2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19, 2000
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 19, Number 1
[ Page 15073 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
Prayers.
R. Neufeld: In the Legislature today are two city councillors, Don Stewart and Pat Pimm, from the city of Fort St. John. Also attending from the city of Fort St. John are Colin Griffith, the city manager, and John Locher, the public works superintendent. Will the House please make them welcome.
Hon. P. Priddy: Today in the members' gallery we have special guests joining us from Norway. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming the political representatives from Akershus County Assembly in Oslo. The delegation is on a study tour in British Columbia until April 22 to look at health, education and public transportation issues. So I would ask the House to give them a warm welcome, please.
Hon. C. Evans: Somewhere in the gallery today is my friend and assistant Pratik Modha. But more importantly, his brother, Ronuk Modha, is visiting from Manitoba. Members will no doubt be interested to know that his brother has reached the great height of being assistant to the Premier. Will the House please make him welcome.
E. Gillespie: It's my great pleasure today to welcome 53 students from Village Park Elementary in Comox, accompanied by their teacher Ms. Tanya Borden, their principal Mr. Roy Taylor and vice-principal Al Pullin, as well as about ten parents who have accompanied these students on their trip here today. I ask all members to please make the Village Park students most welcome.
D. Symons: Many years ago -- and I won't say how many -- when I got married, my wife's family and her extended family took me in as one of them. Today, Betty and Walter Martens are in the gallery, and I wish you would make them welcome, please.
[1410]
Hon. J. Smallwood: For those of us on both sides that represent Surrey ridings, I think we all know that at some point in your life, you end up either living in Surrey or knowing somebody that does live in Surrey. For that reason, I'd like to extend a warm welcome to visitors from Sanford, Devon, England. Chris Symons and her children, Jessica and David, are travelling with friends and are the family members of Fred Girling, an activist and a valued member of North Surrey.
Oral Questions
CHARTER FLIGHTS FOR
EMPLOYMENT AND INVESTMENT MINISTER
C. Clark: The opposition has obtained documents that indicate that the Minister of Employment and Investment chartered private flights between Victoria and Vancouver at least five times last year. The Victoria-to-Vancouver route is probably the best-serviced air route in British Columbia; there are 75 scheduled flights available every single day.
Can the Minister of Employment and Investment tell us why he sees fit to charter private flights between Victoria and Vancouver, instead of taking any one of the 75 flights that are available to the rest of the mere mortals?
Hon. G. Wilson: I've been Minister of Employment and Investment for about seven weeks. If these flights were chartered by the Minister of Employment and Investment last year, I'd be happy to deal with that in estimates.
The Speaker: Member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain with a supplemental question.
C. Clark: I wonder if the minister can think back really far -- not quite as far back as when he was the leader of the PDA or not even further back when he was the leader of the Liberal Party, but just as far back as when he joined the NDP. Just think back that far and try to remember what it was that made him decide that he had to charter flights between Victoria and Vancouver instead of taking any of the ones that are scheduled, which are available to everybody else.
We have documents that show that on at least five occasions, he decided that it wasn't good enough for him to take any of those publicly available flights, any of those flights that have crying babies or pesky members of the public that might sit beside you on the plane. No, instead the minister decided that he wanted to take these private charter flights at over double the price.
Can the minister just give us the satisfaction
Hon. G. Wilson: The member opposite should well know that question period is for the members opposite to ask questions of the minister with respect to their ministerial capacity. The flights that this member is referring to deal with a number of ministries at the time I was minister, and the appropriate place for those kinds of questions to be raised and discussed is in estimates.
The Speaker: The member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain with a further supplemental.
C. Clark: I understand that timing is an issue. You know, if you have your own private scheduled flight, they might have time to roll out the red carpet for you when you arrive or have the band and the masses assembled for you when you touch down.
For goodness' sake, the government's policy on this, for any minister, states that in order to take a privately scheduled flight, you must get the most economical airfare. It also says that if you are going to take a private charter, you can do it only in cases where it's the same price as the scheduled airlines. Neither of these is true in this minister's case. So can the member for Buckingham Palace tell us what it is that makes him so special that he doesn't have to live by the rules that govern the cost of airfare, which apply to everybody else?
[1415]
Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I'd point out that Powell River-Sunshine Coast is very cosmopolitan and would take a
[ Page 15074 ]
dim view of being referenced as Buckingham Palace, frankly. There are people from many different cultural backgrounds who live there, not only those who may come from the palace which that member opposite is more familiar with.
The member well knows that question period is for those opposite to ask questions of a minister with respect to their ministerial capacity. If those members have questions with respect to past travel -- and they may well do so -- those may be put toward the appropriate minister during estimates. I can assure the members of this House that all travel has been done in accordance with the rules of this Legislative Assembly and of the government.
M. de Jong: Well, it seems that the minister's charter airline of choice is actually located out at the floatplane dock at Victoria International Airport. It also appears from the documents we've got that it was too onerous for him to actually drive all the way out to those docks, and he paid to have the aircraft brought downtown so he could just walk across the street. That little aeronautical taxi service cost taxpayers $1,000. My question to that minister is: is there something about driving 25 minutes out to the airport that this minister finds beneath him?
The Speaker: I'd ask the minister to answer the questions in the respect that it applies to his ministerial responsibilities currently.
Hon. G. Wilson: I appreciate that, hon. Speaker. I have answered those questions with respect to this ministry, and I think the members opposite know that.
The Speaker: Member for Matsqui with a supplemental question.
M. de Jong: Let's go to a different set of documents. They relate to May 18 and May 21 of last year, when the minister was the only passenger on a charter flight to Powell River. On both of those occasions the minister stayed overnight in Powell River. We checked his schedule for those dates, and there was no record whatsoever of him performing any ministerial duties on those days. My question to that minister is -- and if he doesn't want to answer, maybe the Finance minister, who's responsible, will answer: why did he charge taxpayers for performing ministerial business in his home riding when it appears that all he was doing was going home for a quick meal?
The Speaker: The Chair will remind members that these questions must relate to the minister's current responsibilities.
PEDIATRIC INTENSIVE CARE UNIT
AT VICTORIA GENERAL HOSPITAL
C. Hansen: I guess in contrast to where some of the taxpayers' dollars are being wasted in this province, I'd like to take a look at areas where dollars are not being spent.
The pediatric intensive care unit at Victoria General Hospital is in jeopardy of being closed. This means that in the capital of British Columbia, a child cannot be treated immediately if injured in a serious car accident. As a result, this will mean that seriously injured children will have to be flown to Vancouver, to Calgary or perhaps even to the U.S. for treatment. Will the Health minister tell us how closing the pediatric ICU in the capital of British Columbia is consistent with providing quality health care?
Hon. M. Farnworth: First off, I would like to make a couple of points, the first being that I do not expect the pediatric unit to be closed in the capital of British Columbia. Second, I understand the comments that the member has been making or has heard, and he's heard them in discussion around Victoria and in some of the media. There's a couple of things he needs to realize. One is that the budget has yet to be released, so any discussion around that is premature. As I said, I don't expect it to be closed. Quite frankly, I expect the board to examine
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. member, I'm trying to answer a very serious question here, and I'd appreciate not being interrupted, thank you.
The Speaker: Through the Chair please, minister.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I don't expect it to be closed. We've indicated that we want to work with health units to ensure that when they get their budgets, they can deal with them in the most appropriate way, and our staff are willing to do that.
Hon. Speaker, I understand the member's concerns, but I want to assure him that I do not expect, nor do I support, the closing of the pediatric unit here in Victoria.
The Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Quilchena with a supplementary question.
[1420]
C. Hansen: The residents of Victoria do want to hear that the Minister of Health doesn't expect an ICU to close. They want to hear the Minister of Health say that it will not close. I'd also like to remind the minister, when he says that they don't even know what their budgets are
It costs $750,000 to operate the children's ICU at Victoria General. Meanwhile, three weeks ago this government was prepared to pay almost that amount of money to CUPE to cover the cost of their negotiating expenses. Will the Health minister tell us why the government would rather pay for CUPE's bills than they would to ensure that the children's ICU is properly funded?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Just to repeat my comments, in case the hon. member didn't hear them, the health authorities have a job to do. That means managing a budget. But I will tell the hon. member that I do not support, nor do I expect them to close
Second, we need to deal with health care issues in this province in a constructive manner. We're working with health authorities throughout the province to ensure that we can identify areas where funds can be expensed to improve the delivery of service.
[ Page 15075 ]
Also, we're working on developing a plan that we can take forward to Ottawa in conjunction with other provinces to ensure -- not only in terms of what the province is doing to fund medicare but how we get the federal government back to the table -- that we have a 50-50 partnership on health care issues in this province, so that it's back to the partnership it was supposed to have been when medicare was first set up -- to find ways of addressing the challenges in the health care system around such areas as technology, nursing and information technology, to ensure that we have a sustainable medicare system that can carry British Columbia into the decades to come.
FOREST WORKER TRANSITION PROGRAM TAX ISSUE
G. Abbott: Last Friday, I received a letter from the Forests minister regarding my comments on this government's inept and absolutely pathetic handling of the forest worker transition program tax issue. In this letter the Forests minister says that my "misrepresentation of the facts does a great disservice to the forest workers."
Well, perhaps I should have used the words of the NDP member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca. According to that member, FRBC "lied, they misled the people, they totally screwed up, and they should be fired." Will the Forests minister tell us whether he's also sent a letter of reprimand to the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. J. Doyle: I would just like to say to the hon. member across the floor and all other members in this House that on March 29, I think it was, I brought out a solution for the forest workers who were concerned about the moneys that they got through forest worker training. Also, I said that 80 percent of the people who took this training from Forest Renewal are working today in full-time jobs. So I'm very, very proud of the actions this government took.
The member opposite said that the government should do something; we did something. The member for Matsqui said that the provincial government should look at paying the provincial tax; we did that. So it's been solved.
Actually, there have been 198 calls to the FRBC office on this issue from March 30 until April 14, and 95 percent of them were positive as to the action that the Minister of Forests took on this issue.
The Speaker: The member for Shuswap with a supplemental.
[1425]
G. Abbott: One of the great things about this government's agreement-in-principle on that issue was that it never included the people who were affected by it. The 63 displaced forest workers were one party who were not part of that agreement. It's another example of the pathetic management of this issue by this government.
In fairness to the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca, hon. Speaker, he points the finger not only at FRBC; he also points the finger at his own caucus members. For example, he says: "If the Minister of Social Development had the moxie, she'd clean up this mess in cabinet." Can the Minister of Social Development tell us if she has the moxie to stand up for the thousands of displaced forest workers in this province who have been abandoned by this cabinet?
Hon. J. Pullinger: Well, hon. Speaker, I'm not sure that I could claim all the credit myself, but I can say that we have resolved the problem on this side of the House.
G. Farrell-Collins: It's always interesting to hear what the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca has to say. I know he may not want to get up in the House and ask his questions, but we'll ask them for him. I also want to let him know that if he decides to cross to this side of the House, he'll get his opportunity in question period to ask those questions.
On behalf of the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca, I would like to ask the Minister of Social Development: does she have the moxie to clean up the mess in cabinet? What has she done to clean up the mess in cabinet that was so ably identified by the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca?
The Speaker: The bell ends question period.
Orders of the Day
The Speaker: Government House Leader.
Hon. D. Lovick: Thank you
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I am the epitome of patience, and I can indeed wait. I call committee on Bill 3.
BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2000
The House in committee on Bill 3; T. Stevenson in the chair.
Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.
On section 7.
G. Farrell-Collins: At a number of places in this legislation, there's a requirement for the tax collected and the tax collected in error to be held separately. Those are the words that appear. They don't appear in this section, section 7, of the bill. I just want to ask the question, "Why?" so I don't have to ask it and be out of order at a later date in the debate.
[1430]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member got briefed on the section. The purpose of saying that if a person collects an amount as if it were a tax, he "must remit the amount collected to the director at the same time and in the same manner as tax collected
[ Page 15076 ]
tax in error that it hasn't received the money for, when it would be eligible for refund. Having listened to the member's question, though, I'm not sure I'm precisely on the point he raised, so he might wish to restate the point.
G. Farrell-Collins: This section is similarly repeated in other places in the bill in regard to other tax acts. In those cases it requires any person collecting tax to hold that tax separately. I'm assuming that means in a separate account or a bank account or whatever. Perhaps the minister can clarify. But in this section of the act, for some reason, it doesn't mirror that. Perhaps he can tell me why.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Taxes that are collected are to be held separately -- that is, staff advising the general provision. Holding separately does not necessarily mean a separate bank account, although the collector might choose to do that. What it does mean is that it must be entered separately on the collector's accounts so it is identifiable as tax collected and held in trust, really, for the province of British Columbia.
G. Farrell-Collins: I just wanted to ask that question at that point, because the amendment that does that comes up in section 10. I didn't want to be out of order and not be able to ask the question later.
Perhaps we can move on to section 8 then, Mr. Chairman.
Section 7 approved.
On section 8.
G. Farrell-Collins: This is the section that is the first occurrence in this bill of a provision that recurs throughout the legislation in one form or another. It's an issue that was raised yesterday in second reading as an area of concern -- primarily subsection (4) of the to-be-amended section 16.1, where it says: "Under this Act, an affidavit by the director, or the authorized person referred to in subsection (1), in which are stated the facts necessary to establish (a) compliance by the director or authorized person with this section, or (b) default by a person on whom demand was made under this section must be admitted as evidence in any court and is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of the facts stated."
The concern that we have on this side of the House is that this section reverses the onus of proof, the burden of proof, to the accused as opposed to the accuser. Can the minister explain to us why he feels that type of a provision is required under this act?
[1435]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The intent of the act is, as the member says, that an affidavit is evidence of the facts stated in the affidavit, unless there is evidence to the contrary. That's what the words say, and that's accurate. What this provides is evidence of the facts, not proof of an offence. Proof of an offence has to go
G. Plant: I think what the minister is saying is that the affidavit is not all that's required to prove an offence. That may be so, but that doesn't answer the thrust of the question, which is: why does the government need to reverse the onus of proof with respect to those facts that are set out in the affidavit? Why is it that the government needs to, in effect, tilt the playing field against the accused in respect of these matters and so strongly in favour of the government?
Hon. P. Ramsey: What this provision, this amendment to the act, provides is that the person seeking to get the information on taxes has done the following. In other words, as the person responsible for collecting, I have said that the director or the authorized person may file an affidavit. The affidavit will state facts to show or to establish "compliance by the director or authorized person with this section, or
So in the first case, hon. member, what we're doing here is saying that if the director submits an affidavit that says, "I took the following steps in collection of the tax," and submits an affidavit to that effect, that shall be taken as evidence of that fact. It does not mean that an offence has been committed. It simply says: "Here's the evidence that I, as director or authorized person, have done the following in order to ensure compliance with the act."
G. Plant: Then the evidence in the form of the affidavit "is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of the facts stated." What we're talking about here is, I assume, among other things, the things that are talked about earlier in the section -- that is, that "the director or a person authorized by the director may, by demand notice, require from any person
So the affidavit is going to say: "I'm the director or the authorized person. I made the demand for a return and all these other things. I asked the person to provide the records, and they haven't done it."
What happens when the person, who is later accused of the offence of failing to comply with the obligations to provide those documents, goes into court instead of, in the traditional sense, being met with someone who comes into court and actually gives oral evidence, saying: "These are the things that should have happened, and they didn't happen"? What he sees is an affidavit on the table. He may see nobody else in the courtroom, for all I know. He has to then bear the burden, in front of the justice or the judge, of essentially rebutting the truth.
[S. Hawkins in the chair.]
I mean, it's conceivable that there are important reasons of public policy for why that is so. But I think the concern we have on this side of the House is that we haven't heard those reasons yet. All this looks like is kind of an expedient way of making it easier for the government to prove offences under the act by not requiring people to actually go off to court and give evidence on these matters.
[1440]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member is right.
Oh, welcome to the chair, hon. Chair.
The provision of this is indeed to streamline that part of it -- this part of any proceeding under this section of the act. What I would say to the member is this: if the situation is such that the person on whom the demand is made has responded
[ Page 15077 ]
in some way, that will be part of the affidavit. What the director must file is: "This is what we've tried; this is what the response has been. This is where we are." He or she is reporting on his or her actions and stating that in the form of an affidavit as to the facts. That's what they're doing -- correct?
G. Farrell-Collins: Still, I guess the question here is why it's necessary. If the director has that information -- copies of e-mails, copies of faxes, copies of letters, receipts for double-secured mail -- it would seem to me that you staple that together and plop it in front of the judge. They flip through it, and they say, "Well, what have you got to say?" and then they balance it. I don't understand why the government needs this provision in the act to essentially just miss that entire step of proving whether or not the person was notified.
You know, it's not unheard of for somebody in the public sector to misplace something or think they've sent it. People are busy; I can understand that happening. And somebody at the other end may say: "Look, I never received that letter. I didn't receive that fax." It's not unheard of for that to be the case, that the fax may not have been sent. I think that to just arbitrarily give the benefit of the doubt to the government -- the tax collector, in this case -- without some reason why is going too far.
If the minister can convince us otherwise -- that it's not just arbitrary, that there's a real justice requirement to make that the case in this legislation -- then I'd be interested to hear it.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Thank you, hon. member, for the question. I think it needs to be pointed out clearly that what we're dealing with here is not a situation in which the tax collector and the taxpayer are getting along well -- okay? This is when you have some acrimony between the parties.
Collection is difficult. People may be taking a variety of steps to avoid the remittance of taxation. They may, for example, be simply refusing to collect their mail or receive registered letters or acknowledge receipt in any way. They may have moved and sought to conceal -- that may be too strong a word -- where they're going to.
For the sake of these provisions of the Hotel Room Tax Act -- and the member is correct; there are other such provisions -- the goal here is not to say
Proving wilful avoidance is what's required for an offence. So the reason, as I said, is that this is not for a situation when things are going well; something has seriously broken down. This is a step to say that you can't chase forever; you have to at some point say: "This is what we've tried."
[1445]
G. Plant: At least we're making some progress, I think, in understanding what the government has in mind here. But this is really still
As I read the offence and penalty sections under this act, and as I read this proposed new section, that will be the effect. The government gets another chance to whack that taxpayer on the side of the head because, as the minister says, they're not getting along very well. The minister has a good answer to that: "If you won't answer my letters, I'll charge you for not answering my letters. And guess what. All I'll have to do to prove that offence is prove that I sent you the letter and you didn't send anything back." It seems to me that taken altogether, that stacks the deck a little bit too much in the favour of government at the expense of basic fair treatment for taxpayers, even reluctant taxpayers.
Hon. P. Ramsey: If we poll the set of reluctant taxpayers, it might be a very large number. But let me say that this is where things have gone seriously wrong. Here's the problem with the existing provisions of legislation that the amendment is seeking to improve. The existing legislation says that administrators can request information. It provides no recourse if the taxpayer refuses to do so -- to provide information.
What these provisions say, then, is: "Well, for the sake of that part, if you have an affidavit by the administrator as to what has been done to seek the information, that is evidence of the fact that that's how you've sought the information."
Let me give you a couple of examples. Say that collection action is being considered and you need information confirming the whereabouts and the value of assets that are subject to statutory liens. You've tried to get it; you can't. It's not that an offence has been committed, but you have to have some recourse if the taxpayer simply refuses to respond and provide the necessary information.
G. Farrell-Collins: Without getting out of order, there are a whole bunch of sections coming up that deal with this in one form or another. One really does need to look at them together. So if the minister will permit me the opportunity to comment
Sections to follow create the provisions in the act that will make that an offence: a failure to cooperate. What's the wording in section 13? It's: "
But when you come back to section 8, what it's doing is saying that the government doesn't need to prove its case relevant to the failure to cooperate. Really, all they have to do is file an affidavit that says that this person won't talk to us.
[ Page 15078 ]
Therefore that's proof that the person won't talk to you, and then you go ahead to the next section and say that that is wilfully failing to cooperate. And that's the offence.
[1450]
G. Plant: And they don't even have to go into court to say that. All they have to do is file an affidavit.
G. Farrell-Collins: As the member said, you aren't even required to go to court to do that; you just file an affidavit. What you're doing is putting the person
This is in a case where people obviously aren't talking. Read together, the government is creating some pretty onerous requirements for cooperation from the taxpayer and then jigging the rules to make it that much easier for the government to convict the person of the offence that follows in a later part of the bill. The minister is shaking his head; perhaps he can explain to me why I'm wrong.
E. Gillespie: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
E. Gillespie: I would ask the House to join me in welcoming the second half of the group of students from Village Park Elementary, who are here with their teachers and a number of parents. I see Mr. Al Pullin, their teacher, here with them. Please join me in making them most welcome.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Two points. First, I think your colleague there was actually shaking his head as you were through the second part of your assertion, because the facts submitted in the affidavit saying that there is a default by a person -- you know, "We've issued these notices; we've gotten no reply
Second, I would say this: the affidavit must be admitted as evidence, and it is proof of the facts stated in the absence of evidence to the contrary. If there is contrary evidence, it is an affidavit. It is, "This is what we tried to do," and that's all it is.
G. Farrell-Collins: That isn't all it is; it is also proof. It is proof. It is evidence and proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of a set of facts. Those facts then become the basis for which somebody -- or the government -- goes and tries to obtain conviction for an offence. It shifts the burden of proof of those facts from the government, from the tax collector, to the person who's supposed to remit the tax. The government makes its assertion, the other person makes theirs, and it's the other way around. It's up to the person who's supposed to be remitting the tax to prove their case. They're the defendant; they're the ones who have to go in and prove that the facts aren't as the government has stated. In fact, it's the government's obligation to make those facts, to state that case and to convince a judge that that's the case.
What the government is doing by saying that it becomes proof is giving the judge no opportunity whatsoever to evaluate the credibility of the government's assertions in the affidavit. It comes before the judge, who says: "Look, this is what the act says." Or I'm the lawyer for the government, and I say: "Here's our affidavit. That's proof, and unless the defendant can prove otherwise, we have a basic understanding of the facts in this case. Now you can understand, Madam Judge, why I want to charge this person with an offence under failure to cooperate."
It's the first step, but it's nine-tenths of the way to a conviction. It may not convict somebody of an offence, but it gets you nine-tenths of the way there. It gives no leeway to the judge. That's why we give judges the ability to make those determinations based on the evidence. The government is requiring the defendant in this case to prove their innocence beforehand. The government then has the balance of power in this case. It shifts it dramatically, and it does that repeatedly throughout this bill.
[1455]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I guess I'd say this. What this provision provides is that the director or person authorized must provide an affidavit that says: "This is what we've done." He has to show that the provisions of this act have been adhered to. Those provisions include the serving of demand notice, and it lists ways in which that can be done. You can do it by personal service, registered mail or electronic file. It has to specify a reasonable time. It may require the written statement. These are the things that have to be done. What the affidavit says is: "This is what we've attempted to do; in the absence of evidence to the contrary, this is what occurred."
I understand that
G. Farrell-Collins: If it's the way the minister says -- that it really is just a way of putting it out there -- then he doesn't need the clause in the bill that says it shall be proof. You just say that you submit an affidavit. That's your evidence. The other person can be there and submit their evidence, and the judge decides. The judge can cross-examine the defendant. The judge can't cross-examine an affidavit, though, because the director isn't there; just the affidavit is there. It makes it much more difficult for the judge to determine what happened and what didn't happen.
What does a judge do if the government gives an affidavit that says that this is what happened, and the defendant shows up and says: "Well, that's not what happened. This is my case." So the lawyer for the government cross-examines the defendant; the lawyer for the defendant can't cross-examine an affidavit. So the judge is left there trying to make up their mind. Now all they're doing is weighing the evidence that's put there to the contrary. They have no ability to weigh the evidence that's put there with the affidavit. Depending on what's going on over here, with no opportunity to cross-examine the government's person -- the director -- who provided the evidence, the judge has to decide in favour of the government. If that's not the case, then the government doesn't need this section.
[ Page 15079 ]
As it would be now, my understanding is that the director or someone would come in and say: "This is what we've done." They could submit it. They could hand in an affidavit; they could give a list; they could staple it all together and hand it to the judge -- submit it as evidence. The defendant would say: "Here's what I've done, and this is my side of the story." And then the judge would listen to the cross-examination and make a decision.
I don't see how that's a bad process. If there's something
Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't think that the members opposite and I are really disagreeing greatly on what the provision does. I think we have an understanding of that. I think we are in some disagreement about whether it is necessary to ensure a smooth operation of the act and collection of taxes.
[1500]
Interjection.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Smooth and fair -- okay?
Interjection.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Absolutely. Efficient and fair -- both sides.
I would point out to the members opposite that this provision is not unlike -- in fact, it is mirrored in -- other provisions of tax collection acts. For example, the notice of assessment says that this is the assessment, contrary to evidence that says it isn't. There are a variety of provisions in this bill and others that mirror this procedure.
I would point out that what is being attested to in the affidavit is the actions of the director or his designate: "This is what I've done. Here are the attempts to communicate. Here's when the faxes have been sent. This is what I know, within my ken, about what has been done."
If the person contesting it provides an affidavit to the contrary
An Hon. Member: It doesn't say that.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, hold on now. If a person who's contesting it has evidence to the contrary, then this affidavit is not evidence of the facts stated.
G. Farrell-Collins: I think we've come to some understanding on both sides as to what it does. The question I have for the minister is why. Why the need to change this? What's wrong with the current process that it requires this change?
Hon. P. Ramsey: This provision provides that there is an end point to the process, that there is certainty about what has been done and what the facts are. That's what it does.
G. Farrell-Collins: There's an end point to all processes. This doesn't provide an end point; it provides an easier end point or an earlier end point or a smoother end point or a more efficient end point, from the government's point of view. From the taxpayers' point of view, it may not be earlier or better or smoother or more efficient; it may just be more unfair. This is about fairness. This isn't about what's comfortable for the government or what's easy for the government. This is about fairness. If it keeps the system the same way as it is now -- which I would argue is fair -- then why is the government so excited about the earlier end point? Obviously to get an earlier end point or bring it to a conclusion quicker
That's the problem with it. There is no need, if the current system is fair, to do this. The only need I can see for it is for the government's sake. It makes it easier, less expensive, more comfortable, more efficient, etc., and I would argue that those aren't sufficient grounds to remove and reverse the onus of proof for evidence that goes before a judge in this case.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The only thing I can say about our disagreement about the necessity of this is that these provisions are put forward to provide the province with the ability to get information. This provides an end point for saying that this is what has been done.
We have a common agreement about what these provisions do. I think that what we're debating is the necessity for it. I would point out to the member that we are not dealing with potential taxpayers who are cooperating with the collection of taxes. These are folks who are not providing information, who are seeking to avoid the provision of information, who are going to do a lot to impede the collection of taxes that are owing.
I understand that you want to balance -- and I think both sides of the House would agree -- efficiency with fairness. I believe this is a fairly elaborate procedure. What the affidavit does not say is: "Here's an affidavit. An offence has been committed. It's over." That is not what these provisions do. All they do is say: "Here is what we've done to obtain the information. Here's what we've done in an effort to communicate. Here's our affidavit as to what we've done." If whoever is adjudicating the matter doesn't have evidence to the contrary, then those are the facts before the adjudicator as he or she looks at the provision or the requirement to pay taxes.
[1505]
G. Farrell-Collins: I think that for the most part, we have similar understandings of what this does. I think the minister is making the assumption -- and I think the government is too -- that because this person is failing or choosing not to deal with the government on this issue, they're necessarily guilty. Therefore we can amend and take shortcuts and tighten up the process in order to obtain a conviction. That's essentially what it is. The government has decided that these people, whoever they are, as a group and as individuals are bad actors and the government is going to change the rules to make it easier to get those people that the government has already decided are bad actors.
The problem is that it's not up to the government to decide they're bad actors; it's up to a court to decide whether or not they're bad actors. In order for a court to decide whether or not they're bad actors, the balance of evidence should be weighed fairly. The minister can't tell me that this is just going to make it a little more efficient and that, really, all it's about is an affidavit about what's done, because at later sections in this bill, particularly section 13, it does create an
[ Page 15080 ]
offence. It does say what an offence is, and it makes an amendment. "Offence" used to mean that you had to obstruct or hinder an investigation; now you can be charged with an offence just if you don't cooperate.
It's not unheard of for an individual or a business person and the tax collector to have disagreements. That happens a lot, I would imagine. And in some cases the government's right, and in some cases the business person is right. That's why the government keeps coming back here year after year closing loopholes as a result of tax legislation they passed years previously, where they've lost court cases. I mean, the government repeatedly loses court cases on its tax policy, on tax legislation, and the defendant wins.
I would assume that the reason the government took those people to court in the first place was because they thought they were bad actors. They weren't paying their taxes, as the government understood the legislation. When the government loses those cases, or repeatedly loses cases, the government puts into place legislation like this to change the balance of the rules of evidence, to change the provisions, to create new offences such as failure to cooperate with the tax collector. And therefore they're going to solve their problem.
It may well be that you've got a really bad actor out there who just simply refuses to remit any taxes, continues to collect them, refuses to submit them, won't talk to you, doesn't return mail, etc., and the government needs to go after them. But what about the person who just really disagrees with the interpretation of the legislation and gets into a strained-at-best relationship with somebody in the Ministry of Finance who's collecting those taxes? The communications break down for whatever reason, and they stop talking to each other. Now that can create an offence under the act, and the evidence required to convict you is weighed in favour of the government because of the provision that we're putting here in section 8.
That's my concern with the legislation. The minister, in my opinion, has yet to prove that he needs these changes to the legislation in order to ensure a fair levy of taxes and a fair process of collecting taxes. I don't buy the explanation that we've received to date. I don't think it's sufficient to warrant these provisions, and unless the minister can quickly convince us otherwise, we won't be supporting this section.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd only say this: we can have the debate on what offences are being created later, when we get to that section -- okay? We are dealing with section 8 and the provision of affidavit information as to attempts to obtain information by the director or authorized person. That's the part that we're dealing with here.
We can have the debate further down the line about what the offence provisions are here. But I can only go back and say what I've said before. I have really nothing to add to why or what this section, section 8, provides.
[1510]
G. Plant: Well, I can't figure out whether I can accept the section that we have before us, the idea of this affidavit, without having some sense of what the affidavit is going to be used for. When I turn the page and see that in a later section in this bill, the affidavit is going to be available to assist the government in proving a wider range of offences than is currently the case, I get a bit concerned. Most of the points have been made. I think we have reached a certain level of understanding not only about how the section works but on the way in which we disagree with each other.
One of the things that's very interesting about the discussion is that I think we have been having this discussion on the assumption that all we're doing is talking about people who should be paying hotel room tax. Oddly enough, subsection (1) of the section in front of us does not limit the director's ability to require affidavits from people who should be paying hotel room tax. The director can write a letter, or whatever it is that the director does, to anybody they want to -- the Leader of the Opposition, the minister's staff, the guys who live down the street -- and say: "You know what? I'm making a demand under this act. I require that you file a return, that you provide me with information about the tax I've decided you owe, that you produce all the records you have and that you produce a written statement. You've got -- oh, I don't know -- ten days, 14 days, to return; that's a reasonable time. I've delivered this to you personally; I can prove that. And actually, because I don't even know who you are, I require that you go and get an affidavit."
Now, the person on the receiving end of this may never have actually set foot in a hotel in his life, let alone operated one. He may think that when he gets a letter from the government, his best way of dealing with it is that before he reads it, he burns it. Oddly enough, by doing that, he will have committed the offence in the next section. He may never have walked into a hotel, and he may never have operated a hotel, but one thing he surely will have done, under this act, is refuse to cooperate with the director. When you take that and add that
Well, the sad fact is that directors, from time to time, do in fact do those sorts of things. I think that is why, when we're drafting provisions like this and looking at giving the state the power to invade the privacy of people's lives, we should be fair about how we do it. When I look at what this does, this effectively allows the government to presumptively prove all of the necessary ingredients of offences under this act without anything more than an affidavit.
The minister says: "Well, surely in those circumstances the guy on the receiving end of all this is going to go off to court and defend himself." Well, the guy on the receiving end of this shouldn't be in court. He's never been in a hotel; he's never operated an hotel. He's never had anything to do with hotels. Why should he be in court?
I think this goes further than the government needs to go in order to meet its requirements of efficiency. What it does is compromise the fairness that taxpayers should be afforded, in the interests of government efficiency.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Until that last one, I thought we were actually narrowing the gap between us. I think we've just widened it again. Let's make the following points again.
The affidavit that we're referencing under section 8 does not constitute proof of an offence. It simply does not do that. It provides, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the facts about attempts to gather evidence.
Secondly, the assumption that because the word "person" is used in subsection (1) of this act, anybody could be filed and have information requested on any subject under this act is
[ Page 15081 ]
simply false. I think the member knows that. You can't jerk this section out of the act. A director operating that way would be way outside any legislated mandate. The word "person" here is somebody who has an obligation under that act. You simply can't jerk it out of the middle of an act like that.
[1515]
Interjection.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Chair, I think we're engaging in good debate back and forth, but I do believe that the member's suggestion
Section 8 approved on division.
Sections 9 to 12 inclusive approved.
On section 13.
G. Farrell-Collins: This is the section that I think relates back, although other sections in the act do also, to the provisions we were just debating. This is the concern that I raised earlier. In this section it changes what the act used to say, which was something to the effect of
Now, under this section of the act, it becomes an offence just to not be happy about it. It says: "If you fail to cooperate with the government, then you're creating an offence." So a failure to respond to the notifications, etc., itself
G. Plant: Why should we cooperate with them?
G. Farrell-Collins: Exactly.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Here's my understanding of why this provision is being incorporated here. First, the offence sections of all the consumption acts that we're dealing with here -- Hotel Room Tax Act, Motor Fuel Tax Act, Social Service Tax Act, Tobacco Tax Act -- are being amended to eliminate reference to what are called minor infractions and to bring consistency to those provisions of these acts, which are very similar. All of those acts -- the Motor Fuel Tax Act, Social Service Tax Act, Tobacco Tax Act -- currently have a provision in them that a person subject to an audit or inspection must provide all the information requested by the director or commissioner and that failure to do so is an offence. All of them except this act already do that. But they are called minor infractions or minor offences. Those provisions are all being repealed, and for consistency we're moving them all into this clause.
At the same time, we're making the Hotel Room Tax Act consistent with the other three in saying that failure to provide information requested is an offence. That's what this provision is doing. I don't think it's as momentous as the debate that we're having about it. The offence is there currently in all acts except the Hotel Room Tax Act -- these four. It's being moved to this section, because we're repealing section 38(1).
[1520]
G. Farrell-Collins: Again, perhaps the minister can tell us why it's necessary to take out the minor provisions and put in failure to cooperate as a catch-all which, one could argue, is now elevated to the level of a full offence.
Hon. P. Ramsey: We need to retain it simply in order to carry out the business of doing audits and getting information. Otherwise, somebody could simply say: "I'm not cooperating; I'm not giving you the information."
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you; I appreciate that. My colleague was trying to make a point. I'll try and make it to the minister, but let me ask a question first. The minister is telling me why they need to retain something in the act. He's not telling me the rationale for the two amendments. Why change from what's there now to what the government is trying to put in?
It seems to me that what the government has now done is that instead of having two classifications of offences -- i.e. the hinder-molest ones, which I would say are class 1 offences, if you want to put it that way, and then sort of class 2 offences, which are about failing to give certain information when requested, etc
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll try to be to your point, because you're really
G. Farrell-Collins: Yes.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Okay, good. The reason for saying that we're going to do away with those and rationalize the offence
[ Page 15082 ]
provisions is to make sure
Well, the province simply doesn't do that. It doesn't prosecute for those offences, for minor and unintentional infractions. Therefore including those minor offences, as I understand it, provides little guidance to assist the court in determining what's serious and what's not. As I understand it also, the courts then become hesitant to impose the higher penalties of serious infractions, because it's not clear what's serious and what isn't. So what we're doing in this act -- and it's paralleled in others, as you've pointed out -- is removing the offence provisions under section 38(1), the references to unintentional infractions. They will still be subject to administrative compliance measures, but you don't go to court and prosecute and seek jail time.
[1525]
G. Farrell-Collins: So the minister is removing those smaller provisions from the act
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Right. But earlier the minister said that the reason for needing the failure-to-cooperate provision under what is an offence is because the government is removing these small items from the list. What the minister is saying is
He's arguing two things. One is that we need to get rid of these little provisions, because we really don't use them anyway. It's not very good to have them in there; it clouds things. And then he's arguing that the reason we need to elevate and put cooperation in with all the other major offences is because we're removing these little things.
If the minister is saying that they're not important, so they're going out of the act, then why do they go back in the act as a full-fledged offence under the category of failure to cooperate?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm sorry if we have not understood each other on this point. First, the removal of the minor infractions from section 38 of the act as prosecutable offences and moving those down under section 14, the next one we're looking at, is simply to say that you shouldn't be prosecuting those. You should have administrative ways of dealing with that sort of thing. I think we're in agreement that that makes sense.
What I hope I didn't misstate is the idea of failure to comply or cooperate. That is not seen as minor. Failure to cooperate is seen as something that can indeed block the ability of the administrator and officers to actually enforce provisions of the act. So, yes, it is seen as something that is important. That is why it is being included in section 36(1) of the act, under section 13 of Bill 3.
G. Farrell-Collins: Now that we've returned from the minister's segue into section 14, which I never raised at all but rather the minister raised as an attempt to justify the need for the cooperation provision in this section, let's get back to the beginning of the debate.
The minister, then, if I heard him correctly, is saying that a failure to cooperate -- to provide information that's asked for, etc. -- is, in his opinion and in the government's opinion, as severe an offence as interference, hindrance or obstruction. Therefore the government intends to elevate to the same level as those others that I just mentioned the offence of failure to cooperate, without defining what failure to cooperate means. Is that correct?
[1530]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member is correct in saying that we do consider this section important to administration of the Hotel Room Tax Act. Failure to provide information under the inspection and audit provisions of the act can indeed not only impede but frustrate application of the act. That is an offence of seriousness, we believe, and we have included it along with the other matters that you've talked about in this act.
G. Farrell-Collins: I would hazard a guess here as to what's happened. The minister is saying that failure to cooperate means not providing information, not being forthcoming, and that that in fact
If failure to provide information meets the test of hindering an investigation, obstructing an investigation or molesting somebody attempting to engage in an investigation, audit or examination, then I would think that the government could be able to prove that in court.
I would hazard a guess that what has happened is that the government tried to do that and failed that test and lost the case, whatever it was. Perhaps the minister can advise me if that is what happened. The government lost that test in court, came back and said, "The court has said or perhaps the ministry themselves have determined that failure to provide information doesn't meet the test of hindering or obstructing or molesting," and then has gone and drafted this legislation, this catch-all failure to cooperate.
At no point that I can see in this amendment does the government define what failure to cooperate is. It's a very broad offence provision. It could be consistently not showing up on time at your place of business when the auditors arrive. It could be taking your time to rummage through the attic finding information, or perhaps looking for it and not finding it, because your filing system isn't very good, and the auditor has to get up in the attic and rummage through there and find it. There could be all sorts
Hon. P. Ramsey: I will go back to the starting point of this debate as well. All of the acts that we're debating around these provisions -- the Hotel Room Tax Act, the Motor Fuel Tax Act, the Social Service Tax Act, Tobacco Tax Act -- now contain a provision that requires a person subject to an audit or inspection to provide all the information requested by the director or commissioner, except the Hotel Room Tax Act. We are putting that into the Hotel Room Tax Act by section 13, the one that we are debating now.
[ Page 15083 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: That may be the case; it may not be the case. I'll argue that in a minute. If the minister is saying that because and only because of the lack of legislation that requires information be provided when requested -- his statement is that that doesn't exist in this act -- we need to create this provision of failure to cooperate
Hon. P. Ramsey: We are providing consistency across the acts. Failure to cooperate with an audit or inspection by providing the information, by providing the records, is an offence under the other acts, and now it will be under this act.
G. Farrell-Collins: Then perhaps the minister is going to be able to explain to me when we get to the other sections in this bill, where failure to cooperate is also added to the offence provisions there, why it's required if it already exists in the act.
Hon. P. Ramsey: We'll wait till we get to those sections.
[1535]
G. Plant: I also want to pursue a line of questioning here, but it would be very helpful, as a beginning to that line of questioning, to ask if the minister knows the answer to this question. Is failure to cooperate currently an offence in respect of any other provincial taxation statute? I want to be really precise about this. I'm no longer interested in talking about specific acts of failing to provide documents. I'm talking about the word "cooperate" as an ingredient of an offence. Is that word already in the laws of British Columbia in respect of taxation statutes -- in offences under those acts -- or are we doing this for the first time now?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm advised by staff that the words "to cooperate with an inspection, audit or examination" do not occur in that particular wording in the other acts. The concept that you must provide records and books, you must avoid hindering or molesting or interfering with an inspection audit, you must not prevent or attempt to prevent a person from carrying out an inspection -- that language and that concept are there.
G. Plant: I followed the debate that preceded this debate, and I have all of the concerns that my colleague the Opposition House Leader has, but I want to add this to those concerns. I think "cooperate" is just a stupid word to use when you're talking about creating a quasi-criminal offence. That's the point. Cooperation is about working together. I want to be really careful and really precise about this, because some poor soul is going to get dragged in front of some poor judge, and they're going to spend a day arguing about the word "cooperate." What's going to be at stake is thousands and thousands of dollars, not just the pleasantries of an afternoon in this chamber.
We're talking about creating quasi-criminal offences which, so far as I know, have thousands of dollars in fines at stake and perhaps the possibility of imprisonment. And we're not talking about the state and its citizenry getting along when we're talking about criminal law; we're talking about people who are alleged to have broken the law, and that's usually pretty serious stuff.
The word cooperation, in The Concise Oxford Dictionary, means "working together to the same end." And cooperate means "work or act together
I don't get to first base with the notion that the business of creating criminal offences in the laws of British Columbia has any sense when you're talking about making the taxpayer and the tax collector work together. Somehow the picture of them holding hands doesn't make sense to me.
"Hinder," "molest," "obstruct," "prevent" and "impede" are very good words to use in a criminal law context. You have an obligation, taxpayer, to do something; you have obstructed that. You have stopped it; you have prevented it from happening. That's something that you the taxpayer did all by yourself, and you are a bad person for doing that.
But no, no. We're now going to take all those concepts, and we're using this word that I think is a high-risk word. We're talking about failure to cooperate. Yes, we're actually talking about refusal to cooperate. This is not a debate about the difference between refusal and failure. It's a debate about whether or not the word cooperate is the right word.
The section that we're looking at does have those other words in it -- the "hinder" word, the "molest" word, the "obstruct", the "prevent" and the "impede" words -- that are there through these other taxation statutes. But now we're saying that you don't just have a kind of moral obligation, taxpayer, to work with us. You don't just have a kind of citizenship obligation.
[1540]
G. Farrell-Collins: You have to like it.
G. Plant: You have to like it. And if you don't like it
All of the examples my colleague gave are precisely on point. It seems to me that the government is overreaching here and that this is the wrong word to use. It's the wrong concept to introduce into quasi-criminal taxation statutes, and I really urge the minister to reconsider that.
In fact, I don't think there's any disagreement on this side of the House with the idea that someone who refuses to comply with the statutory obligation to produce a record should have some sanctions. If the taxpayer in question knows that the obligation is to provide the records that he's been asked to provide and then fails to do it, there's some certainty. There's certainty around what his or her conduct is, and there's certainty around what the consequences will be for failure to comply with those rules. But here, failure to cooperate
G. Farrell-Collins: The member read from the dictionary the definition of cooperation. I can remember watching "Sesame Street" when I was a kid, and there was a song about cooperation. It all had to do with getting along and helping each other and making things work. As the minister highlighted earlier, at the point where this act comes into force and these offence provisions come into force, there aren't a lot of smiling people in the room. Generally, it's broken down.
I think the government has, right now, words in its legislation that will demand that those individuals comply with a demand for information. They're: "
[ Page 15084 ]
vent a person from carrying out an inspection, audit
Cooperation is just such a lovely, wonderful word. It could be interpreted to mean anything; it's so broad. Now you're going to throw this in front of the courts. This is the thing that drives the courts crazy. It's a thing that drives citizens around the bend when they end up in a court and find out: "Not only do I have to provide all this stuff, but if I refuse to cooperate, I'm in trouble." Lots of people don't like paying their taxes. Some people don't mind. But many cases
There are countless cases where the government has passed a law that says this is what the tax is, this is how much you have to pay and this is the interpretation of the act. Then they go out and try to collect it, and the taxpayer, very legitimately, says: "That's not how I read it. I and my lawyer or my accountant say that this is what it means." You both have good arguments. Those arguments go before a court at some point. But in the meantime, it can get pretty ugly between the tax collector and the person who's required to submit the tax. If the tax collector has these nice little words about "failure to cooperate" in the form of a big mallet ready to beat the person silly if they fail to cooperate
Does "fail to cooperate" mean you're not happy about it, that you're objecting? A citizen reading this or lawyers reading this could say: "You know, if you get on the phone with the tax collector and tell him to take a hike and you don't agree with the act, and you have a big argument about what the act is and slam the phone down and end up exchanging some harsh words
G. Plant: Two years.
G. Farrell-Collins:
[1545]
Secondly, the minister says it appears everywhere else. This is the only place it appears. That can't be the case, because there are about three or four or five sections of this bill before us today -- this very bill before us today -- where we're adding "failure to cooperate" to a whole bunch of other legislation. It doesn't currently exist in legislation, as the minister says. It will exist if we pass this legislation.
That's what's before the House today: whether or not "failure to cooperate" is something we want to seed and sow into the fabric of every piece of tax collection legislation that's out there. I think the minister and the government are heading for disaster with that kind of a provision in there. I know that the taxpayers are heading for a disaster trying to deal with what that means -- "failure to cooperate" -- when it appears that all it really means is that the government wants to be able to enforce the requirement to produce documents. If that's what you want, then say that. Put that in the legislation, but not these airy-fairy words "failure to cooperate" that are there now.
Hon. P. Ramsey: That was an impassioned speech in favour of cooperation, I think, but not necessarily the word "cooperation."
Let me say this first. The offence of not cooperating does exist as a minor infraction in the other acts, except the hotel act. I believe it exists with the word "cooperate."
Interjection.
Hon. P. Ramsey: No? Okay. Thank you.
Second, you might actually make the argument that a taxpayer's interests -- in actually figuring out what the heck his or her obligations are and refuting somebody who might say, "Your obligations are this," when they're actually that -- would require cooperation to provide the necessary records and get the necessary analysis done.
But having said all that, in the interest of cooperation in this chamber, hon. Chair, I'll agree to stand down at this section, and we'll proceed with section 14 and following. I'll ask staff to take a hard look at this and see if we can find an alternative.
The Chair: Section 13 is stood down.
On section 14.
G. Farrell-Collins: I thank the minister for doing that. I think that if staff goes back, better wording can be found, and it can apply to the other legislation and perhaps will head off a problem in the future.
With that, I'm prepared to move to section 17 for debate.
Sections 14 to 16 inclusive approved.
On section 17.
G. Farrell-Collins: Section 17 is the provision that reduces the small business income tax rate from 5.5 percent to 4.75 percent. At the time it was announced, it was the lowest in Canada. Now it's the lowest, I think, in western Canada. By the end of the year, it might be the lowest in British Columbia. But that's a provision that we support. If the government buys into the fact that you can reduce income tax rates without damaging government revenues in such a severe way that you gut health care and education, I hope that they will take up that argument in other provisions of tax revenue, particularly personal income tax cuts also.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member is quite right. We had the great privilege of having the very lowest small business tax rate in Canada for one day. New Brunswick beat us by a quarter of a percent. So I guess you could say we're the lowest west of Fredericton, which is a substantial portion of the country, hon. members. I am very pleased that we are introducing this. I think it does signal to the small business community that we value their vital role in job creation in B.C.
[ Page 15085 ]
[1550]
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
Section 17 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]
On section 18.
The Chair: We'll just wait for a moment while those members who need to get about to other business do so.
[1555]
R. Neufeld: This section obviously changes the expenses that are allowed under the qualified mining exploration expense. I can only assume -- the minister is here, and maybe he could respond to it -- that there were some problems related to what has transpired in the past over this and that this is a correction to look after some problems -- that maybe some expenses were claimed that shouldn't have been. Would that be correct to assume?
Hon. P. Ramsey: This is straight clarification, to harmonize with the federal provisions.
R. Neufeld: Okay. I see that in the act. I wonder, then, why we backdate it to July 31, 1998, and before August 1, 2003. Why would we backdate something, then?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Because that is the life of the program -- those dates.
R. Neufeld: Would it be fair, then, to assume that the government intends to go back on some of the claims that were made and reassess them back to July 31, 1998? Would that be fair to say?
Hon. P. Ramsey: This only applied in future audits. We're not going to go back and redo past stuff.
R. Neufeld: I guess I have a bit of trouble with that explanation, because you have specifically put a date of July 31, 1998, in there. To conform with the federal act, I guess
[1600]
Can the minister explain to me why that wouldn't be necessary, then, if we're going to go from today forward and not backdate to July 31, 1998? It definitely leads me to believe that the minister can go back to that time and reassess some of those expenses.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The intent of subsection 9 here is to actually encourage exchange of information between the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Energy and Mines and to avoid duplicate gathering of the same information.
Obviously the Ministry of Finance would already be able to gather information relevant for an application of a tax credit under this act. What this provision does is allow that information to be gathered by the Ministry of Energy and Mines and furthermore to share that information with the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Energy and Mines already collects a good deal of information that is relevant to application of these provisions of the act. Therefore, rather than go out and do it again, we can simply ask the Ministry of Energy and Mines to provide it, relevant to application of this Act.
R. Neufeld: I guess I have another question about that. That's an interesting explanation. Maybe I'm unaware of this. Can the Ministry of Energy and Mines and the Ministry of Finance not share information on tax credits without having to write into legislation that you must do that?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Welcome to the wonderful world of FOI.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate his response. I guess it's thanks to the wonderful world of the NDP. But in any event, we'll let that one go.
I would like some comfort, though. I mean, for the minister just to say that, no, it will be from this day forward -- that's really not the way I read this. I have some fear that there will be some backdating. I'm not aware of any; I'm not aware of anyone that is fearful of this. I'm just saying that if that's what we're going to do -- it's from this day forward -- why wouldn't we state that somewhere in this section? We leave it pretty open-ended, because we do say it's for the whole program. I understand what the minister says about July 31, 1998, until the expiry of the program. But there's no assurance other than the minister just standing in the House saying: "This will not happen." It's really not in the legislation. Is there some other way that we can do that?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me just say this. First, on subsection (9), I just can't let it pass. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act does allow the protection of personal information. I think we want, when that information's going to be shared, clear provisions for how and why and what uses it's going to be put to. That's what subsection (9) does.
As for why section 18(c), section 25.1(1)(b) sets the time period of July 1, 1998, to August 1, 2003, as I said, those are the dates of the program. An audit, even an audit that the federal government may start next year, could well be retrospective to that date. So you need to be able to have the provision consistent and to treat people consistently across the entirety of the program, and that's why it's there.
Do we intend to go and open a whole bunch of new audits for stuff that's already been cleared and filed? No, we do not. I don't know how you'd do that in legislation, though. That is administration and implementation of an act, not the legislation.
[1605]
R. Neufeld: I guess we have it on the record. I appreciate the minister being as clear as he was on the record that they won't be retroactive.
I have another question on section 18(c), and it's on (d). It says: "
[ Page 15086 ]
Columbia
Mining occurs in many parts of the province and could occur way up in the northwestern part of the province, where it's much closer to Whitehorse to access goods and services than it would be out of British Columbia. I just wonder
It could happen in the Kootenays, also, in the southeastern part of British Columbia, where it's much closer to Alberta than it is to access those services out of British Columbia. If the minister could just give me that assurance that in the regulations he will make some adjustment for that, we'll let that go.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think, by the provision of the phrase "or substantially all" what we've sought to do is provide some flexibility in administration of the act without throwing it so wide open that you could claim a tax credit for goods or services that have nothing to do with British Columbia. So the "substantially all," I think, is an attempt
R. Neufeld: I've just one last question on that same section. I'll ask the minister again: will he give us some assurance that in the regulation there will be something said -- so that you will in fact deal with that in as fair a manner as you can? I realize that it doesn't say all, but it says substantially. You could have a program in northwestern British Columbia that would have nothing coming out of British Columbia. It could have everything coming out of Whitehorse or Watson Lake or something to that effect, just because of the closeness, the proximity, the roads, the access -- all those kinds of things. It's not because the person didn't want to purchase that in British Columbia; it's just that it makes good economic sense to purchase it out of another province. If we can have more or less that assurance
Hon. P. Ramsey: In this, as in other provisions, as the member knows, we're seeking to harmonize with the federal application of tax credits. I believe there is the sort of flexibility of application that the member talks about under that. We intend to provide the same sort of flexibility here.
Sections 18 to 39 inclusive approved.
[1610]
An Hon. Member: Progress.
On section 40.
G. Farrell-Collins: Progress in fits and starts, I would say.
I have a brief question for the minister on section 40. This is similar to a section which was in the Hotel Room Tax Act -- section 7 of the bill, I believe -- which we discussed earlier. In this section, this amendment of section 35.1 of the Motor Fuel Tax Act, in the explanatory notes, although it doesn't say it in the actual section itself
The explanatory note at the very end says: "
Hon. P. Ramsey: The provision does require that the person that collects motor fuel tax, or an amount as if it were, hold the money in trust for the government apart from the person's other money. This may well be an error in the drafting of the notes here. As the member says, the words don't reflect that. The principle, as I've talked about earlier with regard to section 7, is that you don't have to have a separate bank account. You do have to have a separate accounting entry for money that's held in trust for the government in respect to motor fuel tax.
G. Farrell-Collins: Then the minister is assuring me, at this point, that one is not required to go out and set up another bank account and put all the money there -- deposit it separately, account for it separately. I'll take that as his comment.
Perhaps in the intervening period, as we go through the act, it can be determined what that means, then, under sub (2) "
Hon. P. Ramsey: It was not the case. It was not intended to be the case. Staff are unaware of any potential amendment that would have required it to be the case.
G. Farrell-Collins: The subsection (3) of the bill
[ Page 15087 ]
The reason that I'm curious about that is because the following subsection, subsection 35.1(3) of section 40 of the bill, is an interesting one. I want to read it into the record. It says: "Until an amount of tax and an amount collected as if it were tax referred to in subsection (2)" -- so until money you've collected as tax has been remitted to the government -- "are paid, the unpaid amount forms a lien and charge on the entire assets of the person who collected it, or the person's estate in the hands of any trustee, and has priority over all other claims of any person."
Is the minister telling me that if I have a business and I've collected motor fuel tax at that business -- an incorporated entity -- and that tax has not been remitted to the government, in effect there's a lien on my home, my summer cottage, my car -- whatever? Is that what this provision is intended to do?
[1615]
Hon. P. Ramsey: It's a lien on whatever the incorporated entity is that's collecting the motor fuel tax.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister is saying it's a lien on the person as defined under the
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: My colleague has a question, so I'll let him ask his question.
G. Plant: I was able to follow some but not all of the earlier debate on this section. But I want to go back to subsection (2) and the requirement to hold funds in trust. Does the government mean by this that the funds will be held in trust subject to the ordinary private law rules around trusts, which include questions and considerations about what happens when you mix trust funds and how you distinguish trust funds from non-trust funds and all of that other stuff? Is that what the government has in mind here?
G. Farrell-Collins: Is this big I, big T? Or is it little i, little t?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Small i, small t -- you're holding these funds in trust for the government; that's all it means. All those other provisions of trust funds don't apply to this. I hope the member also heard my discussion with his colleague about whether this required separate accounts and whatever. It does not.
G. Plant: I did hear that, and I appreciate that that's the government's intention. What was behind my question was to find out whether, as a practical matter, taxpayers are going to be able to rely on that assurance or in fact have to act prudently and open separate accounts. It was in that context that I asked my question. I think the minister is saying that, in effect, if the funds are separately accounted for in the books and records, then that is the extent of the trust that the taxpayer has in relation to those funds.
Hon. P. Ramsey: A similar concept and, staff say, the same wording have existed for years in the Tobacco Tax Act, the Social Service Tax Act and the Hotel Room Tax Act. It hasn't created those sorts of difficulties there, and I wouldn't expect it to create them here.
Sections 40 to 43 inclusive approved.
On section 44.
G. Plant: This provision raises for the first time in the bill the issue of warrantless searches, warrantless inspections and warrantless seizures. In the first subsection of section 49, which is entitled "Inspection powers," there are provisions that allow a justice to issue a warrant authorizing a peace officer to enter and search premises, and so on, in order to inspect and take samples and so on.
Then in subsection (2) it goes on to say that if a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that some of the sections of the act are not being complied with, and it is impracticable to obtain a warrant, the peace officer may, without a warrant, stop a motor vehicle and inspect its tank or container. So there are circumstances in which a peace officer may stop a motor vehicle and conduct an inspection -- conduct that inspection in order to pursue the possibility of offences being committed under the act -- and may do so without a warrant.
[1620]
As the minister knows, I'm sure, there is a huge body of pretty fundamental principles and some pretty technical law that relate to and define and circumscribe the circumstances in which the state -- the government -- has the power to intrude upon the privacy, the autonomy and the personal domain of individuals and their property without a warrant, and to search or seize or inspect their person or their property in order to investigate whether an offence has been committed.
As I said in second reading speech on this, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is one of the most fundamental rights we have under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Starting from that very broad perspective, I doubt very much whether anything I've said so far would be disagreed with as a broad statement of principle by the minister. I now want to focus on the fairly narrow area of concern I have -- narrow but not insignificant.
There are two tests that have to be satisfied. There are different ways of articulating it, but let's say that there are two tests that have to be satisfied before a peace officer, a police officer, may conduct a warrantless search. The first is that the police officer, the peace officer, has reasonable grounds to believe that certain provisions of the act are not being complied with. The second is that the police officer has to have reasonable grounds to believe that it is impracticable to obtain a warrant. It's the second of those that causes me concern, in terms of whether it strikes a reasonable balance among the competing interests that I talked about a minute ago.
I recognize or would argue that the basic point here, the basic issue or question, is whether it is in fact impracticable to obtain a warrant. There's a host of reasons one might imagine why that might exist. I suspect that in this particular context -- that is, inspections under the Motor Fuel Tax Act -- we're probably talking about a roadside inspection that occurs. It's -- who knows? -- 2 o'clock in the morning on a cold winter night, and we're somewhere between Taylor and Fort St. John. The truck has been pulled over, and right then and there the police officer forms a belief, presumably on reasonable grounds, that there are offences committed under the act. He then decides that it's impracticable to obtain a warrant, so he conducts the inspection. The way this section is worded,
[ Page 15088 ]
though, the issue is not whether it is impracticable to obtain a warrant. The issue, as the section is worded, is whether the peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that it is impracticable to obtain a warrant.
On this side of the House, we would not have a problem if the test under the act were simply a question of impracticability. That would mean that if you took the case into a courtroom to challenge the warrantless search, the judge would be forced to inquire into whether as a matter of fact it was impracticable to obtain the warrant. But as the section is worded, that's not the inquiry that the judge would undertake. As the section is worded, the inquiry for the judge would not be whether it was in fact impracticable, but rather whether the police officer had reasonable grounds to believe it was impracticable. I think that is erring a step or two too far in favour of, shall we say, the state at the expense of the individual's liberty rights.
[1625]
I'm going to continue. I know I'm going on at some length. I wonder if I could impose on the minister to indicate whether he's getting the point I'm making enough so that I can continue. It's a pretty subtle point, and maybe what I should say is that this may simply be a result of the way in which the provision was drafted. That is, the government may not intend the result that I believe has been achieved by the words used.
I am very firmly of the view that the result has been achieved by the words used. I'm equally firmly of the view that it wouldn't be hard to rewrite this section to limit and focus the inquiry on the issue of impracticability, not on whether or not the police officer just has reasonable grounds to believe it's impracticable.
I should point out that when you look at the Criminal Code, for example, the test is even tougher -- and rightly so, because they're dealing with pure criminal law. There's even a requirement that it be impracticable by reason of exigent circumstances -- that is, the circumstances that constitute impracticability are further narrowed. I'm not going to push that point here, but it does seem to me that the government is taking a step or two further than it needs to by drafting the provision in the way that it has. In doing that, what it has done is essentially lowered the burden on the Crown to justify the warrantless seizure. I wonder if the minister has any response to those comments.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member has raised a number of points. Rather than seek to respond to all of them, I think I'll try one and see what we've got there, and then we'll move on to the next. First, the authority for police to conduct warrantless searches is not new. If we wanted to debate the fundamental principles of that, we should have been around in 1985 when the Motor Fuel Tax Act was amended to incorporate them. What we're doing is rewriting for clarity and simplicity. As the member says, warrantless searches are necessary for the police to conduct roadside checks for illegal use of coloured fuel.
Actually, what is new in this provision is the provision requiring that a warrant be obtained. The existing legislation is silent with respect to the procedures to follow where it is practicable to obtain a warrant. That's really the new part. The amendment simply clarifies that a warrant is to be obtained under most circumstances. That's the biggest change that's made here. Maybe I'll stop there and make sure we've got agreement on that part, and then we'll go on to others.
G. Plant: The minister's explanation is right. What I should have said, as part of my extensive remarks a moment ago, is that this issue is going to arise again. The issue that is ultimately the focus of my concern here is going to arise again in another context in the same way. That is, I'm going to be concerned again about the way in which impracticability becomes the test. While the minister is right, the warrantless search provisions in the existing act are probably broader than they will become. That's fine; we're making progress. The government's making progress on this front. I want them to get it right. I don't want them to leave this additional little problem in the new provision, which I think is going to cause the government more trouble than it needs, frankly, over time as arguments are made in court over whether or not a particular inspection was reasonably conducted within the terms of this section. I am with the minister on his explanation, but it doesn't address my question.
[1630]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Chair, I'm going to try this. I'm not a lawyer, as the member knows. I am, though, a student of syntax. I think what we really have is a syntactical argument around subsection 5(2)(a) and (2)(b). It's really: how do we read an expanded version of this that wasn't condensed for parallelism? It could be read one of two ways. The member would have us believe that the way to read it is: if a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that section 14(3) or 15 is not being complied with and has reasonable grounds to believe that it is impracticable to obtain a warrant
I submit that, on its face, that's not how it works. The way this reads is: if a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that section 14(3) or 15 is not being complied with, and if it is impracticable to obtain a warrant, then
Now, I know that syntax or these clauses are also subject to interpretation. But I would submit that once
G. Plant: The minister is right in one respect. It's a syntactical argument. It's a legislative drafting sort of argument. I suppose my only contribution to the exercise is 22 years as a lawyer reading good and bad legislative drafting. Based on that, I am as comfortable with my interpretation as I was when I began the debate. The reason why I am is because it's so easy to rewrite the provisions in a way that would in fact avoid the syntactical problem.
Subsection (2) says: "If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that (a) section 14 (3) or 15 is not being complied with, and (b) it is impracticable to obtain a warrant, the peace officer may, without a warrant, (c)
[ Page 15089 ]
ment, if you will, is a policy argument, an issue around whether or not it would be right to focus the inquiry on reasonable grounds to believe it's impracticable as opposed to the actual inquiry into impracticability. Where's the minister on that point? We could stand it down perhaps and see if the legislative draftspeople think that we're talking about something real. They can deal with the syntactical argument, depending on the outcome of the policy discussion.
[1635]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I believe that what the court would focus on is the impracticality of obtaining a warrant. That's really the constitutional issue that I think this seeks to incorporate.
G. Farrell-Collins: Mr. Chair, I had to step out for a moment, so if I'm covering old ground, I hope that either my colleague or the minister will tap me on the shoulder or throw something at me from across the House.
I believe the member makes a valid point; I think the minister makes a valid point. My understanding of the debate was that it is not the intent of the government to have the legislation read that if the peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that it is impracticable to obtain a warrant
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's right. That's what the minister has said the intent is.
The reason I asked that is because
Section 88 of the act has a very similar provision, but it reads differently. It in fact does what the government's intention is not to do, in that it says: "If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that
I'm not a lawyer. But if I were a lawyer in there arguing, I could argue that in order to get some sort of interpretation on reading what the government means in this clause, if I go to another act I can look at a very similar provision where it's very clear what the government's intent is and therefore make my case to a judge that what the government isn't intending is in fact what they're doing. If I were the peace officer, that's sure what I'd be arguing, and I'm sure that's what my lawyer would be arguing in order to uphold the search. So perhaps the minister can comment on that. Perhaps we need to clean these two sections up, or something.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think we're having a good deal of fun, but I'm not sure that we're really advancing the discussion here. My understanding is this. Whichever syntax is read, my understanding is that at the end of the day it would be the judge or the judiciary that would say, "Right, it is impractical, and the test is going to be some form of reasonableness. Right, section 14(3) or 15 is not being complied with" -- and there were grounds to believe that. So I understand what we're doing here. But ultimately it is the judiciary that's going to say that it was or was not reasonable to believe that it's not being complied with, that it was impracticable to obtain a warrant. A peace officer is going to have to show that it was impracticable, that there were grounds for believing it wasn't complied with. I'm not sure we're advancing much in the discussion, though it is an interesting one.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, I don't spend my afternoons here because it's interesting; whether it is or not, I'm here.
I think the act is drafted inaccurately to reflect the government's intent, particularly section 88. Again, I don't want to be out of order, but you need the two of them for comparison to see what the intent is.
Section 88 says: "If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that it is impracticable to obtain a search warrant
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, we may disagree, but I think it's pretty clear. If it wasn't, it would say: "If it is impracticable to obtain a search warrant and a peace officer believes A, B, C
An Hon. Member: Or has reasonable grounds
[1640]
G. Farrell-Collins: "
Whenever possible, it's the obligation of legislators to provide the courts with laws that are easy to understand. If the intent of the government is that is to be impracticable, then let's say that and stop the confusion resulting in the courts, where it may or may not result in search warrants getting thrown out. It may get kicked back to the Legislature at some point. It's very simple to change. Perhaps the minister might want to consider that. There are other things that we can do.
Hon. P. Ramsey: One of the things I am concerned about in the discussion we're having is that
[ Page 15090 ]
practical?" are matters of judgment on the part of the peace officer. If those grounds are found to be in violation of the Charter or constitution, the case will be tossed.
I respect the concern of the members, but I am not sure that further debate on the syntax is going to address the issue. If the peace officer has got it wrong, the court won't allow the case. He's got to have some sort of grounds that say: "Yeah, I couldn't get a warrant. Yeah, I believed that the law was not being complied with." Those are the tests that a court makes. The test, as I understand it, in both of those is reasonableness. Wherever the word fits, that's what the judge looks at. So I'm not convinced that this is a section that we need to do further surgery on.
G. Farrell-Collins: Actually, the word is "impracticable."
An Hon. Member: Impracticable.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, impracticable is the word that is the ultimate test. The reasonable grounds fits with the belief that an offence has occurred or there is evidence to prove an offence, etc. The problem is that there are probably countless cases where a police officer has gone before a judge and said: "Well, I believed that I couldn't get a warrant, so I went and did it." There have probably been some that have been thrown out because of that -- because the test was not whether he or she believed it but whether it was in fact impracticable. Now the government is changing that to say that as long as the peace officer believes it was impracticable, that's good enough. They don't actually have to prove that it was impracticable. They just have to say: "Look, I believed it was." Therefore it stands.
Again, this makes it much easier for the peace officers and much more difficult for the individual rights of the people who are subject to these searches. It's not like that's an uncommon occurrence. It wouldn't be the first time that a police officer has overextended, in a zealous attempt to do good, their legal provisions.
An example that I thought was interesting was in Vancouver at the fireworks last summer, where everybody carrying a pack coming off the SkyTrain was having their pack searched and alcohol seized. I mean, that happens; it happens. That, to me, was going well above and beyond what peace officers are entitled to do in order to protect public decorum, or however they want to put it.
[1645]
It's not like this is some hypothetical process. On another issue -- tobacco or, in this case, the motor fuel tax -- the police officer says: "Well, I believed it was impracticable." A police officer could have used that argument at the SkyTrain: "While we're standing there, these people were coming off the SkyTrain. The fireworks were in a couple of hours. I believed it was impracticable to get a search warrant to search all these people's packs to confiscate alcohol." Therefore it stands.
If you want to say something, say it. Don't leave it out there for people to interpret and try and decide. It's easy to say it right; it's easy to say it wrong. Let's say it the right way so that there's no misunderstanding, make the change and move on.
G. Plant: I want to be clear that, at least as I read this, the test that's going to result from the government's bill here is not purely subjective. The inquiry will be into the reasonableness of the grounds for the belief that the peace officer has.
I want to add my voice to the primary point that my colleague was making a moment ago. When this issue becomes important, we're no longer in this chamber talking about what we'd like the words to mean. Actually, we're no longer in a place where the government gets to put up its hands and say: "This is what we wanted to do. So, judge, you should just give effect to what we wanted to do." We're in a place, in a room, where there's a judge and there are lawyers. There are people whose liberty and pockets are at stake, whose finances are at stake. They argue intensely about words, about syntax. Syntax and the rules of statutory interpretation that are hundreds of years old become all-important. They become the beginning and the end of the discussion.
Even in my limited legal career as a civil litigator, not a criminal lawyer, I've lost track of the number of occasions where we had the very arguments that we're having now about what words meant. The consequences of those arguments, for one side or the other, were very significant for the people affected. But because we were dealing with the state seeking to use its power to interfere with the liberty and the autonomy of people, the court said to the state: "If you want that right, that power, you have to use the clearest possible words. We will interpret every ambiguity in this provision against you, government, because you're trying to use your power to interfere with the liberty of the citizen."
"So the onus is on you, state -- Crown -- to use the clearest possible words. If you don't, you won't get the result that the minister wanted back in the year 2000 when this issue came up for debate one afternoon in the Legislative Assembly."
In fact, when we go into a criminal courtroom, the words of our debate in this kind of context won't even be there to help the court. We're dealing with the actual meaning of words at this point, and when we get there, the words have to stand on their own, to work on their own. And that's the end of it. I know what the minister is saying about the likely scenario on the side of the road, but I still think that at the end of the day, when you're fighting about it in a courtroom, the court is going to care about the actual language used. That's why it's important that we get the language correct.
[1650]
I'm noticing that the minister has been working away. I'm wondering if the minister has had a chance to think about this and has a perspective on this issue.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I actually have a floor amendment to propose. It is moved by the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations that section 44 of Bill 3 be amended in section 49(2)(b) to read: "if it is impracticable to obtain a warrant."
On the amendment.
G. Plant: I take it that the effect of the
Hon. P. Ramsey: That's correct, and it is to clarify the syntax so it reads precisely as I explained it to the chamber.
Amendment approved.
[ Page 15091 ]
On section 44, section 49 as amended.
R. Neufeld: Section 49 -- right? You said 44?
The Chair: We're still on section 44 as amended.
R. Neufeld: Okay. I'm sorry. I want to ask just a couple of quick questions on the RCMP end of it and also on the ministry staff in checking fuel tanks, not specifically vehicles. But the Ministry of Finance will do audits on, let's say, bulk plant facilities and actually walk in one day and ask for your last four days' deliveries, and you must give them. That person has the authority to go out and check those tanks and those premises. I see now that what we're doing is changing it for a police officer to do it. Can the minister explain to me where in the act it actually gives the government inspector the authority, the same as a police officer?
Hon. P. Ramsey: First of all, member, I want to make it clear that the amendment being proposed in section 44, section 49, of Bill 3 in no way affects, one way or another, the inspection abilities of agents of the Ministry of Finance. This applies entirely to peace officers. I don't know if that answers your question; I think that was the question you were asking. Yes, inspectors do have the ability to request. They sample tanks on property, and there's an expectation of compliance there, but none of this touches that one way or another.
R. Neufeld: I understand that, and we passed the amendment. I'm asking -- and I haven't been able to find -- where the inspection people that inspect the tanks on behalf of the government can come in and do this. Do they require a warrant, also, to be able to do that? This is just for clarification, because I think it runs dual with the people that work for government and go in and make these inspections, because this talks about premises.
Hon. P. Ramsey: They conduct their business on the powers to audit or inspect.
[1655]
Section 44 as amended approved.
Sections 45 to 47 inclusive approved.
On section 48.
G. Farrell-Collins: Mr. Chairman, section 48 has a similar provision to the one we discussed earlier in the Hotel Room Tax Act, which was the item being admitted as evidence in a court and therefore as proof. That's the same sort of wording that we had, I believe, in section 8 on the Hotel Room Tax Act. I just want to check if that was the section.
G. Plant: No, section 8 of this bill.
G. Farrell-Collins: Yeah, section 8 of this bill, which was to deal with the Hotel Room Tax Act. Our same arguments apply in this case, about the unfairness and unevenness of that provision, and the reverse onus that it proves and its ability to be used for further enforcement. It's really the very last line, almost, of that section, and we will not be supporting that for the same reasons stated earlier.
Section 48 approved on division.
On section 49.
G. Farrell-Collins: Section 49 has the same "cooperate" provision, or requirement, that we spoke of earlier, and we stood down the previous section. If the minister wants to stand this one down until such time as we deal with them collectively at the end, I'm glad to do that, if that's his will.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I would request that we stand down section 49 at this time.
The Chair: Shall section 49 be stood down?
Some Hon. Members: Aye.
Section 50 approved.
On section 51.
R. Neufeld: Just a bit of clarification from the Minister of Finance. Really, what this section does is allow the Minister of Energy and Mines to enter in agreements with the B.C. Transportation and Financing Authority to borrow up to $103 million over five years to be expended on roads in northeastern British Columbia.
Maybe the minister can give some explanation of why we have to do this and why this would not just be handled through the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, which is the normal way of doing business to have roads rebuilt in British Columbia. Remember that these roads this money is going to be expended on are public highways. It's not any special road. They are highways that are used by everyone under the Highway Act in British Columbia, yet we are enacting legislation for the Minister of Energy and Mines to enter into agreements which I think are totally unnecessary.
If the Minister of Transportation and Highways was actually on the ball, he would have been doing this without the Minister of Energy and Mines having to do this. I think it's needless and a bit silly to be doing this kind of thing when all authorization is already in place to do it through the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Or maybe the minister agrees with me; the Minister of Transportation and Highways can't do it.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member is right that these are public highways, but I would say they are public highways used almost exclusively for one purpose. Yes, there is recreation and other things, but the principal use is to facilitate the exploration and development of petroleum and natural gas resources. What it does is very clearly give the Minister of Energy and Mines a high interest in making sure that roads for those purposes are kept in good shape and expanded so that the exploration and production of petroleum and natural gas will proceed.
[1700]
Frankly, I'm surprised that the member is throwing the spotlight on this sort of commitment and that providing the Minister of Energy and Mines with this sort of interest would not be seen as a positive, particularly in his section of the province -- which I know something of -- where this is one of the principal economic drivers and where the provision of
[ Page 15092 ]
adequate highway transportation has been a key, as the industry sees it and as we do, to ensure further development of the industry.
R. Neufeld: I bring a highlight to it, because this should have transpired through the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. That's all I'm doing. I guess I'm making the Minister of Finance aware that it's a little bit ridiculous that we put in legislation these kinds of things -- to have the Minister of Energy and Mines be able to deal with BCTFA when it's already in place for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to do it. The highways are public. The minister stands and talks about the highways that this money is going to go to and states that they're used predominantly for the oil and gas industry. That demonstrates to me that he's not knowledgable about the roads that this money is going to be spent on.
If we were to use that analogy, then the Ministry of Forests should have the authority to deal with the BCTFA for financing for some of the highways that are used predominantly for the Ministry of Forests. That's a fact around the province. To use that kind of analogy is just pushing it a little bit too far. I just want to make the minister aware that there is no need for this kind of legislation when the authority is already in place for the Minister of Transportation and Highways to deal with these issues without even having to make other regulations and legislation in this House. I think we have a lot better things to do than this.
Yes, I'll further say that I am pleased that the $103 million is being spent on highways; it should have been spent a long time ago. Unfortunately, it's taken eight or nine years to convince your government that it should be spent. I am happy that you're expending it; I'm just saying that there are simpler ways to go about it. But trust this government to figure out some difficult way to get to something that's actually fairly simple to do, that's already in place.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think we're in agreement on the two sides of the House that spending this amount of money, $103 million, will indeed assist the industry. I think we're agreed that these would be spent on roads that the Minister of Energy and Mines considers will facilitate exploration, development or production of petroleum or natural gas or both. In spite of the member's comments, I'm sure that he will vote in favour of this section -- particularly if, God forbid, we would have to call division.
Sections 51 and 52 approved.
On section 53.
G. Farrell-Collins: Section 53 deals with the definitions of a whole bunch of words and a whole bunch of items for the purposes of taxation. I wouldn't mind hearing from the minister the rationale for each of them. I read the explanatory notes, and rather than have a big, long debate on them, some of them obviously
Section 53(a), I would say, clarifies -- I've had calls from constituents about that very issue -- the definition of what's a fixture in a restaurant. Is a dishwasher a fixture? Is a shelf a fixture? This is that wonderful area of tax legislation that drives people absolutely batty: what is and what isn't taxable. Is a chalk brush taxable, but chalk isn't -- a blackboard versus a whiteboard? All that sort of stuff, which is just
I guess if you're steeped in it, it makes sense, but to the rest of us mere mortals it doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. I would love to hear the minister's rationale for the needs for these changes. I assume some of them stem out of court cases and some of them are changes as a result of clarification, but I'd love to hear them from the minister.
[1705]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I absolutely agree with the member opposite that this is the part of tax law that can drive mortals crazy, and I'm very pleased to have staff and material that seeks to explain why each of these is necessary. With the member's permission, what I think I'll do is start with one and sit down and see if we've hit it on that before we go on, one at a time.
First, fixtures. This subsection amends the definition to establish that a fixture means "machinery, equipment or apparatus" that qualifies as a fixture under common law and that is used in a manufacturing or production process or in delivering a service. The existing definition requires that machinery, equipment or apparatus must be installed or affixed to realty to qualify as a fixture. You really have common law and then existing definition. This has created uncertainty between what qualifies as a fixture under this act and what qualifies as common law. This amendment removes the uncertainty by adopting the principles of a recent Supreme Court of B.C. decision.
G. Plant: This won't be the kind of question that the minister is fearing. Crossley Vaines's Personal Property has never been my favourite book.
Later on, when we get to the definition of "tangible personal property," subparagraph (f), there is a reference to fixtures. I think there is some significance to the change of that definition. I guess my question is whether the one we've just talked about is in some way connected to what we're going to talk about. That is, did this court case that the minister refers to actually relate to both these things, or are they two quite different issues?
[D. Zirnhelt in the chair.]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Welcome to the chair.
The section the member references, subsection (f), is consequential to the amendment made to the definition of fixtures. It's to make sure that we're not scooping into fixtures stuff that was left out before.
G. Plant: I assume therefore that somewhere else in the act, the cabinet or some minister has the power to prescribe the fixtures that will be excluded.
Hon. P. Ramsey: They will be prescribed by regulation.
Next is subsection (b), which adds definitions for magazines, newspapers and periodicals. This subsection transfers definitions of exempt publications from the regulations to the act, to provide a sound statutory basis for the administration of the exemption for such publications. The definitions are also amended to clearly establish that advertising and promotional material are excluded from the calculation of qualifying content and to authorize prescribing by regulation publications that do not qualify as a magazine, periodical or news-
[ Page 15093 ]
paper. Publications that have historically been excluded from the exemption, such as catalogues, directories and brochures, will be excluded by regulation. It's consistent with longstanding interpretation and administration of the exemption. It does address an inequality created by a recent Supreme Court of B.C. decision under which glossy, high-end consumer catalogues would be exempt from the tax, while a lower-end catalogue would be subject to the tax.
G. Plant: It occurred to me, as we've been paying close attention to this through the debate, that perhaps when we get to the title -- this is just a matter for the minister to reflect on as we continue to debate Bill 3 -- rather than call this the Budget Measures Implementation Act, we could call this the "B.C. Supreme Court Correction of Taxation Statutes Errors Act."
[1710]
Hon. P. Ramsey: There is a bit of that. As the member notes, I suspect
Subsection (c) adds a paragraph to the definition of purchase price. It amends the definition to explicitly state that where taxable and exempt goods are sold as a package for a single price, tax applies to the total price for the package. However, there's a new exemption proposed under section 60 of the bill, which we'll be getting to, which exempts taxable components of such packages under prescribed circumstances. We'll look at that when we get to section 60.
G. Farrell-Collins: I asked a question in the briefing and got an answer on it which I thought was interesting. I also appreciated the briefing that was given to us.
The example that I used was a gift basket, where if you've got, I think, more than six bagels, it's not taxable. If there are six or fewer
An Hon. Member: That's GST.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's GST. I'm sorry, I'm off on the wrong track.
There may be provisions or items in the gift basket that are not taxable, but if you go and stick a bottle of wine in there, then the entire basket can be taxed at the 10 percent figure, which I think is the liquor tax. Perhaps the minister can explain that and if that's the kind of thing that's intended to be dealt with in regulation.
Hon. P. Ramsey: No, I don't think that's the real intent here.
What the purchase price principle says is that if you've got the bundle that the member describes -- and a gift basket is not a bad example -- where taxable and exempt goods are sold as part of the package, you can simply bundle it and apply a tax to all of it. The member is right: by regulation, you probably have to specify what the exemption threshold is. However, if you're a retailer and you want to avoid collecting tax on the full purchase price, you can do so by separately stating the charge for taxable and non-taxable goods in the package.
Sections 53 to 55 inclusive approved.
On section 56.
G. Farrell-Collins: Section 56 is an interesting section. It attempts to deal with a problem that I quite frankly don't think the government is going to be able to solve with it. The issue here is people who bring
It is my understanding that the government currently requires the individual who owns that boat to pay social service tax on the value of the boat, because that property has been deemed to be brought into British Columbia for use here. The same would apply to a recreational vehicle that somebody brought in and parked on a pad somewhere and left there for an extended period of time. My understanding is that the government has had some trouble collecting that tax. People have been very creative in finding ways to avoid paying the tax -- pulling their boat out of the water, moving their RV, those sorts of things. This section of this bill is designed to close those loopholes.
[1715]
I understand that people who sell boats or RVs or other products for that matter
It seems to me that people who sell boats or recreational vehicles in British Columbia might be upset with the fact that people are bringing them in from outside. It eats into their sales, and it's more difficult for them to compete. I understand that argument. But given the size of the items that are being sold -- recreational vehicles, which can be $30,000 or more in many cases, and boats that can be from $15,000 to $15 million, I suppose
There are also examples of people from the interior who may come from Alberta or down in Washington State. They bring their little fishing boat in on a trailer and stick it in the lake and leave it there. They leave it behind at a cottage or a friend's cottage or something like that, or they moor it over the winter or pull it out in the winter but leave it in British Columbia for that period of time. These are the people that the government is going after. So I can understand the argument that the business people who sell boats and RVs make -- that they're being forced to compete with less cost because other people don't pay that tax.
I don't believe that the government, quite frankly, is ever going to collect the vast majority of that tax. I think people being faced with that tax bill are going to have two choices. One is to pay the tax, and the other is to leave. I would say that 99 times out of 100, the choice they'll make is to leave. They'll pull up their RV from whatever place they've got it, and instead of coming to somewhere in British Columbia, they'll go down to Idaho or to somewhere in northern Saskatchewan or northern Alberta. They'll find another lake or another place to keep their RV.
[ Page 15094 ]
People with boats, instead of bringing them into the Shuswap or the Okanagan and leaving them there, will take them and go somewhere else. People from Seattle bringing their boats up to British Columbia to moor them in the ocean will just pull up anchor and put them across at Friday Harbor or somewhere around San Juan Island or somewhere in the American Gulf Islands instead.
I think this is one of the examples where the government is trying to solve a problem but ends up pushing a string. You can push as hard as you want, but it doesn't go where you want it to go. What we're likely to end up with is a roving band of tax collectors who are hired to go out and scour the marinas and the RV pads, attempting to extract social service tax from those people -- and finding that the people just disappear. They leave, so any economic benefit that we receive from the people mooring their boats here, bringing their boats to the interior of British Columbia to the lakes or parking their RVs in campsites or on pads around the province is gone. Those people will choose to vacation elsewhere. They'll choose to maintain their boats in Friday Harbor instead of in Sidney when maintenance is required. They'll choose to do maintenance on their RV in Alberta, because that's where their RV will be.
It appears to me that despite the objections of people who feel they're at a competitive disadvantage due to the way taxes are levied in British Columbia, despite their concerns, the government will find that they're making no change and no difference. They're not going to get the tax revenues. Business isn't going to go up for those people who sell here in British Columbia. As a result the government will have done nothing more than to put a very severe crimp in tourism revenue and the taxes that arise from that to the government coffers. It will further harm the small economic recovery that British Columbia is perhaps starting upon.
I think there are many communities around this province, both coastal and in the interior, that will suffer as a result of this. These are people who are not bringing these products into the province to do business. They're not competing with other businesses themselves. They're here to spend money on tourism and recreation. I think that this section, despite the complaints that are out there, is an ill-advised section and will do more damage than good to B.C.'s economy and the revenues of government.
Hon. P. Ramsey: There are some choices that you can't affect by this. This provision has actually been on the books for some time, as I think the member knows. The member is quite right that there are some enforcing difficulties with it. I'm not sure that any of the changes we could make, one way or another, would ensure that nobody ever moved a boat or an RV elsewhere. Those are choices that people make. The most substantive change in this set of amendments is simply to say that the 12-month period doesn't have to be continuous. So you don't have people going: "All right. I'm going to keep it here for 11 months, then we're going to ship it out for a month and then we're going to bring it back." It simply says 12 months within 18 months. That's the largest change here.
People are paying tax under this provision. They are choosing to moor their boats and to bring their RVs into this province. They are enjoying those benefits. What this seeks to do is provide fairness -- and I think the member spoke to that -- for merchants in B.C. in provision of these goods.
[1720]
M. Coell: Just a number of comments and some questions for the minister. To me this section is a direct attack on tourism. We spend literally millions of dollars trying to attract tourists to British Columbia. But if a family in Mexico decides to sail their small boat up here, and they dock in Sidney or Vancouver and decide they like it and decide, "Well, let's leave the boat here for two years and come back every year and spend money in the economy," the reward is: "We'd like to tax you." That's not really an incentive for a person to come here and leave a boat -- whatever size it is -- for a two-year period. They get taxed. So I suggest to you that they'll probably stop in the San Juan Islands or not even come into a Canadian port to dock or moor.
The other one would be someone coming from Washington State who purchased their boat in Seattle. We encourage them to go up to Prince Rupert, and they decide they love the coast and want to spend a couple of years touring and moor up here. And what's the reward? We tax them. The word will get out very rapidly that it's not really worth bringing a boat from the United States, Mexico, Calgary or Washington and putting it in the water here and spending a couple of years, because the reward is that we tax you.
The other one, of course, is people who bring trailers and park them at Shawnigan Lake for a couple of years while their kids are growing up. Their reward for coming to British Columbia and paying a lot of money for fuel and food and entertainment is: "We tax you." It'll get out pretty quick that if you want to take a trailer and park it at Shawnigan Lake, the Shuswap or Penticton and spend a couple of years, your reward is that we tax you. I don't think it'll be very long before our neighbours say, "Well, instead of going to B.C., I'll go to Washington from Alberta and spend a couple of years there," or "Let's go to Alberta from Oregon."
I think we're going to do a lot of damage to the tourist business with that attitude. I'd like to ask the minister this question: did he check with the Minister of Tourism on the effects? Did they do an impact study on tourism? I suspect the answer is no. This is just someone deciding: "Well, here's some more tax revenue. We've taxed everyone else in British Columbia. Let's tax the tourists."
To give the minister an example, in an average marina in my riding, 20 percent of the boats are from elsewhere. They're from Mexico; they're from Washington, Oregon, California. They don't always stay there forever. They might stay for there for two or three years until the family has adventured all around this area, and then they move. They go somewhere else. But in the meantime, the reward for visiting beautiful British Columbia is that we tax you.
So I think there are some real problems with section 56, the way it's written. It doesn't leave any options for the tourism industry -- to come up to visit for a few years and to go back to their homes. I know that other members have some problems with it, and I'll yield the floor to them. But I really think this is not well thought out. It certainly doesn't support the tourist industry anywhere in the province, from the Kootenays to the Shuswap to Prince Rupert. It hits them all, and it taxes all the tourists we would normally encourage to come and visit beautiful British Columbia.
[1725]
I. Chong: I would just like to comment and reiterate the expressions from my colleague from Saanich North and the
[ Page 15095 ]
Islands. In the area of Oak Bay-Gordon Head that I represent, certainly we have marinas and many docking facilities as such.
As the Tourism critic, I am extremely concerned that the Minister of Finance hasn't taken the time to speak to the Tourism minister -- or apparently hasn't spoken to him. As was stated, this is going to have a direct impact on our tourism economy here. When tourism is being considered as the number two industry in this province, and when the Tourism minister likes to talk about it as the fastest-growing industry
The items that have already been mentioned by my colleague are very, very true. When the people from other jurisdictions come up here and moor their vessels or motor homes here, they are obviously non-residents, as this section applies, so they are tourists who are coming here. They're not wanting to become residents. They're not wanting to leave a non-taxable jurisdiction or a low-tax jurisdiction only to come up here to be more heavily taxed, and that is exactly what is happening.
We're benefiting by having these vessels and these RVs in this area and in our province, because they have a ripple effect on tourism and on small business. You will have insurance costs, which will be paid for. You will have repairs that will be undertaken here. You will have fuel suppliers, so when they have their boats here and decide to go out for a weekend, they will be docking at various facilities and fuelling up. You also have situations where families come up and go out to enjoy our restaurants and take a look at the entertainment and culture we have that we are so desperately promoting. We also have groceries stores for those who choose to stay in their RVs or on their boats and cook for themselves. There are huge, huge opportunities for our small businesses and for our tourism industry to grow, by encouraging more and more of non-residents to come here. I'm particularly concerned that this has not been well thought out.
The enforcement problem. Certainly I can understand the minister looking at it; it has been a problem, but altering it in this way is not going to benefit the enforcement. It's only going to drive those non-residents, our tourists, back to where they came from, or they will find alternatives.
The other concern I have is in the application of the tax. Just how this minister is going to determine the tax on the value of the vessels or the value of the RVs is going to be in question -- whether market value is used, whether adjusted cost base is used and whether that includes all the additions, changes and modifications made to the original acquisitions. All those things are extremely difficult to establish, particularly if a vessel came up here fairly bare and all the parts were bought here. Sales tax has been paid, and the value of the boat has increased because of all those additions.
Are we going to see that there will be tax on tax? Even if we see where there is a non-resident, for example, from Washington State who brings their vessel or RV here and they've paid Washington State tax, which is greater, I believe, than even our provincial sales tax
I'm also concerned by the changes in this section. There has been a change to section 16(1)(b), where it indicates the time period that establishes when a person becomes an owner. When that person acquires an interest in real property or a right referred to in paragraph (c), how would that be determined? I would like to have the minister consider that.
As well, are we talking about people who currently live in other jurisdictions, whether it's in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Washington State or in Oregon, where they have family members who currently own vessels or RVs here and have had them situated in British Columbia for years, and that person bequeaths that property to their non-resident adult child in another jurisdiction? It's a huge problem, because how on earth is this minister going to apply some fairness here? In striving for fairness, all he has done is create new enforcement problems and new problems related to the equity that he so dearly is striving for. I'm very concerned that this minister, in the first place, has not thought this out well and has not consulted with the Minister of Tourism -- unless the Minister of Tourism has been quiet at the table.
[1730]
K. Krueger: Would the minister like to respond to the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head? He's shaking his head.
I'd like to follow up her comments and those of my friend, the member for Saanich North and the Islands. We sincerely ask the government to reconsider. It's almost incomprehensible that the government would imagine that people would elect to pay this tax on their assets when they live elsewhere -- they come from elsewhere and brought the assets from elsewhere -- rather than simply remove their assets and take their patronage elsewhere. That is what my colleagues are talking about; that's what we're truly concerned about.
Marinas, campgrounds, repairers, fuel companies -- all of these sectors of our hospitality and tourism industry will suffer, as my colleagues have mentioned. We wonder whether the ministry or the minister or the government, in any area, have done any sort of impact study to analyze what economic effect this provision will have. We have to wonder, and the public ask us: when will this government ever learn? We've had businesses leaving British Columbia in droves because of overtaxation. We've had British Columbian families moving out of this province because of overtaxation.
Now, literally, our government is attacking tourists and the tourism industry. There will be an economic impact up and down the west coast of British Columbia, up and down Georgia Strait, way up to the north, along the west coast of Vancouver Island, in the Shuswap, in the Kamloops area where I come from. This government was proud of giving Six Mile Ranch its opportunity to get started. They are going to have difficulty attracting people who would want to locate their boats on Kamloops Lake at that project because of these provisions.
People simply do not want to be taxed on their assets by the NDP government of British Columbia. Mr. Ohkubo, who owns Sun Peaks Resort, was infuriated the last time he had to write a cheque for corporate capital tax and told his manager that he would not be putting any more money into British Columbia until this government's attitude changed.
[ Page 15096 ]
That's the sort of reaction the government has to expect from people who own boats and RVs and are not residents of British Columbia but choose -- happily for us -- to spend their time here and spend their money in our economy. It's one of the few industries in British Columbia that has managed to struggle on and not do too badly during the ten years of economic decline that the NDP have foisted on this province.
We have to ask ourselves, and I'm sure all British Columbians ask themselves: "Is there an economic death wish on those benches? How can the NDP be so blind to their own results and to the fact that if they continue to apply the same approaches, they will continue to deliver more of those disastrous results?"
Last year around this time we had a scare amongst the potential customers of the tourism industry all around North America about British Columbia's enforcement of gross vehicle weight measures. It was false news, but it cost us. A lot of people stayed away from B.C. because they believed that they would have trouble with their vehicles being stopped and forbidden to continue on our highways because of GVW enforcement. That was false news. But this one's the truth.
[1735]
If people hear that this government is actually planning to charge them 7 percent on the value of their boats and their RVs, they'll pull them out of B.C. We ask the government to reconsider. We don't want potential tourists to B.C. fearing that they'll be pursued by an army of enforcers -- perhaps the pension suspension police moonlighting -- another contingent of taxpayer-funded, highly paid people to go out and further break the economy of British Columbia.
I think the minister has decided to just let the opposition members talk out this provision, but I'd really like him to answer whether any economic impact study was done at all with regard to how these provisions will affect the economy of British Columbia.
G. Abbott: I'm glad to add my voice to those that have been heard previously with respect to section 56. I sense that the concern I see on the faces of the members for Cariboo South and Malahat-Juan de Fuca and elsewhere on the government side
I will do my best to persuade the minister that where he may be going with section 56 is in the direction of some unanticipated consequences, which will see us not resolve the problem that this section is intended to do, but rather will result
I think this will be what will happen. It'll be, as the Opposition House Leader set out, that we won't see a resolution of the problem that we're trying to solve, which is seeing people purchase RVs or boats in other jurisdictions and bring them here. People will find ways, regardless of whether you say it's going to be a 12-month period or an 18-month period, to circumvent that new rule. They'll find the ways, believe me. They're entirely ingenious in that.
Further, we will see the unintended consequence where people from Alberta -- who are, as my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson has pointed out, from a more tax-friendly jurisdiction -- will say: "To hell with this place. We'll go find another place to take our boat or RV." I think what we're really going to see, in spades, is the impracticality of this and the unanticipated consequences that I suspect will flow.
I think my colleagues have spoken adequately to the point about the principle here. I want to talk about the administrative practicality of it. I really think the minister ought to weigh that in whether he moves ahead with this section or not.
My hometown is Sicamous. It has about 3,500 full-time, year-round residents, rising to probably 7,000 to 10,000 in the summer. Sicamous has, in that small town, a dozen large marinas and many more small ones. We have literally hundreds if not thousands of boats from Alberta that are resident in that community for an indeterminate length of time. If you want to extend that across the Shuswap, which is one of the most popular recreation areas for Albertans -- and rightly so, because it is a remarkably beautiful area of British Columbia and has so many assets that it acts like a kind of magnet to Albertans
An Hon. Member: And a good MLA.
G. Abbott: And a good MLA as well. I'm glad that the minister acknowledges that. But the important point here is that in the summer it is home for a lot of Albertans and a lot of Albertan boats. We are talking thousands and thousands of boats. I don't know; perhaps there's some new technology that's going to track how long those boats have been in British Columbia and whether someone took them back to Alberta for the winter or whatever. I think this is just going to be an administrative nightmare for you.
When you extend it to the Okanagan, which again is a huge tourism area, or you extend it to Cariboo South, which is a remarkably beautiful part of the province and which is very popular with Albertans as well
[1740]
The same principle applies to motor homes. Again, there are just a lot of people that come out here with their motor homes. Some of them leave them here over the winter. Some of them may take them home for the winter. Who knows?
I really think that before the minister proceeds with section 56, he ought to reflect for a moment on the administrative practicality of it. Frankly, it is going to be just another source of rebuke -- of derision -- from people. No one is going to pay up here if they're not already
[ Page 15097 ]
monitor whether they come or go? Or are we going to have a special new inspection branch that is going to be cruising the province to determine that?
Frankly, we're setting ourselves up for more derision. I do hope the minister can weigh the practical suggestion I'm making here of getting rid of this particular section.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the members opposite for their comments, but even in this era of enlightened cooperation, I'm not sure I can agree with everything they've said.
First, tourism is doing remarkably well in this province. I'm very glad to see that. Nobody on this side of the House wants to do anything else but continue to encourage the growth of tourism in British Columbia.
Let's be clear. This provision is not new in the tax regime of British Columbia. Contrary to what the members opposite seem to believe, this is not a new provision. Assessments are being provided now, regulations are being enforced, and the world hasn't ended; the sky hasn't fallen.
We do, however, repeatedly hear from business people in British Columbia having complaints about the unfair playing field created by those who do bring in goods. It doesn't have to be a boat or a motor home. It can be bringing in fridges and stoves that are used in a cabin and then left there by somebody who's non-resident. It goes on and on. What we are looking at here is making sure that we have that level playing field and that we're enforcing it well.
The only change in this section -- contrary to what the members opposite have said -- is simply to say that the 12-month period doesn't have to be continuous. That's the only real change in this section of the bill. I would propose that we deal with this and move forward. I have some amendments to propose on sections that have been stood down earlier.
I. Chong: I want to comment on what the minister said when he indicated that this is just a change in the time limit. That is incorrect. From what I read here, section 16(1)(b) of the Social Service Tax Act is being changed by adding, at the beginning, "before or after the time the person acquires an interest in real property, or a right referred to in paragraph (c)." That is a new section, and that substantially changes what is currently in effect.
As I indicated earlier, and if the minister wants to refer to it, if we're talking about a person who acquires an interest or a right as the result of a bequest through a resident of this province who has already paid the taxes on it, that non-resident would now be subject to it if he left that particular vessel or RV in place in this province. So there has been a substantial change, and if the minister can review that and answer that, I would appreciate it.
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The section that the member is pointing to -- "before or after the time a person acquires an interest in real property or a right referred to in paragraph (c)
Yes, it's closing a loophole, and I think that's an important thing to do for fairness.
[1745]
Section 56 approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 35 | ||
| Evans | Doyle | McGregor |
| Sawicki | Kwan | Hammell |
| Pullinger | Bowbrick | Mann Brewin |
| Boone | Orcherton | Zirnhelt |
| Randall | Robertson | Cashore |
| Conroy | Smallwood | Miller |
| MacPhail | Dosanjh | Petter |
| Lovick | Priddy | Ramsey |
| G. Wilson | Farnworth | Waddell |
| Gillespie | Streifel | Walsh |
| Kasper | G. Clark | Giesbrecht |
| Goodacre | Janssen | |
| NAYS -- 26 | ||
| Whittred | Hansen | C. Clark |
| Farrell-Collins | de Jong | Abbott |
| L. Reid | Neufeld | Coell |
| Chong | Jarvis | Anderson |
| Nettleton | Penner | Weisgerber |
| Masi | Roddick | J. Wilson |
| Barisoff | Symons | Thorpe |
| Krueger | J. Reid | Stephens |
| Hogg | Weisbeck | |
Sections 57 to 62 inclusive approved.
[1750]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd like to move that section 13 be brought back for consideration.
On section 13.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I have an amendment to propose to section 13.
An Hon. Member: Are we cooperative or what?
Hon. P. Ramsey: We are so cooperative.
I move that section 13, section 36(l)(c.1) be amended to read: "(c.1) refuses to produce records or books of account, or hinders or molests or interferes with an inspection, audit or examination, or prevents or attempts to prevent a person from carrying out an inspection, audit or examination under this Act."
Amendment approved.
Section 13 as amended approved.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd like to recall section 49.
On section 49.
[ Page 15098 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Chair, I have an amendment to propose to section 49(b). It would read: "(c.1) refuses to produce records or books of account, or hinders or molests or interferes with an inspection, audit or examination, or prevents or attempts to prevent a person from carrying out an inspection, audit or examination under this Act."
[1755]
Amendment approved.
Section 49 as amended approved.
On section 63.
G. Farrell-Collins: I just have a couple of comments on section 63. It's a bit of an unusual section in that there are several very separate provisions within this section, some of which we support and some of which we are inclined not to. So I just want to make a few comments, and with the short amount of time that's left, the member for West Vancouver-Capilano may have a couple of comments to make about it as well.
The provisions re the software and intangible personal property are provisions that we support. There's some advantage to the high-tech sector in the way those amendments move forward. The provision under subsection (e), which deals with the exemption for catalysts and direct agents as it is involved in the manufacturing sector, is a provision that
So with those comments, that's all I have to say on section 63. I don't know if the member for North Vancouver-Seymour has a comment that he'd like to make.
D. Jarvis: I just want to ask the minister for a little clarification on paragraph (e), subsection (5)(b) -- the substance added to tailings ponds and settling ponds -- and if he truly means for that to be exempt under this taxation. There are two different reasons I feel that it should be changed, in the sense that, first of all, it doesn't seem that
Second is why you would single out an ingredient that is to be put into a tailings pond. Ostensibly, it's a catalyst or an emulsifier. In most of the cases it's lime that goes in there. It's incongruous when you're saying at one time that you want them to reclaim the tailings pond on the environmental end of it, and then, on the other hand, you are taxing them on the method they are using. As I said, it's incongruous in that sense.
I was wondering if you would care to
The Chair: Minister, being aware of the time.
Hon. P. Ramsey: They have asked for a little explanation. I'll try to limit it to a little. The member is correct in saying that this is closing a loophole in the court's interpretation of "catalyst." I would say to the member, though, that I see no environmental impact in doing this or not doing this. Here's the issue. "Catalyst" is defined, of course, as something that actually precipitates some sort of reaction. There was an inequality or an unintended consequence of the court's ruling -- that in the case of chemicals used to treat effluents in a tailings pond, they did qualify as catalysts.
Here's the issue. It qualified there; it did not qualify in a closed-loop system internally. Okay? Catalyst here, not a catalyst there -- it made no sense. The environmental impact is essentially the same, so we are closing this loophole.
[1800]
Section 63 approved.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. Smallwood: By leave, hon. Speaker, I'd like to move the motion in the name of the Government House Leader.
Leave granted.
Motion without Notice
Hon. J. Smallwood: The motion is: Be it resolved that this House hereby authorizes the Committee of Supply for this Session to sit in two sections designated Section A and Section B; Section A to sit in such Committee Room as may be appointed from time to time, and Section B to sit in the Chamber of the Assembly, subject to the following rules:
1. The Standing Orders applicable to the Committee of the Whole House shall be applicable in both Sections of the Committee of Supply save and except that in Section A, a Minister may defer to a Deputy Minister to permit such Deputy to reply to a question put to the Minister.
2. Subject to paragraph 3, within one sitting day of the passage of this Motion, the House Leader of the Official Opposition may advise the Government House Leader, in writing, of three ministerial Estimates which the Official Opposition requires to be considered in Section B of the Committee of Supply, and upon receipt of such notice in writing, the Government House Leader shall confirm in writing that the said three ministerial Estimates shall be considered in Section B of the Committee of Supply.
3. All Estimates shall stand referred to Section A, save and except those Estimates which shall be referred to Section B under the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Order and such other Estimates as shall be referred to Section B on motion by
[ Page 15099 ]
the Government House Leader, which motion shall be governed by the provisions of Standing Order 60a. Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation shall be applicable to this rule.
4. Section A shall consist of 18 Members, being 10 Members of the New Democratic Party, 7 Members of the Liberal Party, and 1 other Member. In addition, the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole, or his or her nominee, shall preside over the debates in Section A. Substitution of Members will be permitted to Section A with the consent of that Member's Whip, where applicable, otherwise with the consent of the Member involved. For the fourth session of the Thirty-sixth Parliament, the Members of Section A shall be as follows: the Minister whose Estimates are under consideration and Messrs. Conroy, G. Clark, Goodacre, Kasper, Orcherton, Robertson and Sihota, Mmes. Gillespie and Walsh, Messrs. Coell, Masi, Nebbeling and Thorpe, Mmes. C. Clark, Hawkins and L. Reid, and Mr. Weisgerber.
5. At fifteen minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House, the Chair of Section A will report to the House. In the event such report includes the last vote in a particular ministerial Estimate, after such report has been made to the House, the Government shall have a maximum of eight minutes, and the Official Opposition a maximum of five minutes, and all other Members (cumulatively) a maximum of three minutes to summarize the Committee debate on a particular ministerial Estimate completed, such summaries to be in the following order:
(1) Other Members;
(2) Official Opposition; and
(3) Government.
6. Section B shall be composed of all Members of the House.
7. Divisions in Section A will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells four times.
8. Divisions in Section B will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells three times at which time proceedings in Section A will be suspended until completion of the division in Section B.
9. Section B is hereby authorized to consider Bills referred to Committee after second reading thereof and the Standing Orders applicable to Bills in Committee of the Whole shall be applicable to such Bills during consideration thereof in Section B, and for all purposes Section B shall be deemed to be a Committee of the Whole. Such referrals to Section B shall be made upon motion without notice by the Minister responsible for the Bill, and such motion shall be decided without amendment or debate. Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation shall be applicable to all such referrals.
10. Bills or Estimates previously referred to a designated Committee may at any stage be subsequently referred to another designated Committee on motion of the Government House Leader or Minister responsible for the Bill as hereinbefore provided by Rules Nos. 3 and 9.]
Motion approved.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I call private members' statements.
Private Members' Statements
BOOMING IN BURNABY
F. Randall: I want to say a few words about the growth of the high-tech industry in British Columbia. High-tech is one of the fastest-growing areas of the B.C. economy. Our province is poised to lead the country in high technology, and this government is committed to supporting the growth of this industry. This sector of our economy employed more than 46,000 people in 1998. This is an increase of 47 percent over the previous five years.
British Columbia is in a strong competitive position in information technology, wireless communication and biotechnology. Growth is continuing. This sector will provide 60,000 to 70,000 direct jobs by 2005. Companies realize that British Columbia's strong education policies, beautiful landscapes and transportation links make it an excellent area to locate their businesses.
I would like to draw the House's attention to two made-in-B.C. success stories. These B.C. companies had a small amount of government assistance at a very important time in their development. This aid has helped these companies solve an important research problem or make that critical first step into the marketplace.
DigitalRez Software Corp. is a Sicamous-based software company. It built a real-time on-line computer reservation system. The DigitalRez software can be used by resorts, motels and campgrounds. A reservation robot works with the client's data base and allows potential guests to check for availability and amenities online in real time. The guests then book their rooms online.
DigitalRez began to develop their software package for the travel industry in 1993. In 1996 the technology assistance program helped DigitalRez with some assistance and research expertise. This technology assistance program helps small and medium-sized companies access expertise, services and facilities not available in-house. The company has increased from five staff members in 1993 to the 48 they employ today, which is a substantial increase.
[1805]
I would like to give credit to the hard work of this company -- hard work that got them to where they are today. I am glad that our government was able to give them a hand at a crucial time.
I would also like to recognize a Burnaby company that the Science Council of B.C. helped. Statpower Technologies Corp. develops, manufactures and sells power conversion products for the mobile office, recreational, industrial, solar energy and consumer markets. Founded in 1988, Statpower has grown from a company of eight people with research and development aspirations to a company of 110 employees with over $40 million a year in sales.
Provincial support through the Science Council in the late 1980s provided the company with the means to research and develop the technology to produce their first high-frequency, portable DC-to-AC power inverter. Customers use Statpower products in emergency medical clinics as well as portable power sources for computers, printers and other electronic appliances. Statpower expects sales growth in excess of 30 percent per year.
[ Page 15100 ]
Statpower is located in Burnaby, one of the main growth areas for high-tech businesses in the lower mainland. These companies and many others are in Burnaby because of the Burnaby advantage. Burnaby has many parks, a central location and a comfortable standard of living. According to Paul Lee, the senior vice-president of Electronic Arts: "Burnaby is central and a great place to work and live. It all adds up."
Businesses also like Burnaby's town centres and business parks. These business parks provide high-tech companies with the land and buildings they need to grow. Burnaby also has a core group of large companies that provide a critical mass of knowledge and expertise that nurtures the growth in spinoff companies and innovation. For example, B.C. Tel's -- now Telus -- Rogers Cantel's and Glentel's head offices are located in Burnaby. These companies have had a tremendous role in developing the communications technology sector in Burnaby.
SFU and BCIT play a crucial role in the growing high-tech sector in Burnaby. Both facilities are known for their excellence in training and equipping young people in fields that are of interest to many high-tech companies. The government works to preserve this advantage. Along with maintaining the tuition freeze, we just provided $2 million to the B.C. Advanced Systems Institute for a new fellowship recruitment program. This will help recruit top faculty in the high-tech field by enabling universities to offer research fellowships of up to $40,000 per year for a three-year period. The recruitment of quality faculty is crucial. It ensures that our students continue to be an integral part of the information economy.
I would like to commend Burnaby for its support of the high-tech industry. I am proud to represent this growing community, and I am glad that the government is supporting high-tech through its research and education policies in providing good jobs for British Columbians.
The Speaker: In response, the hon. member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.
C. Clark: Well, high-tech is certainly a field that we can all get excited about, just like the member for Burnaby-Edmonds gets excited about high-tech and how great it is to have Burnaby booming the way it is. But you know what? I grew up in Burnaby; I was educated in Burnaby; I spent most of my life there. I was born at Burnaby General Hospital, right beside the new Discovery Park where all those high-tech companies are located in Burnaby. Every time I drive through Discovery Park, do you know what I think? I think to myself: "My gosh, how has this government been allowed to squander the opportunities for employment in high-tech the way that they have?"
Do you know that the growth in high-tech in British Columbia is 50 percent of what it is in Oregon and Washington State? And you know what? In British Columbia we can do better than that. This is the most beautiful place on earth. It's certainly the most beautiful place in Canada, certainly the most beautiful place on the coast. And still our high-tech industry is growing slowly and lethargically, when it should be growing enthusiastically and quickly. It should be out there employing more people every single day.
[1810]
The member talked about Simon Fraser University, which is located in my riding in Burnaby as well. I'll bet he didn't know this, but 30 percent of the high-tech graduates from Simon Fraser University go straight to the United States for employment. That is a huge, huge loss for British Columbia, not just for Burnaby but for all of us. First, we all pay to subsidize their education, and we've made an investment in their brains. Second, it costs all those companies in terms of their productivity, their ability to recruit. Most importantly, what it costs us is the loss, perhaps forever, of those future social and economic leaders in British Columbia. The people who should be anchoring our economy into the next century are leaving and going to be productive, to pay taxes and to contribute all of their knowledge wealth somewhere else. That is a painful, shameful, disgraceful loss in British Columbia.
What can we do to reverse this? Here's what I will offer, and perhaps the member will be happy to respond when he responds to my comments. First, let's lower taxes. If we had lower taxes in British Columbia, we could keep those high-tech jobs here. We wouldn't have the same kind of problems in recruiting high-tech workers in British Columbia that we do today, if we had lower taxes.
Second, let's have a real, modern regulatory code, one that recognizes that workers don't all do what they did in the 1950s -- go to work and punch the clock at 9 a.m., go for lunch at noon for an hour and then leave again at 5 o'clock at the end of the day. That's not the way it works anymore.
Third, let's have a labour and employment code in British Columbia that, again, recognizes that people who are working in high-tech aren't exactly working in the coalmines of England. We need a labour code that reflects the realities of our employment today in the high-tech sector, and that's the way we're going to get Burnaby booming.
The Speaker: The Chair reminds members that these are private members' statements and not a forum for partisan political debate. In reply, I'll recognize the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.
F. Randall: Just to carry on, I'll conclude by saying that as a government, we are looking to the future. In part, that means looking to sectors like high technology that are poised for growth and the creation of new opportunities in employment. We will continue to work with the high-tech sector, encouraging it to grow at home and marketing its products abroad. The government supports this industry and its ability to provide good jobs for British Columbians.
We provide a high-technology research and development tax credit. Last year we provided $10 million to keep a growing number of B.C. firms at the forefront of high-tech. We are also joining the federal government in allowing British Columbians to defer income tax on benefits from stock options and to reduce the taxation of capital gains. This will allow employees to share more in the successes of the businesses that employ them. Our government also invests directly in research partnerships in five strategic high-tech areas. These areas are: new media, fuel cell and clean energy technologies, information technology, biotechnology and aerospace.
Finally, we are in the third year of our six-year B.C. knowledge development fund. This fund invests in infrastructure in post-secondary institutions, teaching hospitals and non-profit agencies. This provides infrastructure to some of the vital incubators of innovative technology in B.C. I am glad that government supports the high-tech industry and to have the opportunity to speak about it today.
[ Page 15101 ]
I would like to thank the member opposite for her negative comments about the province of British Columbia. Certainly I would ask the people opposite to work with British Columbia to try and make this a much better province, because I can tell you that the negative comments that come from people over there really help to contribute to any negative things that happen in this province. I think it's important that all of us support and not say negative things about what's happening in British Columbia.
The Speaker: For the second private member's statement, the member for Langley.
PROTECTING INNOCENCE
L. Stephens: It is indeed a pleasure for me to rise this evening to present my private member's statement with respect to a facility in my riding that is facing closure. This facility is of provincial importance for the treatment of young girls with drug and alcohol addiction and other life-threatening challenges.
[1815]
Campbell Valley Women's Centre delivers a 13-bed residential treatment program for females aged 13 to 18 from throughout British Columbia who have problems successfully functioning in their communities. More than that, it delivers comfort and hope for a better tomorrow. This facility serves the upper and lower Fraser Valley, communities north of the Fraser River, the rest of the lower mainland and communities in other parts of the province. More than that, it serves the children who need its help.
Campbell Valley is situated on 66 acres of pastoral land in south Langley and includes three residential cottages, a full-sized gym, a weight room, an indoor swimming pool, a school, a pottery studio and an administration building capable of providing even more bed space. The property is a unique site that was created by the Chrisholme Society. It was later turned over to the provincial government with the proviso that it be used for residential youth services.
The young women served by this facility are drug- and alcohol-dependent. They've been sexually abused and exploited, and they are estranged from their families. The residents of Campbell Valley Women's Centre -- some of them are little more than children -- have lived and worked on the streets in the sex trade, and they are struggling to break the chains of drug and alcohol dependency. They've been sent to the centre to help them get their lives back, to help them rejoin society and, for some, even to save their lives. Theirs is an uphill battle. Their chances of making it are slim, and untold abuses and failures have already scarred their young lives.
Most of us could not even imagine the horror of life for addicted young women on the streets, the hopelessness that each day must contain. It is like a trap with no escape, like a life sentence with no chance of parole. But an opportunity to really change their lives was offered at Campbell Valley, a chance to begin healing their bodies and their souls. Education, regular meals, recreation facilities, counselling and hope were all part of that package -- things that the rest of us take for granted.
For a great many years there's been a tremendous need for a facility such as Campbell Valley for adolescent females in this province. This particular centre is unique here in British Columbia. This has happened as a result of corporate sponsorships and the support of the community. It's very difficult to gain community acceptance for addiction treatment programs, but in this case the Langley community has been not only accepting but enthusiastically supportive. Most of the girls in this centre have been through the foster care system, and it has failed them. We should not abandon or fail these children who now need our support.
The question must be asked: why abandon a treatment model that has been shown to work with these girls? Why move now to an unproven model of care, the therapeutic foster home family care model? There is no empirical evidence to show that this model of care will be successful with young street-involved girls during the early stages of recovery. This is like throwing them an anchor when in fact what they really need is a life preserver. Not only is the therapeutic foster home model more expensive than traditional residential treatment as provided by Campbell Valley, but there will be fewer beds available -- another classic case of more money spent for fewer services.
Many experts agree that a rural setting that removes easy access to street friends and drugs is ideal, and during the early stages of recovery, placing street youths in urban centres increases the probability of running away. Such placements also raise the level of exposure to drug dealers and pimps. If society and this government fail these girls again, the only options left to them are jail or the streets.
This is a tragedy in the making not only for the young girls but also for society as a whole, and time is running out. This much-needed facility will be forced to lay off valuable, experienced staff beginning next week. If government does not act now to secure these treatment beds, the centre will be forced to close its doors.
E. Gillespie: I thank the member for raising this issue. In response, I'd like to speak a little more generally about the whole issue of street-involved youth.
[1820]
As a parent of young teenagers now -- soon to be young adults -- it's sometimes hard to imagine that children of mine or indeed any children in the community could become street-involved. But I know that it takes nothing more than a snap of the fingers for a situation to change for a young person; it's a very dynamic time in their lives.
Hon. Speaker, we talk often in the House about the reasons for young people becoming street-involved and needing support from communities and indeed from government. It may be a breakdown in family relationships, a young person's struggle for individual identity. It could be a drug abuse problem. The child could be experiencing sexual abuse at home or in the community. Of course, there is mental illness, as well, which affects many young people.
We've also talked about how it takes a community to raise a child. I think we ought not to be glib about this phrase but to really take it seriously. What does that mean: "It takes a community to raise a child"?
We look first to the parents; there is a parental responsibility. Then we look at the kind of supports that are available for parents in their community. Those supports would include good day care, before- and after-school programs, parenting
[ Page 15102 ]
support groups, Big Brothers, Big Sisters, Boys and Girls Clubs, community recreation, schools where children can experience a safe and secure environment in which they're valued, churches, neighbours, people who are not afraid to get involved.
Then there is, additionally, the role of government. The Ministry for Children and Families serves the people of British Columbia by ensuring a child-centred, integrated approach that promotes and protects healthy development of children and youth, while recognizing their lifelong attachment to family and community. Communities and clients must be an integral part of the work of the ministry.
I look at the advocate's recommendations, and indeed, as difficult as they are both for governments and for communities to be able to work toward and implement, they are very important. But one of the advocate's recommendations that she has brought forward year after year since I have been elected is that section 9 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act be proclaimed and that a program called services for older youth be established.
That indeed has been done; that recommendation has been fulfilled. The implementation of youth agreements is complete. All 11 regions in the province have a capacity to begin the program. The agreement is a legal contract between the ministry and high-risk youth who are ready to make a change in their lives. Each youth agreement plan includes a plan for independence, which sets out the goals to be met during the term of the agreement. It describes the tasks and services a youth needs to make the transition to adulthood, to work and to independence.
But we have to continue to work to improve services to young people at risk who are not in care and the ones who for various reasons choose not to be in care -- the marginalized youth who live on the street, who sleep in abandoned buildings or spend their nights trading their own bodies for basic needs like food and shelter. So we need to continue supports like outreach and support workers and safe housing for youth who leave the sex trade.
We need more alcohol and drug services for youth; there is no question about that. But we need to be prepared to have a range of services that meet the range of needs out there -- a range of detox and treatment services, including programs tailored to meet the needs of aboriginal youth, young women, youth involved in the justice system and youth with mental disorders. Currently the ministry is spending around $60 million in alcohol and drug services.
The new services include a day treatment program for youth involved with the justice system; a residential detox program for youth involved with the justice system; ten residential treatment beds for aboriginal youth, with five specifically for those involved with the justice system; and a new residential dual-diagnosis treatment program for high-risk youth who have both a serious addiction and a mental disorder. In May of 1999 the government announced $9.25 million in new funding for alcohol and drug treatment for youth. This is additional to the yearly funding for alcohol and drug treatment for at-risk youth.
May I just conclude with reminding everyone that it does take a community to raise a child.
[1825]
The Speaker: And in reply, the hon. member for Langley.
L. Stephens: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her comments, and I particularly want to thank her for raising the report of the child, youth and family advocate. Her report simply said: "Not Good Enough." She went on to enumerate a lot of recommendations that she herself has made in the past. The fact is that very few of them have been implemented. Each year we stand in this House and talk about the services required for children and youth in the province that have not been forthcoming with this government.
Many, many times members on this side of the House have spoken of the need for the detox and addiction services for children and youth. Within the medical and justice systems the consensus is that drug addiction is a health problem. The member opposite talked about the justice system, and that's exactly what we're doing now. Government treats drug and alcohol addiction as a crime issue, when in fact we should be treating it as a health issue.
British Columbia has been accused of being in the Dark Ages in the way it deals with drug abuse problems. The government is using band-aid solutions, when what we really need is a comprehensive treatment strategy. We are known in this province and around the globe as the Amsterdam of the north, so we must now deal with the social problems that accompany that recognition.
There is a drug epidemic in this province, and it's not just on the downtown east side. That is where it is the most visible. That's where people go when they've reached rock bottom. Campbell Valley Women's Centre is the only residential treatment centre for girls in the province. I think everyone who follows this particular issue will know that treatment spaces for girls are extremely limited. There's been no movement to change that on the part of the government -- just exactly the opposite, with the closure of this particular facility.
The only thing, really, that's standing between these girls and life in a downtown east side world is this facility. We have the opportunity here to save some lives by keeping that centre open. The service providers in the field recognize the importance of Campbell Valley; families recognize the importance of Campbell Valley. Now the government must recognize and realize the importance of Campbell Valley Women's Centre. Young lives are at stake -- the difference between a long, healthy and productive life and one of misery, despair and a slow death.
What I'm asking this House today is that the government demonstrate its commitment to children, that this government live up to its responsibility to act in the best interests of children. Do we in this House want to help save lives? Do we in this House want to keep these girls out of harm's way? Does this House care enough about the troubled children and their future? We can answer yes to these questions by saying, with a loud voice, that we want to help save these lives. Do not abandon a model of treatment that works, and works well, for the many young girls who are struggling with the consequences of lost innocence.
The Speaker: For the third private member's statement, the hon. member for Prince George-Mount Robson.
UP IN SMOKE!
L. Boone: Today I'm going to talk about something that I think most members in this House can relate to. I was thinking
[ Page 15103 ]
about it in relation to events that have taken place over the last few months around the controversy of smokers' rights in pubs, bars and restaurants. I started to think back to when non-smokers had no rights. That wasn't so very long ago. As someone who never smoked
[1830]
But you know, smoking was an accepted social thing to do. Virtually everybody smoked. I found myself in a minority, as everyone around
I was raised with a father who smoked, and so my father took it for granted that it was his right to smoke in the house, in cars and vehicles, and we never thought to object to it. In those days, of course, it never occurred to him that his smoking was affecting anybody else. My father was a very caring person. He put himself at risk, and he eventually killed himself, but it never would have occurred
Strange as it may seem, I married a smoker. I just accepted the fact that people would smoke in my house, because everybody did it. We would go out for supper, and there would be myself and maybe a whole slew of non-smokers by that time, because people were stopping smoking. It never occurred to me that I wouldn't go into the smoking section, because I'd always put the smokers' right to smoke ahead of mine to not have smoke in my face. It never crossed my mind to ask a friend not to smoke in my house. I accepted the fact that my walls would be yellowed and that my carpets and my household would smell of smoke, because that's the way it was.
I remember that in 1971, I had a radical friend in Williams Lake who absolutely astounded me when she told me that she never allowed people to smoke in her house. I asked: "How can you do that to your friends? How can you ask your friends not to smoke in your house? This is an outrageous thing to do." At that time I think it was seen as an outrageous thing, and it was strange for people not to smoke in their houses.
Then things started to change. There was no smoking in offices -- lunchrooms only. Then eventually it became not in lunchrooms -- outside. Then people stopped smoking in planes. I can remember that. I actually remember being on a plane when they had the smoking section down one side, if you can believe it -- how weird that was. One side of the plane was non-smoking; the other side was smoking. That meant that virtually the whole plane was smoking.
B.C. Ferries -- I remember sitting in opposition when Rita Johnston brought in the rule that there would be no smoking on ferries. Public transit -- there was smoking on transit and in airports. I remember holding my breath as I was walking down the halls. They had no smoking in the waiting rooms, but you could smoke in the hallways in the airports. I'd hold my breath running down the halls, trying to get to my plane.
Then things started to change. You can now get a non-smoking hotel room, a non-smoking car at a car rental. Non-smokers began to assert themselves slowly but surely. You started asking people: "Do you mind not smoking in my house?" You stopped putting out ashtrays around that people could automatically fill with butts, which we the non-smokers then had to empty, because smokers never seemed to empty ashtrays.
We started to see a whole change in the atmosphere. I remember when this building became non-smoking. The Speaker of the day was John Reynolds, and he declared that there'd be no smoking in offices here. Up until then there was smoking in our caucus office, and now people are out on the breezeway.
I find it rather interesting when I hear people talking about the latest uproar about smoking in pubs versus not smoking in pubs. I must admit that there have been some good results there. I'm pleased that many of the restaurants in my area, Prince George, have remained non-smoking. That means that the 75 percent of the population that are non-smokers do have a place they can go to that is non-smoking. So we do have a choice now, which we didn't have before. I'm sure that those of us who are non-smokers will show our appreciation to those people who have kept their places non-smoking.
I'm really disappointed that virtually none of the pubs in the Prince George region have stayed non-smoking. To me that's a real disappointment, because that means that we have no choices now. If those of us who are non-smokers want to go to a pub, we'll still have to go to one that is smoking.
[1835]
That's a disappointment, because it means that they're not recognizing that the 75 percent, the non-smokers, have business that they could take to them if in fact they did remain non-smoking. I recognize that there's been some economic impact on some of them, but I was hoping that at least one pub in my area would be non-smoking so that we could go into a place, have a drink, lunch or whatever and not come out smelling like an ashtray. [Applause.] That's true. Yeah, I even get applause from the opposition on that. The importance of that to me is really something, because I have friends who are asthmatic who never went into a pub. I have friends who are asthmatic who never went into a legion, or could stay in a legion for about an hour, saying: "I can finally do these things; I can go places."
I see that the red light is on, so I will let my opposition speak now.
K. Krueger: Although the member who just spoke has referred to me as her opposition, there is no opposition on this side to the goal of protecting workers from the effects of secondhand smoke or indeed dealing with the problems that are caused for British Columbians, our health and our health care system through smoking. It's also true, as the member said, that there's been a phenomenal change in society's understanding of the consequences of smoking and society's ability to accept exposure to secondhand smoke. People's attitudes have very much changed. I've experienced the same thing. British Columbians are very educated about the damage that smoking inflicts.
[ Page 15104 ]
Unlike the member opposite, I have never even smoked one cigarette. I've been a non-smoker all my life. In fact, pretty well everybody on these benches -- almost everybody on this side of the House -- is a non-smoker. None of our cabinet ministers are smokers, unlike some on the other side. [Laughter.]
Interjection.
K. Krueger: And as the member says, none of our smokers are cabinet ministers.
I want to say on the record that this side of the House, the official opposition, definitely supports the goal of protecting workers from the hazardous effects of secondhand smoke. There are few intelligent people who would argue that smoking does not hurt people. We're very concerned about workers, we're concerned about other customers, and we're concerned about the smokers themselves. Nobody with any principles would support the tobacco industry in its efforts to target young children as its market and its market of the future.
Those things being said, people do have rights in British Columbia. Some people are smokers. Many of them are addicted to smoking. Many of the rest of us have habits and lifestyles that aren't entirely healthy for us either. Surely a way can be found to accommodate people who smoke and the people who have businesses and enjoy their presence as a clientele.
I think it's a mistake for the member to think that the pubs aren't on side, if that's what she thinks. I spoke with the pub industry a great deal during the whole trauma of the WCB smoking ban and the way it went. They have suffered severe economic impact, but they certainly are concerned about the health of their workers and their customers and want to come up with a solution that works well -- preserving their business, allowing them to serve their customers and protecting their employees, for sure.
So let's work with the pubs and the whole hospitality industry. I think everyone now concedes that there were major errors in the way the WCB smoking ban was implemented. January 1 was a very tough deadline for most of the province. There were pansies growing along the streets of Victoria. But where the member comes from, where I come from and throughout most of the province, it was the dead of winter -- the deep freeze -- and it was no time to implement a radical change like that in the industry. We would have been better off, and so would they, if it had been implemented in April '99 instead of January 1, 2000.
I think those points have all been made. The industry feels that the deadline was imposed on them in a sneaky way -- that they missed the consultative process in '96 because they had been assured they would have an exemption. Then the exemption ended with a sunset clause that they had never been warned about. Obviously the court accepted that version of events, because the court overturned the smoking ban.
[1840]
That doesn't mean that it's not a good thing to work to protect workers from the effects of secondhand smoke. We want to help the government with that, and I believe the hospitality industry wants to as well. Right now we're temporarily back to square one. The credibility of the WCB has been severely shaken. One of the reasons is that they've never actually paid a major claim for someone hurt by secondhand smoke. That's hard to explain, when we all believe -- I think all of us -- that secondhand smoke does hurt people. Workers have been exposed to it for decades in this province, so it's hard to understand. They have paid half a dozen to a dozen claims for minor ailments -- upper respiratory ailments and so on -- over the past years -- a few days off work on average, but nothing major.
Well, people are a little cynical about whether the WCB would follow its oft-repeated approach of denying people's claims if there's anything in their background that could explain the illness other than being exposed at work. For example, what the member has related -- that she had a father who smoked and has a spouse who smokes and so on
It may be that the two sides of this House should collaborate and bring forward initiatives, not necessarily through the same vehicle. It is the responsibility of all of us to protect workers and all other British Columbians from the effects of secondhand smoke. We believe we can do that while accommodating the hospitality industry and its clientele. We can protect workers from the effects of secondhand smoke while protecting their jobs, their employment and our economy as well.
L. Boone: I don't think any of us are going to have a huge disagreement on the statement that I'm making today, because all I'm doing is trying to say that things have changed. Things have changed considerably from the way they were 40 or 50 years ago, and they will continue to change, hopefully, for the betterment of us non-smokers and for everybody. When people stop smoking in public, and when we stop having smoke around us, it's to the advantage of all of us here.
I happened to be in a pub in Victoria today -- I was there for lunch, hon. Speaker. Victoria, of course, went through the whole area of non-smoking last year. That pub was virtually full. It was absolutely full of people enjoying a lunch without enjoying a cigarette that they were smoking at the same time.
While I know and recognize how difficult it is for people to quit smoking, and I recognize that they feel there's a tremendous addiction here
Quite frankly, I will go into a pub or a bar here in Victoria for lunch, but I won't be going into many pubs in Prince George for lunch, because they are all smoking right now. I will make my choices as a consumer to go to those places where there is no smoking, where I can enjoy an atmosphere where I can sit and enjoy my food without feeling sometimes that I'm actually eating a cigarette.
Going back to those days -- and that was not so long ago
[ Page 15105 ]
day when all of our areas will be non-smoking. There will be places where people can in fact smoke if they want to. I'm not trying to say that they shouldn't smoke -- although if they are friends of mine, I will do everything within my power to try and convince them to stop. It's their right to smoke, but I will do everything I can to try and stop them, and I certainly do hope that I can soon enjoy a drink in a pub without smoke.
[1845]
THE GREATEST GIFT
K. Krueger: Last Sunday was Palm Sunday, the day when well over a billion Christians worldwide commemorate the triumphant entry to Jerusalem of the Lord Jesus Christ, God in human form, riding on a donkey. The people of Jerusalem hailed him with shouts of "Hosanna! Hosanna!" while laying palm fronds and their own cloaks down in front of the donkey, for Jesus' fame had spread before him -- the eyewitness accounts of his healings of the sick, forgiving of sins, feeding thousands of people from a small basket of fish and bread, and even raising people from the dead. His gentle teaching had confounded the most learned of men in a learned society. His example had humbled and silenced the proud.
It was Jesus, of course, who gave us the admonition, "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone," causing the men who had gathered to execute a prostitute to shuffle away in shame. It was Jesus who taught us to turn the other cheek, to walk the second mile, to esteem others more highly than ourselves and to be the servant of all if we aspired to be in God's kingdom.
It was Jesus who identified himself as the Son of God and the fulfilment of God's plan for reconciliation between a perfect creator and a flawed creation, for God in his great love decided to create people with individual free will, allowing each of us to choose whether to have a personal relationship with him or follow some separate path throughout our lifetimes. Because we fall so short of his standards and because our sin means eternal separation from God, we need a bridge back to him. That bridge is Jesus. The sixteenth verse of the third chapter of the Gospel of John capsulizes this truth: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
It is doubtful that many in the adoring crowds of Palm Sunday in Jerusalem on that tumultuous day some 2,000 years ago fully comprehended who Jesus was or understood his teaching. But they had seen his miracles or knew people who had, and they welcomed him with joy.
This coming Friday we commemorate the crucifixion of Jesus. It is difficult for people raised in our culture to comprehend the change of heart in a population which could swing from the welcome of Palm Sunday in the space of a few days to screaming for the blood of the one they had proclaimed. Having already used up all of the superlatives in the English language on much lesser events, lowly British Columbian politicians and scribes are hard-pressed to come up with the words to describe such a change. "Stunning reversal of fortune" or "dramatic swing in the polls" hardly cut it. The people were looking for a messiah. They had heralded the triumphal entry of a prophet who many perceived to be that messiah. Yet suddenly the masses were demanding a corpse.
Yet Jesus was not surprised. He had predicted these events in his teachings, and scripture written by men hundreds of years earlier had prophetically detailed them as well. His closest friends, the 12 disciples who had witnessed all of his miracles and had been with him throughout three years of astounding events and inspirational ministry, were so dismayed by his arrest and imprisonment that they all ran away. Even the biggest and bravest of them, Peter, denied he had ever known Jesus.
This Friday we commemorate his agonizing death by crucifixion at the hands of Roman soldiers. But next Sunday, Christians in the hundreds of millions celebrate the triumph of good over evil, of God over Satan and of Jesus Christ over the grave. We celebrate Jesus' victory over death and the gift he gave us as individuals to accept that victory for ourselves personally, individually and by our own free will only, for Jesus rose from the dead. The angel rolled back the stone that sealed his tomb. The Saviour walked again among men.
Over the centuries there have been many who sought to disprove the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Many who set out to do so have found themselves to be believers by the end of their quests, for the evidence that Jesus is alive shines everywhere in the lives of people who love him. The incredible change in the lives of the apostles themselves stands out as tremendous evidence. From a scattered clutch of frightened men running to escape arrest throughout Jerusalem, they were transformed by his resurrection to inspired ambassadors of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
All but two suffered violent, brutal deaths as martyrs for the faith. Thomas, initially reluctant to believe that the resurrection had occurred, was convinced when his demand was met to see the nail marks in Jesus' hands and touch the spear wound in his side. Thomas went on to build the church until he was speared to death as a martyr. James was beheaded in A.D. 36. Bartholomew was beaten with rods, then crucified, then beheaded. Andrew was crucified. Matthew was run through with a spear. Philip was crucified and stoned while on the cross. Big Peter was crucified upside down.
[1850]
The unifying factor which changed these men from cowards to martyrs was their personal knowledge of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. They walked and talked and broke bread with the resurrected Saviour. Their eyewitness accounts and inspired efforts at spreading the good news gave rise to astounding growth in the church.
There were many more martyrs to come, as over the centuries many thousands of Christians have been slaughtered for working to fulfil Jesus' great commission, which was: "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." Mark, who wrote the Gospel of Mark, was pulled with ropes into a fire and burned to death. Gentle Stephen was stoned to death while a man named Saul looked on. Saul experienced a conversion and was known thereafter as Paul, and he was eventually beheaded for his faith. They died to bring the good news to all people.
It's a privilege to have this opportunity of a private member's statement to celebrate Easter, the willing self-sacrifice of Jesus Christ to provide an opportunity for each of us to be reconciled with God and the all-embracing love of God the Father who sent him to be our Saviour. As Paul wrote: "Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift."
The Speaker: In response, the hon. member for Coquitlam-Maillardville.
[ Page 15106 ]
J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to thank the hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson for sharing his very personal views with regard to his own faith.
I would like to say that I think the part of the message that is consistent with the good news he refers to is a message in which we as citizens and as MLAs are called to have respect, recognition and appreciation of people of all faiths. Our work in the Legislature is to provide good service to all the people of this province. Therefore respect means that we hold the values of peoples of all faiths as neither superior nor inferior but valued. Recognition means we support opportunities for people of all faiths to observe their religious activities freely and without fear. Appreciation means that we go beyond the freedom of religious expression to recognize the value of the ways that people of all faiths help to enrich our society.
Why is this approach valuable? Well, I think, as an example, of the member for Vancouver-Langara, a longtime friend of mine who founded many years ago a group called Ecumenical Action, where peoples of all faiths came together to address societal concerns. Out of this grew such developments as the Vancouver Food Bank.
When you think about the need for world peace, I think we need to put that in the context where we think about the religious strife that fuels too many wars throughout the world and throughout all of history. How better to address that than peoples of all faiths sitting together, feasting together, praying together and resolving, through the authority of diverse beliefs, to end human conflict?
The Legislature is a place where that can happen. Dialogue can happen that is reflective of all the faiths of our society and even that of those who declare themselves to be non-believers. I look forward to a time when this Legislature is truly representative of those cultures that make up our population in a proportion that reflects our diversity, as I wish that with regard to gender issues as well. In a very fundamental way, hon. Speaker, I believe such a vision is consistent with the hope that is found in the resurrection story that is observed this Easter weekend.
The Speaker: To reply, the hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson.
K. Krueger: I thank the member for his thoughtful comments. I'm also thankful for the freedom and diversity that we enjoy in British Columbia society and culture.
I'm mindful too, as I think many Christians are today, that Jesus could have imposed himself on all of us, and he didn't. Somehow, wrongheadedly, Christians over the centuries sometimes have slipped into the habit of trying to impose Christian faith on those who have other faiths, and that is wrong. It's a matter of free will, and that's how Jesus presented himself. Jesus told us: "Greater love has no man than this, that a man will give up his life for a friend." Then he went on to give up his life for his friends and for his enemies, because everyone has the invitation to be reconciled to God through him.
[1855]
When we talk about God giving his only begotten son
Jesus says he stands at the door and knocks, and anyone who will hear his voice and open the door will receive him. He will come in. In the Book of Revelations the Bible says: "And the Spirit and the bride" -- that is, the spirit of God and the bride, which is the church -- "say, Come."
So I celebrate Easter, and I'm thankful that everyone in British Columbia is free to celebrate Easter. I thank you for this opportunity to talk about my faith.
The Speaker: Thank you, members. That concludes private members' statements.
Hon. J. Smallwood moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 6:56 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada