1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th 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)

THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 1993

 Morning Sitting

Volume 10, Number 18

[ Page 6825 ]

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Prayers.

D. Mitchell: This morning I'd like to introduce to members of the House a group of grade 7 students from Hillside Middle School in West Vancouver, who are here with their teacher, Ms. Hower. Would members of the House make them welcome. I hope they enjoy themselves here today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: I call committee on Bill 4.

The House in committee on Bill 4; E. Barnes in the chair.

BUDGET MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1993
(continued)

Hon. G. Clark: I want to ask your indulgence and just say at the outset that the order of business will be committee stage of Bills 4, 18, 5, 13 and 17 -- if we could do them in that order for everybody's convenience.

Yesterday we stood down a couple of sections. I think we're now prepared to start with section 1, if that is convenient for the Chair.

On section 1.

Hon. G. Clark: As you recall, yesterday we stood down sections 1 to 3 and section 5, which deals with the deletion of leaded gas. My staff have been in discussions with the federal government. The members opposite are correct to a point, but it has no significance for the purposes of this bill. I will just explain to members of the House that the federal government, as I understand it, is going to allow the sale of leaded gas, by regulation, for the purposes of the car-racing industry. It's not for sale to the public; it would simply be a special regulation -- one that I might say I have no hesitation supporting, of course. The deletion of leaded gas from the Motor Fuel Tax Act has no impact whatsoever. Any sale of leaded gas for the purpose of motorcar racing would be subject to the same tax.

Just to give you a little history here, the only reason that leaded and unleaded gas are defined in the Motor Fuel Tax Act is that at one point we had a differential tax rate for environmental purposes. Now there is no leaded gas sold for public consumption. We are eliminating any reference to that leaded gas in the act with these four clauses. If it was decided to allow leaded gas to be sold in the future, the 10-cents-a-litre tax, which is applicable now to unleaded gas or any other gasoline purchase in British Columbia, would be paid. It would mean that we would be foreclosed from a differential tax rate. But we have no intention of imposing a differential tax rate, because we do not see, for environmental reasons, the selling of leaded gas coming back in at any future date. I might say, Mr. Chair, that I'd be completely opposed to it. Clearly there's no problem with any anomalies or changes that might be made for the purposes of motorcar racing. The tax rate would be the 10 cents a litre, which exists for all gas. I hope that with those remarks we can dispose of these housekeeping amendments.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Section 5 approved.

On section 7.

F. Gingell: I have an amendment to section 7. My amendment is to strike out the letter (g) and substitute the letter (f) at the end of the second line.

On the amendment.

F. Gingell: I'm happy to make corrections to the government's legislation at any time. It would be helpful in future if they would send us legislation when it is still in its draft form -- maybe two or three months before they intend to introduce it in the House -- and then we can do a much better job of making these corrections.

Hon. G. Clark: It's a nice try, and I commend the member opposite for his diligence. Unfortunately, he's not quite correct. I would say it's not totally his fault, and I certainly wouldn't criticize him for it. Let me try and explain why he is incorrect.

I have here -- and I can send it over for the member if he'd like -- Bill 4, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1992, as opposed to the 1993 bill. Section 13 of last year's amending bill adds: "(j) any other prescribed revenue." If one does not look at last year's amending bill and looks at the original bill, the member would be correct. Unfortunately for the member, we did amend it last year. I appreciate that that can get a bit complicated when you amend this legislation every year, although it's not uncommon. In fact, in every year I have been in the House, there has been a budget measures implementation act which cleans up and amends, in generally modest ways, either minor taxes or taxation statutes. That's why we have to vote against the amendment. In fact, I think the amendment is probably out of order, Mr. Chair, is it not?

The Chair: That hasn't been determined yet, hon. minister.

F. Gingell: If that is the case, isn't there an amendment required to renumber the present (j) as (h)?

Hon. G. Clark: That would be more in order, but we don't repeal and renumber in these bills. We simply repeal sections. When there is a review of the statutes they are put in plain language and renumbered. It's not normal to reprint and renumber the whole bill; rather, you have an amending bill which is appended in the statutes.

[ Page 6826 ]

F. Gingell: Having had the opportunity to give a message to the hon. minister about getting proposed legislation well in advance so we don't have to deal with it in a great rush, I would be pleased to withdraw my amendment.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

F. Gingell: Could the minister answer the question of whether the fund will now, in effect, just stay until it is used up, or do they plan on making further transfers into it in the future from voted appropriations?

Hon. G. Clark: I want to make sure the member knows that the act has not been repealed, so there's still revenue into the fund and spending out of the fund. We have constricted fairly dramatically the revenue that goes in, but there still will be revenue in each year unless the Sustainable Environment Fund Act is repealed.

[10:15]

F. Gingell: I appreciate the reason for these special accounts: to allow things to continue to happen and for proper budgeting to take place. But with the reduction, has the sustainable environment fund now lost its major purpose, and would it perhaps be better to close it out and so simplify our lives a little in understanding government accounting practices?

Hon. G. Clark: As the member knows, I'm quite sympathetic to that idea. But there's also a counter idea that has equal and sometimes more appeal, and that is linked taxation. One of the problems that I think all governments have, regardless of political stripe, is the alienation for the public between paying taxes and getting services. Anything we can do as governments -- again, I don't mean that in any political or partisan way -- that says to people: "You're paying this tax, and it is going to fund this service".... Anything you can do to enhance that link is certainly politically more salable; but more importantly, it gives the taxpayers some comfort that they are paying for services rendered.

The Sustainable Environment Fund Act means that when we're collecting a tax, if you will, on batteries or on tires, as the previous government imposed, we want to give the public some comfort that that money is not going to the Minister of Finance to be used for welfare or health care or the like -- which is not inappropriate in many cases. But if you're trying to have a specific levy on a specific toxic material, it's desirable to give the public some comfort that that levy is going to deal particularly with an environmental problem. The Sustainable Environment Fund Act allows you to give the public absolute comfort that the money raised from certain fees and licences for environmental purposes is going to deal with environmental issues. We have constrained the fund significantly and taken away extraneous things, like revenue from AirCare -- if there ever is another AirCare program up and running -- the administration of AirCare and any of those things which used to be in the fund. All of that has just sort of blown away and gone into the line ministries. We've got a fairly trimmed-down one. So it's a bit of a compromise between those two competing objectives. But I think generally this improves accountability and gives the taxpayer some comfort that it's going to pay for services.

F. Gingell: Perhaps we could ask the minister to differentiate between that last statement he made and the statements he made earlier this year in regard to the municipal revenue-sharing act. At the same time -- obviously in this particular instance -- he could advise us that he is keeping a separate bank account so that the fund is in fact there.

Hon. G. Clark: That's a good question. I want you to know that for accounting purposes there is a very strict bank account set up -- ledger account, that's correct....

F. Gingell: A ledger account is not a bank account.

Hon. G. Clark: Let me say this: the member is correct, but maybe it's a question of policy. With respect to the sustainable environment fund account, the moneys will be spent. All the moneys that go into that fund are expensed. They need Treasury Board approval, that's correct, but by statute we have the ability to spend out of that account. The revenue-sharing fund, while there is a sort of fictional ledger account....

F. Gingell: That's the same kind of account.

Hon. G. Clark: No, because in this case they have never spent the money that was notionally allocated to it -- never in the history of the municipal fund. So each year there are Treasury Board submissions. There isn't the same linkage.

In this case we tried to ensure that the funds collected for environmental purposes go out and are spent. Every penny is spent out of the sustainable environment fund each year, although the member is correct in saying that it isn't required to be the case. It has to require Treasury Board approval. Of course, we enhance the likelihood of Treasury Board approval by significantly constricting the size of the fund and what goes into the fund, and so we assure that the money will be spent out of it.

With the municipal fund, the money never did go into any bank account. It's never been spent. So you have this growing notional surplus, which, as I've said publicly, much to the disappointment of mayors, will never be spent, regardless of who forms government. Any spending out of that notional surplus of some $300 million in the municipal sharing fund increases our deficit, and that is a big and growing amount of money. Regardless of what one thinks about the legitimacy of it.... I don't have any problem understanding and saying that the concept of the municipal revenue sharing fund is sound, but the reality is that each year it competes with health care, etc., for funds.

J. Weisgerber: An interesting little twist this morning. The now Minister of Finance, when he was in opposition, was very critical of the budget stabilization 

[ Page 6827 ]

fund. According to him, it had no money in it. He spent many hours in this chamber pressing the point that there was no bank account and therefore there was no fund. I wonder how he manages to rationalize this sustainable environment fund, which apparently is accounted for in very much the same way as the budget stabilization fund -- an account in a ledger and an effect on the financial picture of the province, but no bank account. Why would he be comfortable in this case of no bank account, when he was so very critical of the other account because it had no real funds attached -- I believe he used to say?

Hon. G. Clark: It's quite a distinction.

An Hon. Member: You're in government now.

Hon. G. Clark: No, it's more than that. Here's the distinction. First of all, the budget stabilization fund wasn't a special account; it was a special fund. Secondly, there was no money in the account; it was a notional surplus. Therefore, any money spent out of the budget stabilization fund increased the deficit. The revenue-sharing fund is more akin to the budget stabilization fund and the problems associated with it. The revenue-sharing fund has a notional surplus, which every municipal council thinks has a bank account attached to it. So you're correct that the municipal sharing fund is similar to the BS fund. This fund does not have any surplus. Revenues are dedicated to it, and all of it gets spent on environmental protection.

If we decided to allow a notional surplus to build up in the sustainable environment fund, then we would be vulnerable to the same arguments that I've used against the BS fund and also against the revenue-sharing fund. We haven't done that. We've been diligent and sure, for the reasons I said earlier, to make that connection between taxpayers and taxpayers' services. We've been very diligent to ensure that the revenues from these environmental levies go to pay for environmental protection.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

F. Gingell: I'm not going to discuss what is not in this section; I'm going to discuss what is in it. It's an opportunity to say quickly that it's all very well to keep pushing up certain sin taxes, but it does encourage black markets and underground economies. The province is now dealing with proposals to try to tighten up the movement and custody of tax-exempt cigarettes in this province. It's strange that as the price of tobacco products goes up and up, the consumption doesn't seem to come down. It doesn't seem that you can tax people out of these habits. This side of the House would be much more comfortable if -- as in the earlier discussion about the use of the money in the sustainable environment fund, and the relationship between taxes and government services -- the taxes from tobacco were used for good educational programs in our schools to ensure that this unfortunate habit, which costs us so much money in health-care costs, starts to recede instead of grow. With those few words, we are prepared to allow this section to pass.

Hon. G. Clark: I want to mention to my friend opposite that I do agree with him. We are pushing the envelope in terms of the ability to increase the taxation rate on these substances, despite the fact that one could make a very compelling case that it's good public policy because of the costs associated with smoking -- health care costs in particular. Ours is among the highest in the country. We have excellent staff. Ed Turner is the executive director of the branch that polices the sale of cigarettes. But I think we have to be very cognizant of our competition, our neighbouring provinces, because there is a smuggling problem and we are determined not to allow that to get out of hand, as it did in some other provinces. That's not been the case here. Our revenue is holding up. We are doing a very good job. But I'm conscious of the member's comments and will say this: as desirable as it might be for the Minister of Finance, it seems to me that we have limited room to move on that front, given the fact that our taxation rate on cigarettes is among the highest in the country. Just for the member's refreshment, though, there was really no increase last year and so we haven't moved relative to other provinces. The previous government imposed cigarette taxes among the highest in the country, and we've sort of maintained that in this budget. I think we have to be constantly diligent to ensure that we don't develop the kind of horrendous smuggling problems that exist in some other provinces.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

Bill 4, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 18.

[10:30]

MOTOR FUEL TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 18; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

F. Gingell: We have spent some time in this House both last year and this year discussing the problems of funding transit. During the course of these discussions, the minister has indicated that he isn't satisfied with the 

[ Page 6828 ]

present arrangements and feels uncomfortable with the province having a major role in funding transit in the greater Vancouver regional area and in the greater Victoria regional area, whereas they don't have a role in dealing with transit in other places. Perhaps he would like to speak to this issue.

Hon. G. Clark: I was just discussing it with my staff. I'm going to ask if section 2 could be stood down at this time.

Motion approved.

On section 3.

R. Neufeld: Before I ask any questions, maybe the minister can just give me a rundown on the need for the legislation, because there was already authority to colour fuel before. What is he changing? Maybe that will help with my questioning a bit and speed things up.

Hon. G. Clark: This is making legal what the Ministry of Finance staff have been doing for many years. I guess it's quite common in this kind of area. The administrative practices in terms of authority and removing authority go on for years, and then someone decides they may want to challenge; or someone in the Attorney General ministry decides that if someone ever did challenge it, then we would be vulnerable. If I could just remind members, this confirms -- it does not change -- the director's ability to issue, suspend or cancel any authorization to colour fuel. It prevents any delegation or transfer of the authorization and provides notice. It also authorizes the director to impose conditions on the issue of authorization to colour fuel or on the lifting of a suspension of the authorization. In fact, this is housekeeping. It's not doing anything differently than what we have today. It's simply putting in the legislation the administrative practices, because there was some concern that the administrative practices did not necessarily have the force of law behind them, although that is a debatable legal question. My staff is taking the opportunity when we're bringing in a bill like this to sort of clean up the language and make sure that it is sustainable.

R. Neufeld: Has the minister thought about removing it totally and changing the system so that it's much more comprehensible for everyone, not just for the Ministry of Finance but also for the AG ministry?

[M. Farnworth in the chair.]

Hon. G. Clark: I guess the question would be whether you are advocating getting rid of using coloured fuel as the method of determining the tax advantage. That comes up periodically. I might just note that it's my understanding that every province in Canada uses a system of coloured fuel.

In all seriousness, in some respects I defer to the member's expertise, or at least practical knowledge, in this area. It's not something I have particular knowledge of. I have no hesitation saying that I'd be interested in looking at anything we could do to streamline the situation, provided, obviously, that it protects the tax revenue leakage we have.

I said earlier, I think, that I have had meetings with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture on this subject. They feel that there's a lot of leakage. Their pitch to me has been: "Give us more influence over who gets access to coloured gas, and we'll save millions of dollars." Of course, they would like to do that if I gave a commitment that the money they saved would go back into agriculture. I appreciate their constructive comments. We have some pilot projects and some work being done in that area.

Again, I have no hesitation in saying to the member that I am open to any suggestions to improve the efficiency of the coloured gas system. I'd be delighted if the member wants to meet with my staff to make any suggestions; I'll take them very seriously. But what we are doing here is simply codifying or legalizing the administrative practice, which is consistent with other provinces, as I understand it.

R. Neufeld: I don't know whether I understood the minister. I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't have coloured fuel; I'm not trying to imply that at all. I don't have any problem with that. But in my experience there are a lot of other ways it could be handled a lot more efficiently by government and be more efficient for the consumer.

I don't really have any other questions on that. Maybe at some point I'll make arrangements to meet your staff and talk to them.

Sections 3 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

G. Farrell-Collins: I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Farrell-Collins: I just noticed a former colleague of mine, Dwayne Klassen, in the gallery. He is probably here with some students -- not the ones we used to teach, but probably some of his family. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

H. Giesbrecht: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 6829 ]

H. Giesbrecht: I have the privilege of making an introduction for the member for Mission-Kent. Visiting us today and taking a tour of the precincts are about 20 grade 6 students from Albert McMahon Elementary School in Mission. They are accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Dodd, and several adults. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 5.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 5; M. Farnworth in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

F. Gingell: I rise to speak on section 2 and ask a question on behalf of the people this section will affect. The minister continually tells us that it is 8 percent of British Columbia taxpayers. Could the minister please advise us what percentage of personal income taxes this 8 percent pays?

Hon. G. Clark: I think it's about 40 percent.

F. Gingell: Could the minister give them some sense that he does recognize that there are some upper limits? Many of us believe that those upper limits have already been well passed. If you look at the statistics related to income taxation in Western World countries, during the 1980s there was a considerable move to bring income tax rates down and push consumer taxes up -- primarily in the form of value-added taxes. I sincerely believe that we in British Columbia are over the top. I know that our friends in the rest of the opposition believe that, too.

An Hon. Member: The Social Credit Party.

F. Gingell: The third party, I believe, is the correct way to refer to it in this House.

It really is an important issue. We continually seem to come back year after year, and we're just going to strangle the economic growth of this province. These are dramatic changes. I would be interested in some words of the minister's philosophy on these issues.

Hon. G. Clark: I understand the argument, but let me make some obvious points. One is that there has been a shift in the taxation system over the last ten years. That shift has been away from wealthy individuals and onto consumption taxes, which are, by and large, regressive. That shift started with Ronald Reagan, Brian Mulroney, Margaret Thatcher and, in British Columbia's case, Bill Bennett and Bill Vander Zalm. There has been a dramatic shift in the tax burden. The member is correct. That is true, and that's happened in the Western World.

Are we better off because of it? The deficits and the debt are higher, and the rich are the only people who are better off. The shift of the system has been to make the working poor or working lower-middle-income families much worse off. When we have a very difficult fiscal situation in British Columbia we have several choices. Do we continue the trend of cutting or at least restraining the rate of growth of taxes on people making more than $100,000, for example? Therefore we have to raise taxes on people making $30,000 or $40,000 a year. Or do we try to reverse that trend somewhat? We tried to reverse it in this budget. So only 8 percent pay more in income tax; 92 percent pay the same. I want people to also know that those 8 percent who do see an income tax increase are paying less income tax today than they were ten or 15 years ago. We have not even come close to the taxation levels that existed just a few years ago in this country. Yes, it's higher; and yes, there is a shift in the burden in this budget onto higher-income people -- no question about it; but it is not nearly as dramatic as the shift that took place the other way by other governments. So there's some modest return to progressivity in the tax system.

[10:45]

Having said that, it's also important to know that I understand that people making $60,000 or $70,000 a year in Vancouver are not exactly rolling in money and do not have incredible amounts of discretionary income. That's not rich by many people's definition, and I have never said it is rich, hon. members. I have said it is the wealthiest 8 percent in the province. That is an objective fact. Subjectively, is it rich if you're making $70,000 or $80,000? Probably not, although everything is relative. Frankly, given the choice whether someone making $30,000 a year, with a family, struggling to get by, should pay more taxes, or whether someone making $100,000 a year, struggling to get by, should pay more taxes, we've chosen the latter. I appreciate that that causes some discomfort. But there are no easy answers on the tax question; there are absolutely no easy answers. Someone pays more; someone pays less -- everything is relative. We've tried to move modestly in the progressive direction.

I will say to the member opposite that we are very concerned about being competitive. We have the second-lowest taxes -- income taxes, definitely -- in the country on average. But for the marginal tax rate at the high end, we are one of the higher ones in the country. So we have to be very conscious of that as we move forward to try to make sure that we're not constricting development, and I'd say these don't do that. Dramatic increases of taxation on the rich beyond this may have some impact, and we have to be very careful as we move forward to make sure we're competitive across the country.

But I would say that this modest shift in the tax policy is the correct approach. I think it's not acceptable to raise this kind of revenue from people making $30,000 or $40,000 a year. I'd rather do it this way, although I appreciate that it causes great discomfort and concern for members of the opposition and certainly for people in that income group. I understand that, and I'm not happy about that. But given the choices available to the Minister of Finance, I feel confident that this is the right approach.

[ Page 6830 ]

L. Fox: I really enjoyed the minister's outline of a socialist agenda. What he failed to recognize is that British Columbia grew over the years because there was some incentive at the end of the day for hard work. There was some incentive to invest all your holdings, to risk investing your home and everything that you could collectively invest, in order to increase your income and thereby improve your lifestyle. But the actions of this government over the last two years have taken away the incentive, and this particular section is only one more of those disincentives that are taking away from the initiative of individuals to invest and make British Columbia prosper.

When I hear the minister's argument about the deficit and the rationale to put this extra tax of approximately $105 million onto 8 percent of the province, I have to wonder why the minister did not consider the alternatives to this kind of taxation. Why didn't the minister and his government consider not implementing the fixed-wage policy, which was a direct cost to his government of double the amount collected by this amount of taxation? Why did the minister not consider the hiring of 2,800 new employees over the last two years as an alternative to raising taxes? Why does the minister not consider all those other factors, including the large patronage appointments that this particular government has entered into -- along with the huge contracts to people like the new CEO for B.C. Hydro?

The Chair: Order, hon. member.

L. Fox: I am speaking to this, in all due respect, hon. Chair, as an alternative to what could have been done prior to this kind of legislation, because....

Interjection.

L. Fox: The minister is suggesting it's a mailer.

I am concerned, because it is those people who have earned over $60,000 who have driven the economy of the province. During second reading the minister took issue with that, but that is in fact the case. It is the investor who creates jobs; it is the individual who is prepared to take the risks. This particular section of Bill 5 will deter and take away from the initiative of individuals who try to become achievers and who therefore try to improve the economy of British Columbia.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

F. Gingell: We are back at the same question. It looks a little different this year. He has only gone to 16.5 percent, but it has gone 14, 15, 16 and now 16.5. Every year that this government has been in office they have pushed up the rate. This particular section of the act deals with the 1993 and '94 taxation years. Does this indicate that there's no intention to increase the corporate income tax rate next year, that it is now set for 1994?

Hon. G. Clark: It doesn't indicate that. As Minister of Finance, I obviously can't preclude any options for next year, but I will say that we are concerned to make sure we're competitive. There are, as you know, three provinces higher than British Columbia on the corporate income tax side: Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick. This is 0.5 percent higher than it was under that great socialist, Bill Bennett: when he led the government the corporate income tax rate was 16 percent, so this is only half a percent higher than those days. I will say that we'll watch this very carefully. I think we have to be cognizant of competition across the country. I can't give the member complete comfort on next year's tax policy. That is obviously something we'll review, depending on the fiscal situation, as we work to reduce spending and dig ourselves out from this mass of deficit left behind by the previous administration. But this year it's 16.5 percent.

The peculiarities of the tax system require these tax changes to be in place, because they are only calculated several times during the year. As you know, you can raise a tax in July or January, but generally not during the middle of the year. So that's part of the reason for the multi-year commitment, if you will, in this section.

Sections 5 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

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

Hon. G. Clark: Now, hon. Speaker.

Motion approved on the following division:

Bill 5, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1993, read a third time and passed.

[11:00]

Hon. G. Clark: Committee on Bill 13, hon. Speaker.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1993

The House in committee on Bill 13; M. Farnworth in the chair.

On section 1.

F. Gingell: Perhaps the minister would be good enough to quickly explain to this House the changes in the Income Tax Amendment Act that deal with the fairness package and the human rights issue.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I would like to introduce Alan Carver, director of the income taxation branch.

This fairness package.... I even hesitate to use the word. It's a federal word. What happens is that the federal government collects our income tax. We are representatives of federal income tax. We have a sort of reciprocal tax collection agreement with the federal government in terms of collecting our taxes. When they make changes to the Income Tax Act we're required, as part of the agreement, to make similar changes to our act. Even if they make changes that I find completely repugnant, we really are obligated to bring them into this House and to pass them. It's a federal legislative agenda, and we have an obligation, if they are collecting our taxes, to harmonize the income tax policies. In this case the changes are not repugnant. They extend the time limits for people to appeal and make a variety of changes on the human rights question and the like. So I think they are generally positive changes.

We really do not have a lot of latitude in this House. It's one of those rare cases where Parliament is supreme. If we were to debate these at great length and make amendments it would nullify our agreement with the federal government, and that would have fairly major consequences. While I'm not discouraging debate on the question, they are fairly modest, positive measures to deal with a variety of problems that have arisen. I support them, and we're bringing in the complementary legislation here.

Sections 1 to 24 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

Bill 13, Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: Committee on Bill 17, hon. Speaker.

BONDING ACT

The House in committee on Bill 17; M. Farnworth in the chair.

Sections 1 to 13 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

Bill 17, Bonding Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: We have made remarkable progress, and I thank members opposite for their consideration. This is how bills should move through the House -- uncontested.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Let me clarify that. What I mean is we have had six days of debate on budget bills. They have been thoroughly canvassed in the chamber, we have had good discussion and debate, and there is no reason to belabour them, particularly some of the minor ones. So I appreciate very much the members opposite.

I want to advise the House that we have stood down one section of the Motor Fuel Tax Amendment Act. I don't propose to bring that back now, but with some discussion it may be back this afternoon, although probably not. With that, I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:12 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1993: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada