. I hope this is not an upward trend, hon. Speaker, because back in the 1980s -- pre-1988, I believe -- the federal government moved to a system where taxes were calculated based on three levels. Not everybody agreed with it, but it made it simpler, and it made it a bit more transparent for tax-filing purposes.

I see that other provinces, as they're moving along this way of a new tax structure, a new tax system, are also looking at three levels of taxation, making it easier for taxpayers to file.

But here in this change in Bill 19 we see that there are five levels of taxable income, and that causes one to ask questions. The question I have is: why are there so many different levels? I would have to surmise that part of the reason we have those extra levels is because we are not yet at the stage where B.C. is able to make any movement towards the goal of reduction of surtaxes.

Surtaxes, hon. Speaker, were introduced at the federal level, and they have been introduced at the provincial level at various stages over the years. They've always been introduced under the auspices of being targeted for a specific purpose. I think I recall, back in the late eighties or early nineties, that here in British Columbia we had a health surtax that was added onto our provincial tax base. It very quickly got included in the basic rate of tax so that suddenly the surtax disappeared.

At the federal level the same thing was done: surtaxes were there, designed to deal with debt reduction. And as the federal government is moving towards that, because they're able to move towards their goal of debt reduction, we see those things being lifted. Similarly, in Saskatchewan we see that they're targeting debt reduction and also are able to or intend to reduce a number of surtaxes.

But I don't see that here in Bill 19; I don't see that there's that opportunity.

I hope the minister will look at that and perhaps provide, I guess, consultation as to how we can move towards that, because debt reduction is clearly on the minds of the average taxpayer, the average citizen. Many people are concerned that the doubling of the provincial debt here has created much of the crisis that we have in our health care and our education system. We all know that debt servicing is one of the largest costs, and that eats away at the very basic necessities of protection of health care and of education.

The Minister of Finance, I also noted, quoted a provincial tax cut decrease. He relayed it in terms of a percentage, 10 percent of the provincial tax that was otherwise payable. I wish, perhaps, that he had actually given us a dollar figure. Maybe the members who are going to respond will provide that dollar figure. That would certainly be helpful, because I think the average family who is looking at a tax reduction would like to know just exactly how many dollars that translates into.

You know, 10 percent . . . . Well, that sounds like a large number. But if you were paying perhaps only $400 in provincial taxes . . . . I shouldn't say only, because $400 is a large sum. I know; I did tax returns in the past where even $50 was a large sum. But if you take $400, for example, as what the provincial tax amount was, and you're going to get a reduction of 10 percent, then in fact you're only receiving $40. That's less than a dollar a week, so it's not a lot of money.

[1520]

So in the analysis the Minister of Finance has provided through his piece of legislation, perhaps he should have provided the amount of dollars that would be the relief that families would be seeing, because then we could actually compare it to how that relates to the increases that have happened over the past number of years that this government has raised taxes. If we go back to 1991, I think we will see that, systematically, those increases will then more than make up for the tax break that they're now getting.

That's one of the reasons why it has been so difficult supporting any of the budgets that this government has brought forward in those nine years. Tax increases seem to be prevalent in this administration, although their efforts to reduce taxes are there now because every other province is moving in that direction, as are the federal government.

So, hon. Speaker, clearly there isn't a lot in this piece of legislation other than the fact that it implements the changes in the budget speech 2000. It is supportable on that basis. It's supportable because of its transparency, and I will certainly give the government that bit of credit, I suppose, if I have to.

I also want to note that with this transparency, this government is also going to have to see that we will be able to monitor any upward trends, as well as any downward trends. I hope that they will not change this piece of legislation to disguise, in any way, any possible upward trends that are there. We will be looking at tax rates on a year-to-year basis if this legislation is implemented in this way. We will also be looking to see how soon this government can move towards a three-level system, as other provinces are doing -- because we will still be compared to those other provinces.

We will see whether, in so moving, it's to reduce or remove or eliminate some of the surtaxes that British Columbians have felt for such a long time. If they're not able to do that, then I'm sure that the taxpayers of this province will continue to cry out for yet more tax breaks. In the end, we will have to see whether this piece of legislation creates more paperwork or is more of a regulatory problem for taxpayers. Indeed, I hope not, but that remains to be seen. And with that, I will conclude my comments.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I'd just like to take a few minutes to address this bill. I note that it sounds, from the remarks of the member of the opposition who just spoke, as though the opposition will be supporting this bill and raising a lot of what-ifs, but basically the bill is sound, and the opposition will be supporting it. I think that's good news. It suggests that with the level of agreement we have in the House, we must be on the right track with this bill.

[ Page 16500 ]

There are three things I want to touch upon briefly in my remarks about this bill and about tax policy generally. One is about our ability. This is not just about our ability but, as a result of various provincial agreements with the federal government, about the ability of various provinces to set their own tax policy, which is a key factor in setting public policy generally. Secondly, I'd like to address, briefly, the notion of a flat tax, because that's clearly one public tax policy option that's available to provincial governments now.

It's certainly one being, I think, not only contemplated but in fact promised in Alberta. Finally, I'll just touch upon the relative tax burden and what this does vis-à-vis the relative tax burden across the country in terms of the personal income taxes levied by provincial governments.

Right now I think it's important to know, for the record, that with this bill, by 2001 the provincial portion of income taxes will be 8.4 percent of taxable income for those making under $30,000 per year. For those between $30,000 and $60,000, 11.9 percent will be the provincial rate. For those between $60,000 and $70,000, it will be 16.7 percent; between $70,000 and $85, 000, it will be 18.7 percent; and for those over $85,000, it will be 19.7 percent.

It's also worth noting that what this bill does is raise the basic personal exemption level from approximately $6,800 in 1999 so that two years later, in 2001, it will be $8,000. So that, I believe, relates to the point that the Minister of Finance made a few moments ago -- that there are somewhere on the order of 100,000 British Columbians who won't have to pay income tax. So that increases that number significantly.

[1525]

Now to touch upon the options that are available to a provincial government in these circumstances -- being able to set its own income tax policy. We have chosen to maintain what we call a progressive income tax system, where people pay higher rates at higher income levels, as I've just indicated. In Alberta they're looking at another option, which is to go the flat-tax route. I believe they're proposing a 10.5 percent flat tax.

I think it's important, first of all, to emphasize one point. I think there's something that's lost in the broader public debate that goes on around taxes and what Alberta's proposing. I think that there are some people who are actually under the impression that if they move to Alberta, they might pay 10.5 percent personal income tax. They have to understand, of course, that that's just the provincial portion of their income tax. Nothing changes with their federal portion. The advantages, of course, are greatest in a flat-tax system for those who are in higher income brackets.

I think it's important when we look at something like a flat-tax option to look at the distribution of the impact of that kind of taxation.

I think the fundamental question is: who needs tax relief the most? Who is the most financially stressed, if we can put it in those terms? And I would argue that it's people at middle- and lower-income levels who face the greatest financial stress in their lives and need tax cuts the most. I'll speak for myself. As a cabinet minister, I make on the order of $109,000 per year. And I don't believe that I need a tax cut as much as a family of four living on $50,000 or $60,000 a year. In fact, I'd suggest that it's a little obscene for me to expect and to demand a much, much larger tax cut than that family gets. I think that's wrong, and I'm willing to pay my share.

I think it's important that we have a competitive tax regime. That means that we do have to bring the top marginal rate down. We are doing that, and that's reflected in this bill. But it's still important to make sure that we give the greatest tax break to those at lower-income and middle-income levels.

So because we want to avoid that form of inequity that is represented by a flat tax, which is what they're going to be doing in Alberta, we are maintaining tax brackets in this province, as I've outlined earlier. With the brackets, we ensure that if you're fortunate enough to have a higher income, you will pay a little bit more percentage-wise for that higher income. But at the end of the day, of course, you're still going to be much better off than being lower-income.

Certainly I wouldn't elect to make $60,000 less than I do now simply because I pay higher taxes at this level than I do at $60,000 or $50,000 per year. As I say, the top marginal rate is coming down. That's a good thing. But it's not right to move right to a flat-tax system.

What we have here is a system that's provincially designed now, in this bill. It allows us, as with other provinces, to establish different priorities. What we reject is the Alberta approach, which is essentially a redistribution of tax burden. That's what it comes down to: a tax burden is being redistributed from higher-income people to lower-income people, in effect.

And while it sounds very enticing and appealing -- as part of maybe a quick 30-second clip on TV or as part of an election slogan -- to say, "With a flat tax, everyone gets a break," the fact is that if you're a lower-income person, your break is an awful lot smaller than it is for a higher-income person. So it's a little bit misleading, I suggest -- that kind of campaigning and that kind of a promise.

Hon. Speaker, I wanted to touch, as well, upon the issue of relative tax levels. I want to address my comments primarily to Ontario and Alberta, but in light of the comments made by the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, I'll just make, as a slight aside . . . . She cited Saskatchewan repeatedly, and their balanced budgets. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm a great admirer of the Saskatchewan government and their approach to finances. But I think it's worth noting that Saskatchewan -- and we can't pick and choose too much here -- has substantially higher tax rates than British Columbia on personal income taxes, and at the corporate tax level as well.

The fact is, if we hadn't done tax cuts since 1996, we would have seen a balanced budget by now.

[1530]

Interjections.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: The member opposite says . . . .

An Hon. Member: Alberta . . . . And Saskatchewan cut taxes too.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: The member says Saskatchewan has cut taxes. Yes, Saskatchewan has cut taxes, but their tax level still remains substantially higher than British Columbia. And at the end of the day, what matters is the overall tax burden and what people feel coming out of their pocket for everything. Taxes are a major issue; housing is a major issue; and other costs -- other major costs of living -- are major issues for people. What matters at the end of the day is the overall financial burden that they face, and taxes are an important part of that.

It's important to note that we already have in British Columbia amongst the lowest taxes in Canada. Ontario and

[ Page 16501 ]

Alberta, in some tax brackets . . . . Well, Alberta, I think, across the board will be lower. Ontario may be lower in most brackets now. And that's on the personal income tax side. But if we look at the total tax burden, in fact, British Columbia is even more competitive.

In the case of Ontario, there's a good reason for that. The Ontario government has chosen to off-load welfare services, for example, onto municipalities. In British Columbia, the welfare budget is roughly -- the figure may be a little off -- $1.4 billion a year. Well, if we were to simply dump that burden onto municipalities, as Ontario has, then there's room for another $1.4 billion worth of tax cuts.

That's pretty simple, but it's not, at the end of the day, something that's going to make a big difference to taxpayers. They pay for it, one way or another. That is, I suggest, just misleading for those politicians who go around talking about how they have lower taxes in Ontario. They do have slightly lower taxes in some of the tax brackets in Ontario, but the fact is that the overall tax burden isn't lower. It isn't lower, because if you take into account property taxes and other forms of levies and fees, it's very, very similar to British Columbia.

So I think it's worth noting this in my final remarks: the official opposition in this province makes a promise that if they were to form the government, we would have the lowest income taxes in Canada within 90 days.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: No? Well, perhaps they could advise me.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Through the Chair, please, members.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I'm sorry, hon. Speaker, but they say that within 90 days, we'll have the lowest taxes in Canada.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I will go and clarify on that.

But my point is this: if, in fact, that is the case -- if that's the commitment they're making -- if we already have amongst the lowest taxes in Canada, I suggest that what would happen is that people might wake up after 90 days and go: "Hey, wait a minute. There's not much difference in terms of my tax burden. There's not much difference at all." But I congratulate the opposition on the success of their spin in the last several years in convincing British Columbians that they face a horrendously high tax burden, when in fact, that's not borne out by the statistics. In the cold, hard statistics, it is not borne out.

So we've made a decision here to lower taxes. We've decided not to go the route that Alberta has and move to a flat tax, because it redistributes the overall tax burden from higher-income people to lower-income people as a percentage of what these groups pay. That's wrong. By the same token, though, this bill is bringing taxes down, and it's ensuring that we have a tax regime that's competitive with any other province in this country. With that, I'll conclude my remarks.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm pleased to stand in my place and speak in favour of this legislation today.

When I came in this morning and picked up the Globe and Mail , there were two front-page stories that I think deserve mention in this context. One was entitled, "Average Family Enjoying Best Income in a Decade," and the other one was entitled: "Canada Ranks High in Child Poverty."

[1535]

When you read the first story -- "Average Family Enjoying Best Income in a Decade" -- what you discover is that that's one of those averages where we're all lumped together, and if you divide the number of people by the income, gee, it looks really good. But at the end of the day, if you read that

article carefully, what it says is that most of that increase went to the top 20 percent, and the people on the lower end of the scale in this country lost ground. That's why the second story, about child poverty in this country, is understandable -- not defensible, but understandable.

I read into the record in my estimates the deplorable position that Canada is in terms of the income gap between the highest earners and the lowest earners. We are behind large numbers of countries, some of them that people would assume are developing countries and therefore are worse off. But Canada is worse. We're seeing reports in this country that in terms of poverty and child poverty, Canada is slipping every year.

I would offer, in the context of this debate about taxes, that the rhetoric and, quite frankly, some of the nonsense, the ideology, that comes in a very unified voice from the right in this country, whether it's the Reform Party, the Socred Party -- what's left of it -- the Liberals across the way that are in fact the same people exactly as the Socreds . . . . But whoever they are -- and I don't mean to disparage that; they have legitimate views and are legitimate parties -- at the end of the day, the right-wing, so-called free enterprise parties have a mantra.

And that mantra is that if we just cut taxes, everything will be fine. If you cut taxes, that'll fix health care. If you cut taxes, that'll fix education. If you cut taxes, that'll fix poverty. They've even said, "If you cut taxes for people, that'll fix the child care problems."

I'm waiting for them to say, "If you cut taxes, it'll fix your broken leg," because that must be next on the list of impossible things that they are saying tax cuts will fix. They believe, or they're trying to make the public believe, that tax cuts are a panacea; that they will fix everything that was ever wrong.

The problem is this: what the members opposite are doing is confusing a market economy, which is about taxes and business and all those good things which we support on this side -- a strong market economy . . . . They're confusing that with a market society. The members opposite believe that there's no difference between the marketplace and a community. They don't get it -- that while tax cuts might be something that they want to give their corporate buddies, the majority of a $1.5 billion tax break . . . . But what's good for MacMillan Bloedel is not good for somebody in the community.

I think the front page of the Globe and Mail makes the point very clearly. And I'm glad that we again are doing something different in British Columbia in this legislation. One, we're delinking our taxes from the federal system. And what that does is demonstrate that if you compare it to the federal government's tax levels, ours are very low by comparison. No question; they are far lower than they appear if you link them to the federal tax levels. Secondly, we're retain

[ Page 16502 ]

ing a far more progressive system. I just heard the member opposite, from Oak Bay, a wealthy riding, saying that we should flatten the tax system. Of course, that's what Alberta's doing; they've gone to a flatter system. That's what successive free enterprise governments, federally, have done -- flatten the tax system. I'm sure that's what Ontario is doing. And in fact Alberta has said they're going to a flat tax. I suspect the members opposite would want to go to a flat tax.

We're saying something different. We're saying that we should have a broader range of taxes -- because guess what. When you start to flatten the taxes, you're going to do one of two things. Either you're going to give a massive tax break at the top, to flatten the brackets, or you're going to make people on the bottom pay more, or both. And I would offer, hon. Speaker, that that's one of the dynamics behind the front-page stories in the Globe and Mail today.

[1540]

For 20 years we've been cutting taxes in this country, mostly at the top. We have seen the corporate taxes go from a significant portion of the tax base that supports all the programs that we deliver to ourselves in this country -- a significant portion -- down to something like 5 percent, a massive tax break at the top. We have seen tax breaks for the highest earners in this country, massive tax breaks. It is undermining our tax base, which in turn is undermining our social programs and our ability to function as a society.

We have obscene poverty in one of the richest nations in the world. I am pleased that we're delinking our tax system in this legislation, because then we can keep it progressive. We can keep it on that social contract that says you pay according to ability and you receive according to need. We're much more able to do that in British Columbia.

Hon. Speaker, like all of my colleagues on this side of the House, I agree that individuals should have a tax break. That's why we have cut something in the neighbourhood of $750 million in taxes since 1995, mostly for middle- and low-income earners. In this legislation there are 100,000 more British Columbians who will pay no income tax. I would suggest the public compare that to the members opposite, who are suggesting bigger breaks for the highest-income earners.

We are cutting taxes for middle-income British Columbians as well. But you know, even though we have cut $750 million . . . . Do you know what that adds up to for the average family? It's somewhere between a couple of hundred dollars and about $500. Well, the other choice is to do what the members opposite are suggesting, and that's a massive $1.5 billion tax cut like Alberta did, like Ontario did. But who paid for that approach? I would offer the following.

In Ontario and Alberta, where they have been flattening taxes and engaging in the kind of massive across-the-board tax cuts where about half goes to about 4 percent of the highest-income earners, that widens the income gap. That's part of the problem; it's not the solution.

Secondly, if you make that kind of tax cut, it is a myth that that will somehow come back and then everything will be fine. The reality is that there are shelters for working people in Alberta because they don't build social housing anymore. The reality is that this province is one of the few -- there are two, actually -- that are continuing to build social housing. We have a crisis in homelessness in most of this country because of those kinds of cuts. In B.C. we have a problem; in other provinces there is a crisis.

Similarly, we see Alberta walking down the U.S.-style, two-tiered health care road. What you do is squeeze the box, and when it becomes untenable and people are desperate for a solution, then they go to the model -- the ideology that the members opposite want, which is to use the market system to shape society.

We see in Ontario that they're privatizing post-secondary education. It is moving out of the reach of most average Canadians in Ontario and Alberta. In fact, British Columbia is the only province where it's getting easier and less expensive to get post-secondary education, the only province where the numbers of people attending post-secondary education are increasing. The other ones are shutting it down based on ideology, not on any demonstration that it works.

In British Columbia we're moving to a universal child care system for all our kids, because it serves our kids well, because it saves money at the end of the day and because it supports a modern economy and modern families. The priority of members opposite is a tax cut, mostly for high-income people and big business. In Ontario and Alberta, notably, they cut child care budgets to pay for their big tax cut.

[1545]

So what we have here, I think, is the essence of the differences between the left and the right, or progressive government and regressive government, based on ideology that we see opposite. We see a model where they really believe that the market system should run everything. It should run society, it should run communities, it should run . . . . The market should make the decisions about how we function as human beings in our communities.

On this side we accept the market system for the markets. We accept that a free market system has created goods faster than any other system. We accept that; we support it. In fact, we have the second-lowest small business tax in the country. We have made targeted tax cuts to film. We've supported tourism in a range of ways, including directing taxes back into the tourism industry, which you could argue in the context of taxes, if you like.

We have done a number of things. The result has been pretty spectacular. We have a 19-year low in unemployment. We've led the country in small business growth for most of this decade and overall for this decade. We continue to have success in tourism -- unprecedented success. We've gone from a $4 billion to a $9 billion industry. We've become number one in Canada in terms of film, to the point where it's starting to have a reaction in California. They're worried about the dramatic growth in B.C.'s film industry. We're the third biggest in North America.

Targeted tax cuts for a social return make sense, and that's what we've done. But to have the kind of across-the-board tax cuts, as the members opposite are arguing for, doesn't make sense unless we as a society are willing to give up everything that makes our country as good as it has been. And we're slipping dramatically because of the agenda of the members opposite. That is widening the gap between the highest-income earners and the lowest-income earners.

It's eroding our ability to support social programs. We see private post-secondary in Ontario; we see private health care coming in Alberta; we see working people in shelters in Calgary; we see a reduction in services of all kinds to low-income people. In British Columbia we're moving the other way, with things like the B.C. family bonus, which provides

[ Page 16503 ]

up to $105 per child per month to about half of the families in the province. Again, we see in this tax bill that we are cutting taxes, eliminating taxes for 100,000 taxpayers at the lowest end of the scale.

There is a clear difference. And I would argue that by taking a balanced approach, as we have on this side, by not rushing to the altar of the marketplace, as the members opposite would have us do, to put everything on it -- health care, education, child care, you name it . . . . "Put it all on the marketplace. Let the market decide."

Instead, balancing environmental concerns and the need for a clean and healthy environment with the need to build communities, to have equality for women, to have inclusion of first nations and to settle their outstanding issues, to try to close the wage gap and the poverty gap that's growing in this country and by doing targeted tax cuts where there is a return for the people of B.C. in places like film and high-tech and for various good things that come back to the people of British Columbia . . . .

By taking that approach, we have kept the second-lowest tax regime in the entire country overall -- contrary to what the members opposite continue to tell the public. We have one of the highest credit ratings in Canada -- contrary to what the members opposite tell the public. And we have that, based on the fact that our debt-servicing costs are low and our per-capita debt is so low. It's one of the lowest in the country, and we have had our credit rating confirmed because our debt-servicing and our per-capita debt is low compared to other provinces.

[1550]

So, you know, we're in good shape. We have a 19-year low in unemployment. We've led the country in small business growth. We have a 19-year low in terms of people who require income assistance. We are the only province that's increasing in terms of the number of people that are going to post-secondary education institutes. The new economy is booming. We're starting to support the green economy in a much bigger way, and that's starting to move in the same direction, as we've moved to sustainability and value-added in our resource economy.

There are concerns; there's no question. There are concerns. Everybody would say that. But they are not the kind of devastation we're seeing in Alberta and Ontario, based on the ideology, the mantra that we see coming from the members opposite again and again and again, which says: "Just cut taxes across the board, and everything will be fine."

I am very pleased to support this legislation. I'm glad we're delinking and making a more progressive system. I'm very pleased, as the Minister of Social Development and Economic Security, to support 100,000 low-income British Columbians falling completely from the rolls, and I'm glad to see that it's indexed to inflation, to make sure that British Columbians are protected from bracket creep.

This is a good piece of legislation. It adds to our agenda to protect low-income people and to close the income gap and make sure that we move forward in a balanced way. I applaud the minister for bringing it in, and I will be voting in support of it.

G. Farrell-Collins: I must say that was a breathtaking speech that the minister just gave. I think you're right. If you come from that viewpoint and that's the view one has of the last decade, then it was a good speech. The only problem is that it doesn't reflect reality.

The minister talked about the "devastation" that has taken place in Alberta and Ontario. Well, Alberta and Ontario have been booming. They are doing better than they ever have.

Hon. J. Pullinger: For some.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister says "for some." I would argue that the

article from the Globe and Mail shows that per-family income, take-home pay, has gone up right across this country -- except in British Columbia. Average family take-home pay in British Columbia in the last nine years has gone down by $1,800. That's $1,800 per family that has been lost.

I hear the minister -- and I heard all the members opposite -- talk about the taxes that they had cut, how wonderful it is that they've cut the taxes since 1996. I think she said $700 million worth of taxes. What she failed to mention was the $1.6 billion of new taxes that her government levied in the 1992 budget and 1993 budget that British Columbians have been paying each and every year since. The minister forgot about that part, I guess.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Oh, she says: "Just the high end." I don't know, Mr. Speaker. She talks about how wonderful things are in British Columbia. I don't know if she has taken the time to venture outside the front door of her home and speak to her constituents, or to travel the province and talk to British Columbians in their homes and in their communities.

I would say that the devastation she talked about hasn't been taking place in Alberta and Ontario, but rather has been taking place here in British Columbia. Communities right across this province have experienced severe pain over the last decade. Individual British Columbians have been paying the price for the ideology of this minister that we just heard.

And it is an ideology. As I said, it was a good speech if you believe that ideology. The problem is that reality doesn't bear that out. In fact, this is the only province in the country, the only political party left in the country -- it sits on that side of the House -- that still believes in that ideology -- that you need big government, high taxes and big government programs. That's how you rescue people from themselves.

If you compare the success rate of British Columbia versus the other jurisdictions in Canada over the last decade, you will find that British Columbians' take-home pay has gone down. A significant chunk of that has been due to the tax increases that this government has brought in. If you look . . . .

Hon. J. Pullinger: Not true.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister says it's not true. It is true -- it is true.

Let me give some examples, if I may, then, if members just can't break their mould and realize that there's a reason why British Columbia hasn't been doing as well as the rest of the country. Let me give them an example. I know the member for New Westminster stood up and talked about the Alberta tax rates and the B.C. income tax rates and how, really, you're a lot better off here in British Columbia. "You get taxed a lot lower," I think were the words that he said -- something to that effect.

[ Page 16504 ]

If you look at what's taking place here in British Columbia, if you look at the tax rates in B.C . . . . Let's look at the low-income taxes first of all, because the minister said that the only people who have benefited are the people at the high-income range, not the lower-income families.

[1555]

If you look in British Columbia, on taxable income up to $30,335, B.C. families pay 8.4 percent. If you look in Alberta, people pay significantly less than that. The minister raised the issue of the flat tax of 10.5 percent that Albertans will be paying as of January 1 of this year which is higher than the 8.4 percent. He's correct. But if the minister wants to look at the real figures from Alberta, he'll find that in Alberta, they've actually raised the basic personal exemption to almost $13,000 -- $12,900. So if you have, for example, a family . . . .

These are current rates in Alberta and British Columbia right now; these are from the budget documents. If you have a one-income family with two children, $30,000 of income -- so you're a lower-income family with $30,000 . . . . The provincial income tax that that family would pay in Alberta is $357. In British Columbia, it would be $423.

Provincial sales tax. The minister says you have to look at all the taxes. There is no sales tax in Alberta. So that family in Alberta pays zero in provincial sales tax. In B.C. they pay $616; that's $616 in sales tax here in British Columbia.

Health care premium, which is something we pay here in B.C., and they pay in Alberta . . . . In Alberta it's $612; in British Columbia it's $648. We can go on to other taxes. Fuel taxes, for example, are lower there also.

You don't have to go that far. You don't have to go to the right-wing political parties, as the ministers like to classify them. You can go to Saskatchewan, and you can look at the government of Saskatchewan -- an NDP government and one that has a habit of getting re-elected. It actually has the support of the citizens in that province on a fairly regular basis. If you look at what they've done in Saskatchewan . . . . In British Columbia, on income tax rates in the lower income levels, around $30,000 . . . . In Saskatchewan, that low level goes up to $35,000.

Here the rate is 8.4 percent; there the rate is 11 percent. So it's lower here than it is in Saskatchewan -- but not a lot. If you go beyond that and look at the middle-income tax brackets, the people in Saskatchewan do better than they do here.

So it's a little hard to have the members opposite stand up and paint this picture that somehow there's this national right-wing conspiracy to destroy society, as was raised by the member for -- I'm trying to think -- Cowichan-Ladysmith. I couldn't quite remember the name of her riding for a moment there. She stands up and makes it seem like there's been some big conspiracy about how British Columbia is the only province that's standing on the front line -- they're the only ones defending our society from this terrible conspiracy of right-wing politicians across the country, whether they be the NDP in Saskatchewan or the Tories in Alberta or the Liberals in Atlantic Canada.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Or here, the minister says. Members of the opposition . . . . The reality is that if you look at the economic performance of the various parts of Canada over the last four or five years, you can see a dramatic growth in the economies in other provinces. British Columbia has dipped into recession from time to time and is now experiencing growth at about half the rate of other provinces. I think the province of B.C. is experiencing the second-lowest economic growth this year. The minister can correct me if he has the latest GDP figures at his fingertips. I'd love to hear them.

But it certainly has not been a story of economic doom and gloom outside of British Columbia. It has not; it hasn't been. I don't care how you paint it.

Now, we may disagree -- and it's quite clear we do -- on what the best approach for government is. Members on this side believe that one does better . . . . Individuals do better, society does better, the economy does better if people are left the resources themselves -- if they have better access to the taxes or to the income that they earn. That's why -- and I notice the member for New Westminster leaving; he's probably going to check the web site . . . . But before he does, I will give him the exact commitment that we've made on income taxes, which is that within 90 days British Columbians will receive a significant reduction in their personal income tax rates.

[1600]

We believe that puts us on a much fairer footing with people across Canada and that by the end of our first term, British Columbians will experience the lowest personal income tax base rate of anywhere in Canada. Those are goals that we think are worthwhile setting. We think British Columbians do better when they retain more of their tax dollars in their pockets and can make decisions for themselves.

Now, I know members from the government side don't believe in that. I know, because of the record they've had in government of high taxes and ever-increasing tax rates, that they believe government makes those decisions better. But I think the verdict is in. The economy, if you look at how it has performed over the last nine years -- the depressed economy, not so much in the lower mainland, although it's not great in the lower mainland . . . . If you look outside the lower mainland, particularly in the interior and parts of northern parts of British Columbia, the economy has been hit pretty hard over the years.

People in those communities have been hurt pretty severely, and I suspect that's why, when the government goes back to their traditional members of support -- IWA members and spouses of IWA members, for example, steelworkers, mineworkers . . . .

When the government goes back to those traditional supporters looking for their support, whether it be financial support or support in an election campaign, they're finding that the support isn't there anymore. It's certainly not there at the level it was before.

That's because those people have been living the results of the ideology that we heard from the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith. It sounds good, it may stir the heart, it may rally the caucus, but it doesn't work. It hasn't worked. All one has to do is look at it. Everywhere it has been tried, it hasn't worked. It hasn't worked for the last nine years here in British Columbia. I don't think there are many people in this province who would say that the last nine years have been a success for our economy.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Oh, I get it. Now the problem is that health care's been gutted because of us. We're sitting here in

[ Page 16505 ]

opposition for nine years, and we've been telling the government about the error of their way. And somehow, the downturn in British Columbia's economy is our fault. It's our fault. When logic doesn't work, when the facts of history don't reflect what you believe in your mind, the solution is to blame someone else. Blame those people that have been in opposition for nine years; don't blame yourselves. I understand how rose glasses work now.

The reality is that this government needs to look in the mirror. If they can ever reach up and clean the dust off that mirror and look at what they've done to this province over the last nine years and then ask their supporters -- don't even ask their opponents, ask their supporters -- whether they think they've done a good job . . . . Ask their supporters whether they're better off now than they were when this government took office. The answer is no; the answer is clearly no. That's what it's all about at the end of the day. That's what governments are there for: to improve people's lives, to improve their standard of living, to improve their opportunities for the future.

If the government can't go back to British Columbians and ask them that question and accept the answer, which is a profound no, then they'd better go back to themselves and ask themselves why it is that that's the case. The next step is to question whether their ideology has worked. I know it's tough to admit that the plan, the agenda that the government was elected with in 1991 and that they were re-elected with in 1996, hasn't worked. It hasn't worked and wasn't working. British Columbians know that. They feel that in their communities. You don't have to talk just about economic factors; you can look at health care.

The Minister of Finance, who has represented Prince George and, for some of that last nine years, was the Minister of Health -- for years and years, he was the Minister of Health -- hails from Prince George. Prince George is in an ongoing and current health care crisis, a dramatic crisis in health care. The minister says he knows lots about health care in Prince George. I hazard a guess that he does. Then perhaps the minister can tell us why it is that the people in Prince George can't get basic service in health care after nine years of NDP government, after nine years of the ideology that we were told was going to rescue and protect health care.

I know he was Minister of Education for a while. Perhaps he can tell us why, after nine years, people still don't think that their education system is the best that it could be. The minister has had nine years . . . .

[1605]

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I hear the other member from Prince George, who from time to time has inhabited cabinet seats -- never for very long -- and has been invited into cabinet to be part of the decision-making team that has laid out the agenda for the last nine years. The other member from Prince George who sits on the government side could certainly get up and tell us a thing or two about how the government has eroded child protection in the time they've been in government -- the deterioration of the protection of children.

We hear the ministers talk about these new plans they have for the future. Well, none of their plans from the past worked at all. Why should we believe that their new plans are going to work any better? So it's not just the economic damage that's been done by this government over the last decade; it's not just that. The problem is that we have an economy that hasn't been performing the way it should. We have people across this province that are suffering financially as a result of those economic problems.

But more importantly, if you look at the standard of life, the standard of living that British Columbians live in now as opposed to nine years ago, it has gone down. Their health care system has deteriorated. I know that the minister will stand up, as the member for New Westminster did, and talk about post-secondary participation rates, which have gone up. What he doesn't talk about is the number of students that are still cycling through the post-secondary institution system because they can't complete the courses they need in order to graduate.

The government creates spaces, puts money into the post-secondary education institutes -- a significant majority of which goes to personnel costs -- and then tells us that they've created all these new spaces. The problem is that they're not getting the graduates out the other end.

If you go around the province and ask British Columbians whether they think the last nine years have been good for the province, whether they're better off now than they were nine years ago, the answer is pretty clear: it's no.

I see the member for Victoria-Hillside entering into the debate, or trying to. He seems shocked that British Columbians would tell him that they don't feel better off after nine years. I expect that's because he hasn't talked to his constituents recently. If he would go and do that, he'd find that in fact they feel that way quite strongly.

I know the government knows that, because the government does polls. I've seen some of those polls that show British Columbians' impression that their standard of living has gone down over the last number of years, really in almost any way you measure it. We hear the rhetoric, we hear the ideology, from the government members. The problem they've got is that this isn't a clean slate. They're not going before the public with an election mandate or some agenda, saying: "Hey, we've got these great ideas, and we think they're going to work.

Give us a chance and we'll do them, and we'll all be better off." What they're going before the public with is a nine-year record. It's a nine-year record of disappointment -- of despair in some cases, in many communities -- and really a decade of decline. However you look at it, the ideology that the government espouses has not worked. They've had their chance; they've had nine years to do it. The public's verdict is in: they don't want another five years of what they've had for the last nine.

We do pay significantly higher taxes than many other places, than our competing jurisdictions. We are not in the ballpark, in many cases, with those provinces that we should be competing with. And it's not based on ideology; it's based on reality. Whether it's the NDP in Saskatchewan, or now even the NDP in Manitoba, who came in and balanced their budget, I think only two or three weeks ago . . . . Regardless of political stripe, this government has taken a direction different from everybody else in Canada; they've said that repeatedly.

They've stood up in this House, minister after minister, and said: "We're not going the same way everyone else is. We're taking our own direction; we're heading off in our own direction." And they had the right to do that; they were in government. But they also have the right, and the need, to be accountable for that decision.

If they had been proved right, I suspect that British Columbians would be cheering them; they'd be carrying them

[ Page 16506 ]

through the streets to another mandate. But they've been wrong. They've been wrong on almost every count. As a result, British Columbians are pretty angry about that. They're pretty fed up, and they're not willing to give this government another opportunity to continue with the ideology that has led this province astray.

I know that's not right on topic. Somehow, earlier on in the debate we seemed to veer off. But it does fall within the wide purview given to second reading of a bill.

The delinking of the legislation, of British Columbia's tax system, from the federal system to allow us more flexibility is something that is worthwhile trying. Many provinces are going that way. I think others will follow, particularly at a time when taxes tend to be coming down as opposed to up, because now governments can get credit for reducing the taxes,

whereas before they didn't so much have to accept the blame for them rising. That's part of the interesting politics of living in a federation. But I think that's a good move. It gives us more flexibility; it gives us the ability to tailor some of our fiscal policies to British Columbia's unique situation. We look forward to helping to make that work.

[1610]

On the level of personal income tax rates, I don't think it's any secret: we'd like to see them significantly lower. We think that that's the path to follow. It's proven successful in many other jurisdictions. The path that this government has chosen to follow over the years has not proven to be very successful. So, given history, given the facts, given the challenges that face British Columbia, it would be wise for us to pursue a different tack other than the one that we've been following for the last nine years.

This government makes fairly tepid moves in that direction in this bill, but there's a lot longer distance to go. British Columbians, regardless of income -- particularly at the lower income levels -- will benefit from significant personal income tax reductions, a higher low-income cut-off level, and higher basic personal exemptions -- as has been done in other jurisdictions.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

We look forward to seeing the result of this bill when it goes into practice. We know that there will be an election within the next 12 months. The verdict will be made at that time, I suppose, on whether British Columbians approve of the last nine years and want another five of it, or whether they'd like to try something different, and whether they'd like to be part of the success, part of the opportunity that's been spawned across the rest of the country -- whether British Columbians would like to participate in a real opportunity for progress, as opposed to the stagnation they've had for the last nine years.

Hon. A. Petter: I will be very brief, because I don't want to repeat some of the arguments that have already been made about this legislation and, in particular, the benefits it brings in terms of tax relief for British Columbians.

I want to make a fundamental point about the positive value that this legislation represents in terms of reforming the tax system within Canada. Provinces have, for some time -- and this province has for some time -- under various governments tried to pursue a regime under which we could enjoy greater flexibility to tailor the tax system provincially to meet the needs of our citizens without having to disconnect ourselves entirely from the federal-provincial tax-sharing agreements, as Quebec has done. It's been a pursuit for many, many years.

I think it is very much to the credit of the current Minister of Finance and the persistence of ministers of finance across the country that we have reached a point where the federal government has at long last agreed to allow provinces to tailor their tax systems to better meet the priorities and needs of their citizens. With that opportunity, of course, comes responsibility. And with this legislation we see that responsibility being exercised very positively for British Columbians in the form of tax reductions that are targeted particularly at middle-income earners.

I do want to take a moment to focus on the fundamental point that this is a positive move, in my view, for the federal system. It's a positive move for a province like British Columbia, whose views are not always fully taken account of when tax policy is set nationally. It enables us as a province to have greater scope to fashion tax policy in a way that corresponds to the priorities of citizens in this province in a manner that's consistent with federalism.

That wouldn't have happened if Premiers and Ministers of Finance -- and ministers of intergovernmental affairs, if I may say so -- over recent years, right across the country . . . . B.C. very much took a leadership role -- and took a leadership role before this government came to power, I might add, through people like Mel Couvelier and others. If that leadership role had not been taken and had not been seen through -- and the current Minister of Finance took a major leadership role in pushing this through this year -- we would not be at this point.

It's a very positive moment for British Columbians because of the doors it opens. The question is, of course: what do we do with those open doors? I think the Minister of Finance, in this legislation, has shown a very positive opportunity to move through those doors, and we will have to debate what other alternatives might exist, some of which I think are far less positive. But British Columbians today, because of this legislation and because of the efforts that preceded it, have greater opportunity to fashion their own future, to set their own destiny and to make their own choices, and I think that's something that's worthy of note.

For that reason, amongst many other good reasons in terms of tax reduction that we find in this bill, I urge all members to support this bill very strongly.

[1615]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I will not be long in closing debate. I did want to thank my colleague the Attorney General for his comments about one of the fundamental principles that underlies Bill 19. The idea of having a made-in-British Columbia income tax system is indeed one that has been pursued by governments and Ministers of Finance of successive governments for some time in this province. I am pleased to have

an act before the Legislature that brings that quest to fruition.

We have in Bill 19, really, two principles. I know we've had a good debate. I've listened to the opposition critic with some interest about the principles of this bill. I just want to recapitulate what the two underlying principles really are -- what this thing really does.

[ Page 16507 ]

One thing is, as I just said, that it moves towards the made-in-B.C. income tax system. It does so in a way that ensures greater transparency for all British Columbians, greater awareness for all British Columbians of what they are actually paying to this government -- the government of British Columbia -- in personal income tax.

The interesting thing, as I started to consult people in the province around whether or not we should take advantage of the opportunity the federal government actually announced last fall of moving to tax on income, is that I was unable to find many people who could actually say what level of income tax they actually paid to the provincial government. It was wild.

The most common thing was: "Oh, I pay 49.5 percent of my income to the provincial government." One of the advantages of this, as we look at what the actual tax brackets are, what the actual tax rates are, is that people can see more clearly what they actually pay.

For the record, I just want to reflect on what some of those rates really are. If you happen to be a low-income-earning single parent with a child, and say you're earning $20,000 -- total income. Right now you pay . . . . In 1999 you paid 2.2 percent of your income in income taxes to British Columbia. Somebody earning $20,000, I would say, probably shouldn't pay much more than that. In fact, by the time this bill takes full effect, they'll be paying less than 1.5 percent in income tax to British Columbia.

If you're a family of four, with two earners, with an income of $60,000 -- and that's very much a typical family in British Columbia . . . . The average family income in our province is between $55,000 and $60,000. You will pay in the year 2001, after the tax reductions that take place in Bill 19 are fully implemented, 5.4 percent of your total income in taxes to British Columbia.

I think that when people actually realize that this is the sort of level, and then they look at the benefits they get from government services . . . . Frankly -- and this goes beyond partisanship -- we spend two-thirds of our taxes that we get on health and education. A family of four pays over twice that amount of their income in taxes to Ottawa. I defy you to say what, exactly, benefits they're getting from Ottawa for that amount of tax money.

This tax system that we're implementing makes the system far clearer. It makes it apparent to all and transparent to all what tax they're actually paying. It does a couple of other very important things. It says that the days of automatic tax increases due to inflation are over. It says that the tax brackets we set here are fully indexed to inflation. It says that the non-refundable tax credits -- personal, spousal and others -- are fully indexed. We no longer have tax increases by inflation here in the province of British Columbia. This bill puts an end to that.

[1620]

So that's one principle -- and frankly, I think the opposition will probably stand up and support that principle. The other principle that this bill incorporates is that we think that British Columbians deserve and are being given income tax relief -- as I said, since 1996, once this bill is fully implemented, $750 million in tax reductions in British Columbia.

So there are some significant changes incorporated in this act. Again, we made a choice here of what we were going to do with tailoring that tax relief. The Attorney General spoke of the fact that once you have your own income tax system, and we do have it now, it opens a range of choices to you. We have made a clear choice here. What we have said is we think that 90 percent of British Columbians -- 90 percent who earn $60,000 or less -- should have the greatest benefit from the tax reductions that we have incorporated here. Yes, higher-income earners will also benefit.

But the highest-percentage reduction in income taxes will go to middle- and low-income earners. For example, an individual earning $60,000 will have a 9 percent reduction in personal income taxes in British Columbia. This is of taxable income.

An Hon. Member: Of taxable income.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Of taxable income. If you earn $30,000, you'll have an 11 percent reduction. If you're a low-income earner earning $25,000 -- a 16 percent reduction. And as I said earlier, 100,000 British Columbians will receive a 100 percent income tax reduction; they'll pay no income tax at all, and they'll be added to thousands of other people.

Those are the choices that we make in this bill. We make them proudly. We think this is a good bill for government, and it's a good bill for the system here in British Columbia.

I did want to reflect, just a little bit, on some of the comments of my colleague opposite about the differences "in philosophy." I heard him say that one of the differences is that that side of the House believes people do better if they're simply left to themselves. That's an interesting concept -- left to themselves, they have lower levels of taxation. What he didn't say, though, is that then lower levels of services are provided by government.

These do go hand in hand with governments who have made different choices -- who have said: "Yes, we want to do savage cuts to public services, and we're going to reduce government revenues by further reducing taxes." We have seen those choices across the country, and we will see them in British Columbia if that Liberal opposition should ever form government here. They will make different choices from what we have done -- very different choices.

We're seeing it across the country. We saw it as we reduced class size in our education system here in British Columbia and Alberta went to user-pay kindergarten. We saw it here in British Columbia as we enhanced funding for health care nine budgets in a row, and Alberta now goes to sponsor a bill that says two-tier private health care is the way we should go. We have seen the differences right across the country, and we will see it here if that opposition should ever form government.

I'm very proud of the work we've done. I want to commend the staff that worked under considerable pressure to put together this bill and to put together the fundamentals of this made-in-B.C. tax system. I commend it to all members of the Legislature.

Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to close debate and move second reading of Bill 19.

Motion approved.

Bill 19, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2000, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I call Committee of Supply to consider the estimates of the Ministry of Women's Equality.

[ Page 16508 ]

[1625]

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

The Chair: For the information of the House, in the precinct today we have 50 visitors from Tacoma, Washington. These students are in grade 8, and they're here to observe the Legislature.

As well, we have 40 American seniors with the Elderhostel movement, who are also here this afternoon. The coordinator is Ms. Marchand. I would ask the House to make both of these groups welcome.

The committee met at 4:26 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

WOMEN'S EQUALITY

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

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm very pleased to present the estimates of the Ministry of Women's Equality for the year 2000-2001. I'd like to begin by introducing staff who have joined me today. First, Hilarie McMurray, who is the deputy minister; Anne Kirkaldy, senior financial officer; and Terrill Welch, who is the acting director of the Stopping of Violence and regional programs.

To say that it's an honour to serve in the capacity of Minister of Women's Equality is, in some sense, an understatement. The work that this ministry does . . . . While it is responsible for the direct delivery of some services, its reach is much broader than that. The ministry is fundamentally an advocacy ministry, both inside and outside of government. We are the first and only stand-alone ministry in Canada. It indicates our government's commitment to working towards the equality of women in our society. The priorities set by government are reflected in the work that this ministry has undertaken.

First let me speak a little of the accomplishments of the ministry over the past year. In 1999-2000 the Ministry of Women's Equality undertook a number of initiatives to increase women's economic security and achieve economic equality between men and women. We delivered a bridging program to secure economic independence for women leaving abusive relationships. We encouraged and funded women to undertake education and careers in typically better-paying, non-traditional jobs.

We are leading the federal-provincial-territorial economic working group finalizing a strategic framework on women's economic security and independence and delivering a workplan. Finally, this government's pay equity and low-wage redress policy has reduced the wage gap in the public service to about 10 cents. Pay equity and low-wage redress have helped advance economic equality for women and have benefited society as a whole.

I'm going to spend a little bit of time on that government initiative, because I'm very proud of it. It is an initiative that has been underway for a number of years in government now, fulfilling our commitment to the direct public service as well as the extended public service. There are yet some areas in the extended public service that do not have pay equity plans, but the vast majority do.

[1630]

Not only did we fulfil our commitment to the women that work for government in supporting pay equity plans, but we also furthered a low-wage redress initiative which helped bring the lowest-paid workers in government and, in particular, in the community sector up to a livable wage. Not only is that the right thing to do for women in paying and recognizing the work that they do, enabling them to support themselves and often children who count on that wage, but it's the right thing to do for government service as well.

The services that government provides for our population are crucial services, and they are services that are broadly respected. In providing appropriate remuneration for those providers of service we've brought about stability in the services that are provided, enabling government to continue to invest in training and ensuring a quality of service because of that continuity in staffing and building on training initiatives. It also provides a continuity in service for those most vulnerable, who rely on the service.

In the community service sector in particular, many of us can think of where there are people with disabilities that count on the providers of group home services. They rely on that continuity of service to bring stability in their lives.

When I say government has done the right thing, they have done the right thing for the workers. We have done the right thing in the quality of service that is provided. It is a good public policy with the stability that it provides for ongoing and continuing care.

I'd like now to talk a little bit about our direct delivery programs. Stopping the Violence Against Women continues to be a high priority for this ministry. In partnership with community-based agencies throughout the province, we continue to offer safe shelter and support, crisis intervention, counselling and pre-employment services to help women regain control over their lives.

This year the Building a Safer Future Awards were launched in partnership with the B.C. and Yukon Society of Transition Houses and the B.C. Association of Specialized Victim Assistance and Counselling Programs. Our prevention program, A Safer Future for B.C. Women, continues to fund non-profit, equity-seeking organizations to develop local initiatives and partnerships to prevent violence against women.

The Live Violence Free campaign encouraged broad ownership of the prevention of violence and involved the public in prevention actions in their homes, their schools and their communities. The second year of the campaign, focused on violence against youth, was launched this February. This campaign is a partnership between the government of B.C. and the B.C. Association of Broadcasters, who have committed $50 million in air time over ten years.

[1635]

When we look at these initiatives in particular, I think that it speaks volumes for the work of the ministry. While, as I said, the ministry does provide direct services and funds programs like transition houses and women's centres, it recognizes that to address the issues that are perhaps the largest barriers to women in seeking equality, the answers are found in broad community mobilization as well as in government leadership and support. I want to recognize the work that is done in communities through women-serving agencies, and the women in communities that work on a daily basis to support women in leaving abusive situations, to support women in making a difference in their lives.

Not only does the work of the ministry in government continue to be of broad interest to other government agencies

[ Page 16509 ]

and initiatives, but our ministry continues to work closely with the women's health bureau. We participated in various working groups and committees across government. In 1999-2000 we providing funding for the women's health conference, Building Bridges: Creating an Integrated Approach to Women's Health, to the Action Forum on Aboriginal Women and Addiction Services and for a report, "Hearing Women's Voices: Mental Health Care for Women."

Women have made much progress in our move towards equality. The options available to my generation are much different when compared to those choices that were available to my mother or to her mother before her. An estimated 60 percent of all women in B.C. were either working or actively looking for work in 1999.

However, women still earn less than men. The wage gap for B.C. for women working full-time, year-round, is 27 cents. Women still earn 73 cents for every dollar that is earned by a man. So many factors such as health, safety and a family's health and status as well as housing are dependent on women's economic well-being. That's why economic equality and security for women is at the top of my ministry's list of priorities.

I'd like to, in introducing the estimates for this year, reflect on the work that we have had underway for the last number of months. When I was given the privilege of this post, I thought it was in some ways timely, because much of the work that I have done in my involvement in working for my community and for the province as a whole has evolved around principles that are central to this ministry.

The work that our government has had underway for the last nine years since the creation of this ministry gave us an opportunity to look back -- in the year 2000, I think a lot of people were doing that -- on our successes and our accomplishments and measuring the development of a strategy for the future. I think it's important for all of us to do that.

I think the work that has been underway and the commitment that our government has made to women in this province is unprecedented. However, I think we would all agree that we have a long way to go as a society generally. I look forward to the challenges in working with community agencies and women across the province in furthering women's agenda and, in particular, an agenda meeting the economic needs of women. I believe fundamentally that women have a great deal to contribute, and where government can w